DR HAB. RICCARDO CAMPA

The aim of this course is to familiarize students with the sociological study of technology - technology seen as one of the main factors of social change in contemporary society.

30 hours (second semester/ two hours a week), konwersatorium. The lecturer will present one topic of the program in the first hour and will require the participation of students in a free discussion in the second hour.

Students will be asked to attend the course regularly and to participate actively. At the end of the course, they will be asked to pass a written test in English. Those who fulfill these requirements will obtain a "zaliczenie" with mark.

The course is set up in several parts. First, we briefly review the social theories of risk, the concept of "risk society" and the main sociological theories in sociology of technology. Next, we discuss key topics in the area of technology and examine how major technological developments have emerged and the subsequent societal changes (particular attention will be paid to the most recent discoveries in robotics, nanotechnology and genetic engineering). Finally, by adopting the methodology of "discourse analysis" we will try to understand how scientists and technologists perceive the social implications of their own work. Two main positions will be taken into account: the anti-technology (or Luddite) position and the pro-technology (or Futuristic) position. According to Bill Joy - Chief Scientist at Sun Microsystem, Inc. and principal developer of the Java programming language - our most powerful 21^st century technologies (robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech) are threatening to make humans an endangered species. Indeed, if we accept the hypothesis that computer scientists can succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do everything better than human beings can, then we must also consider the hypothesis that machines will no longer need us. 21^st century technologies pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: they can self-replicate. The coming advances in computing power would seem to make it possible by 2020/2030. And once an intelligent robot exists, it is only a small step to a robot species - to an intelligent robot that can make evolved copies of itself. Bill Joy suggests that the best solution to this problem is the relinquishment of research and development. Many scientists and futurists have replied to Joy in the last three years, by contesting his dystopic view of the future. One of the main opponent to Joy’s view is Ray Kurzweil, famous inventor of the first reading machine for the blind and receiver of the 1999 National Medal of Technology (the USA’s highest honor in technology) from President Clinton in a White House ceremony. Kurzweil agrees that intelligent robots could appear on this planet in the next 20 years, but he does not think that this fact will destroy humankind. A utopian scenario could be opposed to Joy’s dystopic one: humans and machines will merge to create a new kind of intelligent and powerful being. Most technofuturists agree that 21^st century technology will provide the basis of a new step in evolution. The implantation of computer devices into the human body will permit us to live 300 or 400 years. And by downloading our consciousness in advanced technological machines we could even make the dream of immortality come true. According to some scientists, this could happen in the next 20/30 years. But Luddites ask: if we are downloaded into our technology, what are the chances that we will thereafter be ourselves or even human?

1. Beck U. (1992), Risk Society, Towards a New Modernity. Trans. from the German by Mark Ritter, and with an Introduction by Scott Lash and Brian Wynne. London: Sage Publications.
2. Krimsky S. and Golding D. ed. (1992), Social Theories of Risk, London, Praeger.
3. Schwartz Cowan R. (1996), A Social History of American Technology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Cutcliffe S. and Reynolds T. S. eds. (1997), Technology and the West, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Kaczynski T. (1995), The Unabomber’s Manifesto, New York: New York Times.
6. Gelernter D. (1997), Drawing Life: Surviving the Unabomber, The Free Press.
7. Leslie J. (1996), The End of the World: Science and Ethics of Human Extinction, Routledge.
8. Kurzweil R. (2000), "Promise and Peril - Deeply Intertwined Poles of Twenty First Century Technology", Marina del Rey, Extropy: Journal of Transhumanist Solutions.
9. Kurzweil R. (2000), The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers exeed Human Intelligence, New York, Penguin.
10. Moravec H. (1998), Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind, Oxford University Press.
11. Drexler E. (1991), Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution, New York: William Morrow.
12. Lem S. (1984), Summa Technologiae, Lublin: Wyd. Lubelskie.
13. More M. (2001), "Embrace, Don’t Relinquish, the Future", in KurzweilAI.net.
14. Joy B. (2000), "Why the future doesn’t need us", in Wired Magazine.

1. Beck U. (1992).
2. Krimsky S. and Golding D. ed. (1992).

March (the social impact of new technologies)

1. Moravec H. (1998).
2. Drexler E. (1991).
3. Schwartz Cowan R. (1996)
4. Cutcliffe S. and Reynolds T. S. eds. (1997).

April (the anti-technology position)

1. Joy B. (2000).
2. Kaczynski T. (1995).
3. Gelernter D. (1997).
4. Leslie J. (1996).

1. Kurzweil R. (2000).
2. Kurzweil R. (2000).
3. Lem S. (1984).
4. More M. (2001).

 [ Back ] [ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]

Copyright 2004-2011 © Riccardo Campa