May 2022

Expanding the Vision for the Life We Are Looking For

In my previous post, I highlighted the important contributions Andy Crouch’s The Life We’re Looking For makes to the dialogue between faith and technology. Using compelling examples, the author argues for returning to the primacy of face-to-face human relationships in a world of disconnection driven by techno-capitalism. This is a powerful and necessary reminder that is worth repeating here.

I would be remiss, however, if I limited my review to this point. In part 2, I dive into the areas where Andy Crouch’s book fell short in expanding this conversation. By starting with a narrow definition of technology, the author missed an opportunity to rethink it and reshape it into a true ally of human flourishing. This may sound like a small tweak, but it makes all the difference. Given how pervasively emerging technologies inhabit our current ecosystem, a narrow definition is bound to lead to unsustainable solutions.

Defining What Technology Is

Andy Crouch does a good job identifying the insidious erosion techno-capitalism is exerting in society. It is unfortunate, however, that he equates technology with techno-capitalism. They are not the same thing. For example, the Internet is a great example of technology. The process of turning it into profit by large Silicon Valley companies is techno-capitalism. The first created a new environment for the free flow of information that connected the world. The second exploited this connection to maximize profit.

Just because our current encounter with technology is mostly mediated by techno-capitalism does not mean the two are the same. This may seem like a small distinction, but it is an important one in the dialogue between faith and technology. If technology is techno-capitalism, then the role of faith will often be one of resistance. While this role is important and necessary, limiting faith to a posture of resistance misses the opportunity to imagine ways in which technology can lead to flourishing.

While Andy provided a few examples of technology enhancing one’s humanity, I finished the book with the impression that his alternative vision was really a turn away from screens and toward more embodied forms of community. This argument, however, undermines and ignores the transformative ways in which technologies (including those mediated through techno-capitalism) have expanded and connected our flourishing. Hence, his narrow view of technology closed the door to how it can contribute to the good.

Image by Bruno /Germany from Pixabay

Lost Connection with Nature

The book’s subtitle, Reclaiming Relationship in a Technological World, informs us upfront that the book is about valuing relationships. Implied in that view is an anthropocentric view of relationships, focusing on communion between humans. This can be often assumed and taken for granted, but it becomes problematic in the dialogue of faith and technology.

Humans also have an intricate and visceral relationship to nature, both our environment and other species of life. Technology has often, maybe always, been a means of moving us beyond the limitations of nature. From our early ancestors, we can find traces of tool-making indicating the human drive to impact our environment toward the survival and flourishing of our species. The sheer existence of nearly 8 billion of us is a testament to the success of this strategy. We became our ancestors’ dreams, albeit at a great cost to the earth. Given technology’s central role in this progression, one cannot speak of it and ignore how it has transformed our relationship with nature.

While we may have built our towering civilizations, we still feel like we were kicked out of the garden. While techno-capitalism may have separated us from one another, technology itself has separated us from the dust from which we came. The work of re-imagining technology then must include in its ethos a purposeful return to nature. It does not mean necessarily forsaking devices and going back to a primal lifestyle, but it does mean re-thinking technology in a way that not only optimizes the flourishing of all life.

In a time of climate crisis, this work becomes all the more important. Hence, in my perspective, it must be present in any discussion of faith and technology. Unfortunately, there was nothing in Andy’s book to address this issue.

Image by 0fjd125gk87 from Pixabay

Limited Christian Imagination

Lastly, Andy Crouch’s book missed the mark by appealing little to the rich Christian imagination. Opting for a narrow focus on selected New Testament texts, the author ignored a wealth of Christian tradition on the topic of technology. That includes the biblical books of Genesis and Isaiah, as well as writers like Francis Bacon, Jacques Ellul, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Illia Deo. Crouch’s discussion could have been greatly enriched by interacting with them–not necessarily agreeing or propagating their perspective, but at least using them as conversation partners in building a 21st-century vision for technology.

