Formatting the statement: How to deal with If-Questions
The statement "Sustainability can be achieved by developing smarter technologies" can be seen as an affirmative answer to the following question: [1] If: Sustainability can be achieved by developing smarter technologies? If- or respectively decision-demanding-questions allow two possibilities to answer: an affirmative and a negative one. Someone who wants to claim the proposition of the question is obliged to give a proof. Someone who wants to dispute the proposition of the question is obliged to give a refutation. To identify what such a proof or rather a refutation has to contain, it is helpful to note down the question again to show the logical structure more clearly: Is it the case, that
[1′] If developing smarter technologies then Sustainability can be achieved? Obviously it concerns an implication clause, which demands further propositions that allow the transition from the antecedent to the succedent. A tautological transition can be constructed neither taking any scientific ′proofs′ into consideration, nor making any vague prognoses. Only the arbitrary meaning of the term ′smart′ has to be fixed in a goal-directed way: [2] A technology is smart i f f1 it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Making use of the rule of complete substitution of the definiendum and the definiens we get a tautology by putting line [2] in line [1′] and taking the Brundland definition for Sustainability. Someone who accepts the definition [2] and the Brundland one is forced to agree with the statement simply because of locical reasons (? 6). This finding, indeed, leaves one unsatisfied. Thus, further investigations have to be undertaken. Although explications are often given by scientists, it seems to me particulary characteristic of philosophical work that a great part of it is devoted to proposing and discussing explications of certain basic general concepts.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Formatting the statement: How to deal with If-Questions
- Awarding meaning: How to deal with semantic illusions
- Sustainability: A potpourri of meanings...
- To achieve something: Is an ideal achievable?
- Developing smarter technologies: A three-part problem..
- Summary: A reformulation of the statement....
- References.
- Appendix: The tautology in detail
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This essay critically examines the statement "Sustainability can be achieved by developing smarter technologies," arguing against a simplistic understanding of both "sustainability" and "smarter technologies." The author seeks to demonstrate the inadequacy of a purely technological solution to complex sustainability challenges, highlighting the inherent ambiguity and dynamism of the concept of sustainability.
- The importance of defining and understanding the complex terms "sustainability" and "smarter technologies"
- The limitations of a purely technological approach to achieving sustainability
- The need for a nuanced understanding of the dynamic nature of sustainability
- The ethical implications of technological development and its impact on various stakeholders
- The role of social, cultural, and political factors in shaping technological development and its impact on sustainability
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
- Formatting the statement: How to deal with If-Questions: This chapter establishes the initial argument, highlighting the importance of addressing the ambiguity of the statement by focusing on its logical structure. The author argues that a simplistic "yes" or "no" answer to the question of whether sustainability can be achieved through technology is insufficient.
- Awarding meaning: How to deal with semantic illusions: This chapter focuses on the inherent ambiguity of the key terms "sustainability" and "smarter technologies." The author critiques the tendency to treat these terms as having fixed meanings, arguing that such an approach hinders productive discourse. The chapter examines various definitions and interpretations of sustainability, emphasizing the dynamic and multifaceted nature of the concept. The section on "Developing smarter technologies: A three-part problem" further breaks down the ambiguity of "smarter technologies," questioning the autonomy of technology and exploring the complexities of defining and evaluating technological "smartness."
- Summary: A reformulation of the statement: This chapter concludes by reformulating the statement in a way that acknowledges the complex nature of the issue. The author suggests that sustainability can be approached by a "smart use" of technologies, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of potential impacts on various stakeholders and environments.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
This essay primarily focuses on the concepts of sustainability, technological development, intergenerational justice, ethical considerations, and the inherent ambiguity of these terms. The author employs a critical lens to examine the limitations of a purely technological approach to achieving sustainability, emphasizing the importance of social, cultural, and political contexts in shaping technological development and its impact on the environment and society.
- Quote paper
- Stefan Krauss (Author), 2004, Somewhere between everything and nothing, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/27901
