Technology Should Recognize Human Frailty

My drone controller has two control sticks. They screw on to the controller near the top. Before I pack away the drone and controller, I must unscrew the control sticks, tuck them into a holding slot and then slide the controller into my drone satchel. Why do they make me go through this hassle each time? Because if the satchel got bumped hard or squeezed between other luggage, those control sticks are perpendicular to the rest of the controller and would be a weak spot that could easily break. During normal use, it would probably be fine, but this ensures no failures even with unexpected rough and tumble. 

What are the chances I drop one of these small sticks while setting up? Maybe I am just clumsy, but in my experience so far, chances are about 1 in 5. I am often out in a remote area to fly my drone, so when I get the controller out, I am mindful to remove and attach the control sticks while standing over a flat, wide surface. That way, if I accidentally drop one, it is unlikely to roll away or fall into a crack. I rarely drop one, but this practice ensures no unexpected failures. 

I see this as a case of the engineering maxim: “Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.”

Planning for the worst means anticipating abnormal and faulty behavior. Such planning is a hallmark of good engineering and is at the heart of safety-critical engineering. While it is relatively easy for me to anticipate the abnormal case of dropping a control stick, many of the systems we engineer are massively complex. Then it is not trivial to enumerate all the ways things can go sideways. As an example, let’s look at modern software.

Modern software is complex

To quantify how big modern software has gotten, I will use the traditional measure – in units of Apollos. That is, if the US 1960s spacecraft had around 30,000 Source Lines of Code (SLOC), then how many “Apollos” is a modern piece of software? The Operating System (OS) on your device (whether a smartphone or laptop) is in the 10s of millions of lines of code, or over 500 Apollos.

Consider the Linux kernel. It has surpassed 40M SLOC. Where does all that code go? The Pareto Principle states that roughly 80% of consequences or effects result from only 20% of the causes. Likewise in many software programs. Only a small portion of that OS code is exercised regularly. Much of it is rarely used, and on any specific machine, much of it may never be used. 

You can see in the Sankey diagram that the lion’s share of the Linux kernel goes to drivers. Many of these drivers are only needed on a select few target machines. (Kind of like in typical church congregations where 20% of the people do 80% of the work!)  

On the one hand, this uneven distribution means that the open source community can focus on ensuring the quality of that central core of the kernel. On the other hand, this means some bugs may lurk in the less used (and thus less examined) code. Whether they are software bugs or design miscalculations, subtle errors can be difficult to detect even with thorough testing, especially when the flaw only presents in unusual corner cases. The behavior of complex engineering systems can be very difficult to predict comprehensively. Even when the individual components are simple, the sum of the parts can exhibit unforeseen emergent behavior.

Beyond the Blueprint: The Secret Life of Complex Systems

Our designs often do not behave exactly as we intend. Abnormal behavior that we do not foresee can lead to unanticipated consequences that cause harm. This lack of foresight can be traced back to two fundamental characteristics of our human identity: we are finite and fallen.

Finite

Engineers who design technology (such as the Linux kernel) and people who use technology (all of us) are finite. Humans are finite – not as a result of the fall into sin – but from the very beginning. God created us; we are creatures. 

God intended the human characteristic of finitude. We are engineered with this inherent design characteristic. Although made in the image of God, we do not share God’s infinite qualities of omniscience and omnipotence. We thus do not have perfect foresight and cannot anticipate all consequences for our designs. Our brains have a limited capacity. 

Even when we augment our thinking by working with teams of naturally intelligent people using tools like artificial intelligence, our collective capacity for foresight is still finite. 

Because every creature, and indeed all of creation is finite, certain trade-offs were necessary even in the beginning, before the fall. Even in the garden of Eden, the design of a bridge would require choosing the right materials, trading off load capacity with total length, and so forth. That finite nature of our materials holds true today: trade-offs are a natural part of the design process.

Fallen

Both the engineers designing technology and the people using it are fallen. Humans are corrupted by sin, and all creation with us. Sin taints our thinking and our desires, and thus it taints our engineering design. Sin taints the thinking and desire of the users of technology.

God did not intend this human characteristic of fallenness. However, when the first humans sinned, although not God’s plan, he provided a new redemptive plan to address the flaw we introduced. 

Until the final restoration, sin taints creation – though it is often hard to separate out the characteristics of creation that are finite  from those that are fallen. To act as Christ’s redemptive agents in this world today, we require the discernment that comes from the Holy Spirit so that we can identify the original creational good and work to root out the corruption of sin. 