Starting with a narrow view of technology and engaging with a limited range of Christian tradition inevitably led to a constricted view of what Christian community can look like in a technological age. The result becomes a failure of imagination, one that we can no longer afford to have where growing techno-capitalism accelerates planetary degradation. As much as a return to household and community can restore and improve human relationships, it does not address our disconnection from nature. Furthermore, it ignores our call to be co-creators with God for a flourishing future.

As an alternative, one does not need to look too far within the Bible itself to find a powerful metaphor to catalyze Christian imagination. In the 11th chapter of Isaiah, the prophet imagines a world where the wolf will live with the lamb and the infant will play near the cobra’s den. The prophet’s multiple images speak of a nature restored from strife to peace, from languishing to flourishing. If we want to inspire a Christian vision for technology in our time, that is a good place to start.

Working for a Better Future: Sustainable AI and Gender Equality

At our February AI Theology Advisory Board meeting, Ana Catarina De Alencar joined us to discuss her research on sustainable AI and gender equality, as well as how she integrates her faith and work as a lawyer specializing in data protection. In Part 1 below, she describes her research on the importance of gender equality as we strive for AI sustainability.

Elias: Ana, thank you for joining us today. Why don’t you start by telling us a little about yourself and about your involvement with law and AI.

Ana: Thank you, Elias, for the invitation. It’s very nice to be with you today. I am a lawyer in a big law firm here in Brazil. I work with many startups on topics related to technology. Today I specialize in data protection law. This is a very recent topic for corporations in Brazil. They are learning how to adjust and adapt to these new laws designed to protect people’s data. We consult with them and provide legal opinions about these kinds of topics. I’m also a professor. I have a master’s degree in philosophy of law, and I teach in this field.

Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com

In my legal work, I engage many controversial topics involving data protection and AI ethics. For example, I have a client who wants to implement a facial recognition system that can be used for children and teenagers. From the legal point of view, it can be a considerable risk to privacy even when we see a lot of favorable points that this type of technology can provide. It also can be very challenging to balance the ethical perspective with the benefits that our clients see in certain technologies.

Gender Equality and Sustainable AI

Elias: Thank you. There’s so much already in what you shared. We could have a lot to talk about with facial recognition, but we’ll hold off on that for now. I’d like to talk first about the paper you presented at the conference where we met. It was a virtual conference on sustainable AI, and you presented a paper on gender equality. Can you summarize that paper and add anything else you want to say about that connection between gender equality and sustainable AI?

Ana: This paper came out of research I was doing for Women’s Day, which is celebrated internationally. I was thinking about how I could build something uniting this day specifically and the topic of AI, and the research became broader and broader. I realized that it had something to do with the sustainability issue.

Sustainability and A Trans-Generational Point of View

When we think of AI and gender, often we don’t think with a trans-generational point of view. We fail to realize that interests in the past can impact interests in the future. Yet, that is what is happening with AI when we think about gender. The paper I presented asks how current technology impacts future generations of women.

The technology offered in the market is biased in a way that creates a less favorable context for women in generations to come. For example, when a natural language processing system sorts resumes, often it selects resumes in a way that favors men more than women. Another example is when we personalize AI systems as women or as men, which generates or perpetuates certain ideas about women. Watson from IBM is a powerful tool for business, and we personalize it as a man. Alexa is a tool for helping you out with your day-by-day routine, and we personalize it as a woman. It creates the idea that maybe women are servile, just for supporting society in lower tasks, so to speak. I explored other examples in the paper as well.

All of these things together are making AI technology biased and creating ideas about women that can have a negative impact on future generations. It creates a less favorable situation for women in the future.

Reinforcing and Amplifying Bias

Levi: I’m curious if you could give an example of what the intergenerational impact looks like specifically. In the United States, racial disparities persist across generations. Often it is because, for instance, if you’re a Black American, you have a harder time getting high-paying jobs. Then your children won’t be able to go to the best schools, and they will also have a harder time getting high-paying jobs. But it seems to be different with women, because their children may be women or men. So I wonder if you can give an example of what you mean with this intergenerational bias.

Ana: We don’t have concrete examples yet to show that future impact. However, we can imagine how it would shape future generations. Say we use some kind of technology now that reinforces biases–for example, a system for recruiting people that lowers resumes mentioning the word ‘women,’ ‘women’s college,’ or something feminine. Or a system which includes characterization of words related to women–for instance, the word ‘cook’ is related to women, ‘children’ is related to women. If we use these technologies in a broad sense, we are going to reinforce some biases already existing in our society, and we are going to amplify them for future generations. These biases become normal for everybody now and into the future. It becomes more systemic.

Racial Bias

You can use this same thinking for the racial bias, too. When you use these apps and collect data, it reinforces systemic biases about race. That’s why we have to think ethically about AI, not only legally, because we have to build some kind of control in these applications to be sure they do not reinforce and amplify what is already really bad in our society for the future.

Levi: There’s actually a really famous case that illustrates this from Harvard Business students. Black students and Asian students sent their applications out for job interviews, and then they sent out a second application where they had whitewashed it. They removed things on their CV that were coded with with their race–for instance, being the president of the Chinese Student Association or president of the Black Student Union, or even specific sports that are racially coded. They found that when they whitewashed their applications, even though they removed all of these accomplishments, they got significantly higher callbacks.

Elias: I have two daughters, ages 12 and 10. If AI tells them that they’re going to be more like Alexa, not Watson, it influences their possibilities. That is intergenerational, because we are building a society for them. I appreciated the paper you presented, Ana, because AI does have an intergenerational impact.

In Part 2 we will continue the conversation with Ana Catarina De Alencar and explore the way she thinks about faith and her work.

The Life We Are Looking For: Crouch’s Antidote to Techno-Isolation

How is technology reshaping human relationships? This is the central question explored in Andy Crouch’s latest book: The Life We Are All Looking For. His compelling vision and engaging writing style are able to bring a complex subject such as technology into a comprehensive vision of Christian community. This is in itself no small feat. Sitting within a genre that often limits itself to “do’s” and “don’ts” with the screen, Crouch dives deeper and in that is able to spark a dialogue. With that said, the book also fell short in significant areas leaving me wanting more.

As a content creator at the intersection of faith and technology, I am compelled to respond. Andy Crouch’s book called for more than a review. It called for robust engagement. That is what I’ll attempt to do in two blogs. In this first one, I’ll highlight the many ways in which the book elevated and moved forward the dialogue about technology’s impact on the Christian community. In the second, I’ll address the areas in which one can build on what he started. It will not be a critique per se but an attempt to expand the dialogue.

Before you move forward, let me make it clear: the book is worth your time. It kicks off the conversation within the evangelical community and it may even reach other corners of the Christian household. While reading the book is no requirement to understand the blog, it will certainly help evaluate its content. You might even arrive at different conclusions than I did.

With no further ado, let me dive into the three main gifts this book brings to the Christian community

Of Bikes and Planes

By now, we have all (hopefully) sensed how technology can impair human flourishing. Just consider the sense of guilt and dread after spending countless hours staring at a brainless social media stream accompanied by a royal neck ache from looking down for so long. Yet, other times, we are also thankful for how it expands our abilities. Crouch helps us understand this paradox by comparing planes with bicycles.

Riding a bicycle expands our mobility while still requiring physical effort from us. It reminds me of a blog I wrote a while back reflecting on the spirituality of e-bikes. It certainly helps us get to a destination faster while also being an excellent workout. In this way, the author sees it as a technology that augments rather than detracts from our humanity.

This is a sharp contrast to flying on a plane where the constricted space and oppressive air pressure make the experience much less pleasant. Not only there is no effort in the movement but a clear constriction in our health even if it allows us to reach our destinations much faster. While on board a plane, our humanity is diminished even if only for a few hours.