There are many virtues we could bring to bear in designing technology that properly recognizes both these characteristics. As an example, let’s consider the virtue of humility and see how it undergirds one particular avionics technology.

Case Study: Avionics Partitioning

A new avionics standard was published in late 1996. In that year I was an Assistant Professor of Engineering at Calvin College (now University). I wanted to keep my teaching fresh and relevant, so I pursued engineering consulting work during the summers. That particular summer I landed a part-time position at Smiths Aerospace in Grand Rapids. One of my tasks was evaluating the proposed international standard, ARINC 653. Little did I know then that I would continue working with this standard for much of my career. Thirty years later, just before my retirement, I have had the privilege to co-chair the ARINC 653 standards committee.

The ARINC 653 standard was first published in the fall of 1996, but my manager back then at Smiths had an early draft of the standard for consideration over that prior summer. I was part of a three-person team that he asked to evaluate the proposed standard. It would be used on a new powerful centralized avionics computing system. The new approach would consolidate numerous legacy federated computing systems into a single Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) platform. Since each federated system was a separate box in the aircraft with its own power supply, enclosure, and connectors, this consolidation would substantially reduce the Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) needed to execute all the software on a modern aircraft.

The substantial reductions in SWaP provided by IMA increase the range of the aircraft while reducing its cost. The drawback is that software previously segregated on physically separate computers is now integrated on one. This raises the possibility of unanticipated interactions between independent functions. The ARINC 653 standard, coupled with another standard, DO-297, describes how to continue segregating independent functionality using robust partitioning. 

System engineers map each independent software program to a partition. The partition is allocated a certain portion of the resources. The resources are provided by the computing platform, but shared among multiple partitions. This sharing can be done in one of two ways: time partitioning or space partitioning.

Time partitioning gives a partition exclusive access to a resource but only periodically. Think of a teacher who gets to use a classroom for a 9am class, but gives it up at 10am. Likewise, the partition gets to use a processor core for the first 10ms of every 100ms, but gives it up for the rest. 

Space partitioning gives the partition continuous (rather than scheduled) access to a resource – but not the whole resource, only a portion of it. Think of a student who gets one locker out of a bank of lockers, but has exclusive access to that one locker whenever they want. Likewise, the partition gets to use certain pages of memory that contain its data, which no other partition may read or modify.

Partitioning as Design Humility

By partitioning all shared computing resources in time and/or space, we can have high confidence that one partition cannot influence the intended behavior of another partition. Avoiding unintended interactions and reducing the chance of unanticipated changes in behavior is important for safety-critical systems like avionics.

Partitioning demonstrates humility in our design. As an engineer of any stripe, but especially a Christian engineer, I ought not put undue confidence in my own ability to comprehend complex systems and foresee all the ways things could turn out. 

Partitioning is a way to recognize my finite nature. By segregating each independent function, I can now simplify my analysis by restricting myself to thinking about that function alone – knowing that the other functions cannot impede or alter the function I am examining. I might not be able to wrap my finite mind around 50 complex software programs all combined into one monolith, but I have a fair chance at comprehending each one individually. Partitioning allows me to divide and conquer.

Partitioning is also a way to recognize the fallen nature of humanity. A negligent or malicious design of one function is now isolated in a partition so that it cannot harm the operation of other partitions.

Conclusion

If you are an engineer, whether designing software, automobiles, bridges, or some other technology, consider humility not only as a personal virtue, but one that can become part of your work as well. Humbly consider all the ways you yourself could be biased against seeing a flaw. Humbly consider all the negligent and malicious ways a user could abuse the product beyond its intended use. Designing technology in humility makes it safer for all. If our systems are too big for any one mind to hold, is it arrogant to build them without partitioning (or equivalent)?

Welcome to the Fishbowl: Do we have the Right to Privacy?

A distraught woman wrote Dear Abby, worried that she had made some unflattering comments about her daughter-in-law to her son. 

She got caught because the comments were recorded on their Ring doorbell, which the daughter-in-law heard later. The famous advice columnist replies that the mother-in-law has “learned the hard way that in our technological society, privacy is history.” 