Superpower and Magic

In doing so, Andy is not advocating we forsake plane rides for bikes. He is only highlighting the point of the trade-offs technologies force us to make. The author shows us that technology often gives us what he describes as superpowers – an ability to do things with little to no effort. Andy also uses allusions to magic and alchemy to describe the dominant ethos of for-profit technology endeavors.

Photo by Rhett Wesley on Unsplash

It is like magic because most of us have no clue about how it works. We simply trust that when we press a button, there will be an expected outcome. Oftentimes we expect it to be instantaneous. It is like alchemy because, technology is often portrayed as the silver bullet to all our problems – the recipe for wealth and longevity.

While this affects our physical health in many ways, the author wants to focus on its impact on relationships. This is where, screen technologies more specifically, have done the most damage. As humans, we are wired to be recognized by another face. Often times this crucial exchange of glances is being robbed by a screen or another device that cries for our attention. In short, the dominance of technology in our lives is empoverishing our most cherished relationships. It is even redefining intimacy.

Eloquent Critique of Techno-Capitalism

Chapter 6 dives into the underbelly of techno-capitalism and how it is shaping us into machines. That chapter is worth the book price and then some. Using compelling examples and persuasive arguments, Andy Crouch exposes how a highly transactional society sees no value in those who have little or nothing to transact with. That includes the poor, the aging, the differently-abled, and others who are considered “useless.” Instead, he proposes a society where those with little or nothing to offer should be at the center. That in turn will free us all from our slavery to usefulness.

Throughout the work, Andy delivers strong affirmations of real relationships, forged in the fire of daily living with all its beauty, repetitiveness, and conflict. This vision runs counter to the American dream of financial independence, pointing instead to the messiness of communal interdependence. He advocates for co-housing arrangements with all the inconveniences of personalities rubbing against each other in tight spaces.

In short, he calls us to robust Christian communalism in the midst of a lonely western society. His vision of Christian community, inspired in the New Testament early church, centers on the household. He defines it as small groups that transcend the nuclear family but are still small enough so that everyone is deeply seen and known. Such arrangement goes against the transactional setup of capitalistic societies and alleviates the constant financial struggle to make a living. It is both a spiritual and an economic act of resistance.

Conclusion

Andy Crouch contributes to and expands the dialogue by connecting devices to oppressive economic systems that both diminish human flourishing and propagate a magical view of technology. Through powerful analogies, relatable examples, and fluid writing, he accomplishes all that in a little less than 180 pages.

The review could end here on a positive note but I would be remiss. Unfortunately, Andy Crouch’s assessment of technology had significant gaps that significantly narrowed the scope of the problem. Because of this narrowed scope, his response also fell short by lacking a comprehensive vision to the “how shall we then live?” question. Given the daunting challenges of this technological age, our response and vision of technology must be commensurate with its complexity. This is what I will turn to in the next blog.

Creators, Stewards and the Telos of Technology

This is the fourth and final part of our excellent discussion from the January Advisory Board meeting, where we explored the question of whether we live in a technological age. In Part 1 we addressed the idea of a technological age, and in Part 2 we discussed the telos of technology and the value of work. In Part 3 we explored the value of play. In Part 4, we continue the conversation by asking how our role as creators and stewards shapes the telos of technology.

Wen: My personal theology of technology is grounded in us being creators. We are made in God’s image, and God is a creator. So we are all mini creators. That kind of echoes what Micah said. I also think we’re commanded to steward our resources. So going back to the original question that you raise – what is the telos of technology – I see us as creators and stewards. That’s one way to frame a telos of technology.

Love of God and Love of Neighbor

Another way to frame it is very idealistic. If you look at the Bible, Jesus actually tells us the greatest commandment. Love of God and love of neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40). So is there a way we could run all types of technology, product, visions, and development, through that filter? Does a certain technology help us to love and serve our neighbor? And does this technology honor God?

I know that’s idealistic. I’m not expecting all of US capitalism, all companies, to adopt that framework. But from a biblical perspective, we can ask about the telos of technology and the human telos. Do all of our actions for creating and stewarding serve our neighbor or honor God?

Connecting Creators and Stewards to Smaller Goals

Maggie: As you described earlier, Elias, I also spent a lot of time wondering, “What am I doing?” I worked for a bank. I worked for Wall Street. I’m working for a management and consulting company now. But one of the things that I do in each job is really focusing on bringing a better world, a better life to my end-user.

A lot of times that comes into some pretty granular metrics. For instance, it used to take you two weeks to have this horrible conversation, because you had to pull data from six different places. Now, it will take you an hour to put the data together, and then whatever time it takes you to have the meeting. That is good stewardship! There is a concrete improvement in time saved.

So yes, there is a certain sense in which a broad biblical goal based on love of God and love of neighbor is idealistic. But people can make it more realistic within their context if they connect it to a smaller goal. If I can make one person’s life better, that does express love of neighbor.

Is Ethical Play Possible?

Elias: I want to raise another question, going back to what Micah said about play and what Wen said about our role as creators and stewards. Can we be both playful and good stewards? In other words, is ethical play possible? Can those things happen together? Usually, they do not go together. Often, playing means not worrying about what will happen. And part of being a good steward is almost like being the adult with a child who’s trying to play. “Think about your actions, stop doing that, don’t be so wasteful.” Is there a place there to engage in ethical play? In other words, can play actually help others?

Ben: I think the answer is “yes”. Going back to what Wen said, part of the great commandment is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. That contains a foundational construct, which is that we love ourselves. If we draw these things together, we can think of it in terms of stewarding ourselves. By stewarding ourselves, we’re increasing our capacity to love ourselves and therefore raising our capacity to love God and neighbor. And I would argue that we increase our capacity by allowing ourselves to play.

Stewardship, Play, and the Church

We can apply this to the life of the church. I rail against cultural co-opting. That is, with every new technology, every new movement, the church asks how we can make it ours. That is really a dishonest conversation because we don’t really care about human flourishing so much as we care about butts in pews and dollars in plates. There’s a lot of focus on the institution of the church. So instead of increasing human flourishing, and increasing the stewardship of ourselves and others, we spend a lot of time trying to make sure that there’s institutional survival.

That’s the capitalist mindset. How do we maximize profit for our investors? In doing that, we iterate for the good of the institution, rather than the good of humanity.

To get away from that mindset, the church must ask: is this about human flourishing or about institutional flourishing? And that’s where I think the value of play is critical because it cuts across institutions. Organizations don’t play. People do. So if we can maintain the vignette of human flourishing through play, then it’s sort of a safeguard. Play helps us focus on human flourishing rather than on institutional survival.

Technology and the Modern Individual

Elias: Isabelle, do you have anything to add? We’d love to hear from you.

Isabelle: Well, from my perspective, as a humanities student, I’m studying a lot about the modern world and how the model modern individual is portrayed inside this world. You could say that the value of play is missing. The individual constantly needs to be efficient, constantly needs to be kind of like a machine. The individual can’t get it wrong. When he feels wrong, he can’t express it. And when he expresses, he’s shut down. And it’s really interesting to see how modernity is embedded in this discussion about technology.

Elias: Thank you, that’s great. I love when you bring something in because your perspective is so unique, and we need that in these conversations. That’s what I love about this group, so many different perspectives coming together.

Unfortunately, our time is up. This does feel like play to me, and I’m going to have to end our ability to play right now, which makes me sad. But thanks, everybody for being here. I look forward to next time.

The Value of Play and the Telos of Technology

We want to create things, and we want to create them with other people. And we want to connect over that. That’s the value of play.
Micah Redding

At our January Advisory Board meeting, we explored the question of whether we live in a technological age. In Part 1 we addressed the idea of a technological age, and in Part 2 we discussed the telos of technology and the value of work. In Part 3 below, we continue the conversation by exploring the telos of technology and the value of play.