We can no longer assume our conversations are private at someone’s doorstep. Before 2013 we assumed our phone calls were private. But then Edward Snowden debunked this misplaced trust. He leaked information about a government program to collect broad swaths of data regarding the phone calls of its own citizens. The existence of such programs was previously denied by US intelligence officials. James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, justified his original denial that the government collected such broad data by explaining he was forced to use the “least untruthful” statement in order to keep the program secret. After the program was outed, some of the same officials told the American public not to worry – they weren’t actually listening in on our phone calls, merely recording the time and destination of the call. However, given that officials  felt compelled to tell “untruths” about the programs in public testimony before Congress, it was hard to discern whether the later statements might be true or again, the “least untruthful”. Stories about our lack of privacy seem to come out weekly. We are being watched: by social media, by CCTV, by drones, by doorbells, and more.

Stories of close electronic scrutiny in our everyday lives remind me of “The Dead Past”, a science fiction short story by Isaac Asimov. The protagonist is a historian, desperately trying to gain access to a chronoscope (a sort of time machine that lets one see any location in the past), in order to study the history of ancient Carthage by direct observation. However, the instruments are controlled by a heavily bureaucratic government. After years of red tape and rejections, he builds his own chronoscope -- only to have it quickly confiscated by government agents. It turns out that the instruments have poor resolution and cannot look very far into the past. The government keeps the machines under lock and key because they realize the implications for privacy:  the past begins immediately after the present. Thus, one can observe another’s private behavior in the past, but the past is simply moments ago. That is, the instrument observed events in nearly real time. The past was not so dead after all!  The story ends with the inadvertent publication of simple instructions for building a chronoscope and thus privacy is destroyed for all: “Happy goldfish bowl to you, to me, to everyone …”. 

An NSA program to spy on the public is the first step to living in such a fishbowl. Face recognition technology and ubiquitous recording devices give many public and private institutions an extraordinary amount of intelligence about the ordinary citizen. When only privileged people in power have access to this intelligence, such power can easily be abused. It is thus worth examining more closely what precisely is the nature and origin of the so-called “right to privacy”. 

Cultural Origins of the Right to Privacy

The US Constitution does not have an explicit right to privacy. However, over the last century US courts have interpreted several clauses in the Bill of Rights to include privacy, particularly the 4th Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure and the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on limiting one’s liberty (extended to include privacy) without due process of law. Other nations have followed suit, giving limited privacy protections to citizens because such benefits have been collectively endorsed by society. For example, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that “Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.” (Article 7) and “Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.” (Article 8)

There are legitimate reasons to keep personal information confidential. Privacy helps prevent identity theft. Privacy prevents stigma because of medical conditions. Privacy protects intellectual property, such as a trade secret – the “secret sauce” ingredient in a company’s flagship product.

The secrecy of our data is valuable to us because of the potential harm that comes with its public release. It thus represents a kind of power. Identifying information enables us to conduct business and obtain services. We share certain information with selected organizations in order to confirm our identity. As long as only the two parties (you and the selected organization) know that information, it serves as your ID. 

However, once you or any of those organizations lose control of that information and it falls into the wrong hands, your ID is no longer secure and others can successfully impersonate you online. Thus a thief who steals your identity holds power over you. Likewise, an unscrupulous person who learns of your confidential medical condition could use the power of that information to blackmail you, shaking you down for cash or favors in order to keep the information from going public. Stealing intellectual property such as an invention idea is truly theft because it robs the owner of the full value of the idea.

While this section briefly outlined the social foundations of the right to privacy, it is also worthwhile for Christian readers to consider whether biblical foundations also support privacy.

Biblical Origins of the Right to Privacy

It turns out that scripture doesn’t have much to say about privacy. First, let’s look at a couple spots that hint at privacy but really seem to be about something else. 

We could perhaps infer such a right from the commandment against stealing, interpreting stealing to include the theft of someone’s intellectual property. However, that may be a stretch, since this commandment seems more about justice than privacy.

Another place where we might infer a right to privacy is the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus exhorts us to keep certain acts secret (out of the public eye), including our giving  (Matthew 6:3) and our prayers (Matthew 6:6). However, in both these cases, the purpose of privacy here is not about the power of someone else because they know confidential information. Rather, the purpose of privacy in these cases is to avoid prideful pretentiousness. Giving or praying publicly is to impress people rather than God. Giving or praying in private is directed toward God instead of fellow humans. 

In the same hilltop sermon, Jesus tells us to avoid judging others, lest we ourselves be judged (Matthew 7:1). His mandate recognizes that we only have a partial picture of our neighbors, and it is wrong for us to judge them without fully knowing their circumstances. Thus, there is an implied value for keeping information about others private and not gossiping about it. Paul repeats the call to avoid judging. “Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart.“ (1 Corinthians 4:5, NIV)

Albert Borgmann notes the connection between privacy and judgmentalism:  “...Thomas Huff has helpfully isolated the notion of privacy as freedom from intrusions that can lead to an unwarranted judgment on the person whose sphere of intimacy has been invaded. Of course, our next of kin, who are naturally members of our personal circle, and our friends, whom we have invited into it, are entitled to judge whatever we do. No one else may without our permission.” (Albert Borgmann, Power Failure: Christianity in the Culture of Technology, Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003, p. 40.)  However, Borgmann then observes that we often use privacy to shield our consumerist behavior from the prying eyes of others. “What Huff calls the privacy norm is in large part the collective affirmation of consumption as an exercise of freedom that would be encumbered by judgmental intrusion.” (p. 43)  

Materialism is not the only bad behavior we attempt to keep secret. Most sins are private affairs that would shame us if made public:  adultery, domestic abuse, addictions, and the like. 

Privacy as Cover

Modern technology can afford us privacy in the form of anonymity on the web.  However, this privacy can be used to shroud illicit acts. The shroud can hide the sin or hide the sinner.

Hidden Sins of a Public Person

We are all public persons in one way or another. We may not be celebrities, but we are known, and thus “public” to our friends, family and colleagues. We value what others think of us, so we cultivate a certain public image. When we use privacy to hide shameful behavior that could tarnish our image if it became known, the technology of anonymity becomes an enabler of sin. 

The perception of electronic anonymity facilitates bad behavior on the web, such as online affairs or gambling. Ironically, people may turn to these vices in trying to find fulfillment. Yet the biblical book of wisdom tells us the opposite results:  "Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper, but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13, NIV)

Public Sins of a Hidden Person

Some sins are public by their nature. In these cases, anonymity shrouds the perpetrator rather than the sin. 

An example is cyberbullying or anonymous revenge porn, where a break-up leads to an angry man posting risque pictures of his ex-girlfriend that she shared with him when they formerly trusted each other. This sin (of posting the pornographic pictures without permission) is perpetrated publicly while often keeping the perpetrator hidden. 

Why is bullying wrong? ”With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be.” (James 3:9-10)   The apostle reminds us that the person we bully is made in God’s image. We must treat all humans with the respect due image-bearers.

Using Privacy with Care

Our legal right to privacy is not absolute -- one’s privacy can still be invaded if warranted, i.e., if due process is afforded to ensure the invasion is justified, in the judgment of a fair and unbiased court. This is important to prevent abuse of those rights. 

Likewise, any biblical basis for privacy is limited. And certainly if privacy is a cloak for sin.

• "...And know that your sin will find you out.." (Numbers 32:23)
• “Nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing is secret that will not be made known. So then whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms will be proclaimed from the housetops.” (Luke 12:2–3)

Accountability to others depends on their ability to regularly observe our behavior. However, privacy allows us to hide our behavior. While there might be legitimate reasons for keeping that communication and data out of the public eye, how do we avoid the temptation to use privacy to hide our bad behavior?  Here’s a check. Would you dare let a trustworthy friend review your past week’s email or web browsing history?  

As engineers designing technology, are we making it too easy for people to live double lives?  Do we enable people to have a public face of righteousness with a technologically hidden face of wickedness?

Our Christian faith should make us cautious when exercising and enabling the privilege of privacy.  Privacy is too often merely a pretext to keep our sinful ways out of the light of day.  “It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible.” (Ephesians 5:12-13, NIV)

Second Commandment Technology: Part 2

In the first part I made the case that in describing the  second greatest commandment, Jesus defines our neighbor very broadly. Further, I suggested that technology expands our neighborhood significantly. In part two, let’s look at why we should care for our neighbor and then examine a few specific examples of tools helping or hindering us in that endeavor.

Why Should I Care?

Why should I care about the perspective of someone far from me? Or even if they are close, why should I care about others more than myself? I should care because God commands it.  However, let’s look closer. There is some rich depth and consistency to this divine directive if we dig a bit deeper.

Care for Humans Created in the Image of God

I should care about my neighbor because loving God’s creatures honors the creator. In Genesis 1:28, God appoints humans as stewards of his creation. As stewards, we are to love and care for his creatures and cultivate the garden of his creation. Our neighbors deserve extra stewardly attention because in contrast to all other creatures, humans are created in the image of the Creator. Thus, the second greatest commandment (to love our neighbor) is related to the greatest commandment (to love God). We are created in God’s image, so we honor God when we care for people also created in his image. At the same time, that image has been distorted by sin.