Micah: I’ve been thinking about this in terms of our earlier discussion about the nature of technology. I kind of go with Andy Clark and David Chalmers, with the extended mind, extended cognition thesis. Technology, everything in our environment, we make it part of ourselves. An analogy is in the way birds use their environment to make nests. We all wrap our environment around us in some ways. Humans do this in a way that’s incredibly fluid and open-ended and flexible. And what are we doing? What is our telos for that? I think what we ultimately want is that we want to play. We want to create things, and we want to create them with other people. And we want to connect over that. That’s the value of play.

The Impulse to Play

You can look at all the negative impulses and drives in our society as sublimated versions of that impulse to play. We’re all trying to play some kind of game, and maybe we don’t allow ourselves to do that. So we twist it in some way to convince ourselves it’s serious. I think you see this, particularly in edge technological communities like those around web3 and NFTs. These kinds of spaces are heavily reviled right now in the larger culture, and they feel like they are essentially playing with friends. They’re creating something with friends, and they’re trying to connect with people.

We see the value of play across human history. Early humans were trying to survive, trying to overcome starvation, and so forth. But we didn’t just do that. We also made cave paintings. We also told stories and we put ourselves into those stories. And that’s increasingly what we’ve done through history. As soon as we create virtual worlds, we want to put ourselves in those worlds, because this is what it is to play. We keep putting ourselves into stories and pulling in people and our environment into them.

So I think that’s what we’re doing, ultimately. We play. That can be a good, healthy, and productive thing. From a Christian perspective, I would say we’re children of God, and children are made to play. That’s what we’re supposed to be doing. The value of play is central to the human telos. So one step toward a telos of technology is to just be more aware of the way play makes up the human telos.

Rock paintings from the Cave of Beasts (Gilf Kebir, Libyan Desert)
By Clemens Schmillen – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31399425

Free Play versus Structured Play

František: Is there a difference between game and play? Because for me, it appears that a game has some rules. Play itself doesn’t have to have rules. I’m just playing with something. But a game, if you want to take part in the game, you have to follow the rules. Like with traffic. The rules of traffic are basically the rules of a game. And if you want to play the game–be part of the traffic–you have to follow the rules. If you don’t follow them, you aren’t allowed to drive. You must leave the game. And we can extend this example to anything else.

Elias: I think we can talk about this as free play versus structured play. Free play or unstructured play is like a toddler just imagining his or her world. You try to make them play a game and they’re like, no, no, I’m going to change the rules. Gaming is a little more structured. It has rules. I think there’s room for both.

Wen: We can see a spectrum or a continuum of how much rigidity and structure and rules there are. But even when there are certain rules and constraints, they can still enhance the joy and flourishing of play. One example of that is when you let little kids play in a park. You don’t want them to run into the street, so you set boundaries. Putting rules or boundaries in place can enhance safety and creativity and the joy within play. I’ve done a lot of movement and improv games with adults in very rigid corporate organizations, trying to get them to play. You create boundaries, but then you say, within those boundaries, you can do or explore whatever you want, and express yourself however you feel.

The Infinite Game

Photo by freddie marriage on Unsplash

Micah: James Carse describes the concept of finite versus infinite games. In finite games, you play to win. Infinite games, you play to keep playing. And finite games are the kind we think of as rule-based. Infinite games are like what children play where now they’re playing house, now they’re pretending to be dogs, now they’re magicians. The play is constantly mutating and fluid.

The infinite game doesn’t have a rule set in the same way that the finite game does. But it does have a condition, which is that you don’t destroy the ability to keep playing. The value of play forms the basis of it. So when people get kicked out of the game, you find a way to bring them back in. You continually wrap people back in, you continually ensure that the basis of gameplay, the basis of play itself, remains. So there is no strict rule. But there is this premise, that we are all trying to keep playing, we’re going to make sure we don’t destroy the ability to play as we go.

Month: May 2022