Care for Sinners in Need of Grace

I should care about my neighbor because fallen people stained by sin need grace and care. In Adam and Eve, all humans have inherited a sinful nature. On our own we can do no good – we tend towards selfishness and evil. Even our best efforts are marred by our fallen nature. I am called to care for my neighbors even though they are not perfect people. In the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), the expert in the law wanted to justify himself and asked Jesus: “Who is my neighbor?” Why would he ask this? Did he really not know? Perhaps he was hoping that Jesus would provide some criteria to judge which neighbors were worthy – and which were not. When serving those in need, I sometimes likewise find myself becoming judgemental.

I was too quick to judge when I previously served as a deacon at a church that ran a food pantry. We worked with a county agency to help us identify families in need. Each week one deacon was assigned to make deliveries to those families. Occasionally when it was my turn, I came across a disturbing situation. As I brought the grocery bags laden with food into the home, I noticed that they had a nicer couch and larger television than I had myself. I was dismayed and even a bit angry that a family would take advantage of the system. Nevertheless, I brought the food into the kitchen. That’s when I noticed their cupboards were literally bare. As the family put away the groceries, I could see they had no food – that my delivery was desperately needed. I suspected those expensive items in the living room might be “rent-to-own”. Those expensive items on high-interest loans meant they were likely in too much debt to buy food. 

The point is, we never really know the full story about someone else. Even if occasionally our food pantry served someone that wasn’t needy, I resolved that it was worth being generous to all that were perceived to be in need, even if occasionally it was undeserved. Thinking further, who was I to judge who was deserving or not?  The grace of God is not based on merit – just the opposite! In my sin I am most undeserving, yet Christ’s all-sufficient merit covers my debt. I am not called to love my neighbor because they are deserving; I am to love them with no regard to merit. I am called to love them as fellow image bearers.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t pay attention to justice. If our food pantry had been running low, I might be justified in ensuring the most needy families got fed first.  In my case, the pantry was full. We had food sufficient to cover all who asked. And honestly, my work as a deacon was a lot more joyful and a lot less burdensome when I stopped judging and started serving. When we serve in love of God and neighbor, we are acting as redemptive agents in Christ’s name.

Care for Those We Are Called to Redeem

I should care about my neighbor because I am called to be Christ’s hands and feet in this world. God promised that through Abraham, all nations would be blessed. Two-thousand years later, Christ embodied (literally and figuratively) the fulfillment of that promise. When we put our faith in Jesus and become Christ-followers, we become Christ’s redemptive agents in the world.

Having answered the question of why one should care, now consider how one should care. More specifically, how can we love our neighbor with technology? Technology – whether a tool, process, or algorithm – is always an instrument, i.e., a means to an end. We who design or work with technology can shape and use these tools to love our neighbor. Engineers and scientists are not the only ones to use tools.  Making and using tools is part of what makes us human. Using tools to love our neighbor is one of the finest examples of this creative yet practical aspect of our humanity. 

Tools for Loving Neighbors

Tools and instruments that can be a means to the end of loving our neighbor include those for hospitality, for care, and for stewardship. These are simply examples, with the hope you will notice many of the tools you have at hand can serve similarly.

Tools for Hospitality

Oxford Languages defines hospitality as “friendly and generous reception and entertainment of guests, visitors, or strangers.”  Here are a few examples of technological tools that enable or enhance our welcoming of neighbors.

Homes are hospitality tools. My church recently supported the building of a tiny home community. It is a set of 16 very small homes designed as inexpensive housing for the working homeless in our area. Designed to function as a home in a very small space, they provide hospitality to the homeless – and further, giving the newly homed a space to show hospitality to others.

Electronic communication is a hospitality tool. My wife and I support two missionary couples. One couple posts pictures and stories regularly on social media, helping us stay in touch with the work they do. The other couple is working in a sensitive area where publicity could be problematic. Their choice of communication is thus a bit more selective, posting a newsletter by email to supporters. Both communication technologies connect us  with missionary neighbors who are geographically distant. 

Open source software is a hospitality tool because it encourages sharing and collaboration. By licensing code in this way, software developers create a community of professionals that can build creatively on each other’s foundations.

Instant Messaging is a hospitality tool. My team at work is spread out geographically, with most working from home. We use a variety of communication tools, including MatterMost for instant messaging. One of the channels is named “Water Cooler” where team members can share a bit of their personal lives: gardening, woodworking, music, cooking, latest big purchases, vacation photos, or new baby photos. This channel helps co-workers to be neighbors to each other.

Barbecue grills are a hospitality tool. Technology for entertaining and welcoming guests is not limited to modern, high-tech digital devices. It can be a device as simple as a grill used for the community cook-out.

Tools for Stewardship

Merriam-Webster defines stewardship as “the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care.”  Let’s look at a couple of example tools to help pursue stewardship. 

Citizen science community apps are a stewardship tool. With my retirement approaching, I decided to become a bit more serious as an amateur biologist. I have started using the iNaturalist app to record my observations. The app helps identify the species and shares the recorded sighting with others on the app. I can then see a map of where the species has been spotted. It also enables others to confirm or correct the identification. So far I have identified 270 distinct species (134 at research grade). Using this stewardship tool, I am becoming more observant of the variety of plant and animal life that surrounds me, learning greater appreciation for God’s good and complex creation. This app also creates a community, thus becoming a tool enabling hospitality. Recently I had a more professional biologist comment on my picture of a Meadowhawk dragonfly, noting that the lighting did not allow for them to see the legs clearly enough to identify the specific species. However, like a good neighbor, they did not leave criticism alone – they also advised on additional resources and offered encouragement to continue contributing.

Clean water technology is a stewardship tool. For much of the developing world, finding potable water is a challenge. “Lack of clean drinking water corrodes the critical structure of communities—health, education, business” (Clean Water Institute). In order to keep a well-water system working effectively in developing areas, the replacement parts for maintaining the well and filtering the water must be low-tech. That is, the tools must be appropriate to the neighborhood. By designing tools for stewardship such as clean water technologies, engineers can love many neighbors in far away places. 

Tools for Care

Oxford Languages defines care as “the provision of what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something.” We can get some perspective on such a provision from Cornelius Plantinga Jr, in his book Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin. Plantinga defines a concept related to true caring: shalom. “In the Bible, shalom means universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight--a rich state of affairs in which natural needs are satisfied and natural gifts fruitfully employed, a state of affairs that inspires joyful wonder as its Creator and Savior opens doors and welcomes the creatures in whom he delights. Shalom, in other words, is the way things ought to be.” 

 Shalom is thus a deep way of caring for our neighbor. I suggest two tools for caring below. 

Assistive technology is a caring tool. These instruments of care – such as eye glasses or hearing aids – restore human abilities to the way things ought to be. They are tools for restoring shalom. And restoring shalom is a key way of showing Christ’s redemptive love.

GPS mapping is a caring tool. Although I am fairly good with directions, I still rely on my mapping app for most travel. It helps me avoid unexpected traffic snarls and ensures I get to my destination even when I miss a turn. Voice prompts or heads-up displays provide further care by helping me keep my eyes on the road. 

These are just a few examples of tools designed intentionally as means to virtuous ends. Even when the designer had only one good end in mind, we users of technology can creatively find ways to use the tool as an instrument of more diverse virtuous ends. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true, which we investigate in the next section.

Tools for Hating Neighbors

By their nature, tools amplify our abilities – they make us more powerful. Sadly, sin can taint our technology design so that we end up with more powerful means of division and hate. Every tool has tendencies that are built-in, i.e., by design. Some of these tendencies are intentional; some are involuntary. In the former, the designer is consciously trying to bend the design toward the specified use. In the latter, biases and prejudices of the designer sneak into the design.  

A design intended for a virtuous end might also be abused by the user, making it a means to some sinful end. Even when the designer puts safeguards in place to prevent unintended uses, we clever humans often find work-arounds. 

For some concrete examples, consider the following technologies that can amplify the vices of greed, sloth, and malice.

Tools for Greed

Greed is a “selfish and excessive desire for more of something … than is needed.” (Merriam-Webster).  Technology can be easily abused to feed our greed. 

Credit cards are a greed tool. Many have yielded to temptation to buy now and pay later. Purchases are now so easy. Too easy. We don’t always judge carefully whether we really need more. We deceive ourselves and greedily desire more than we need. 

Bitcoin is a greed tool. Originally designed as a digital currency, it has become a platform for speculation. Many now use  it as a tool of greed, hoping that the value will rise like a pyramid as others buy it. 

Malware is a greed tool. Perhaps the most insidious of greed tools, there are technologies designed specifically for greed. For example, malware is designed specifically to extort money from others.

Tools for Sloth

While greed is desiring more than necessary, sloth is the “turning away from the necessary effort” (Merriam-Webster)  

Home automation can become a sloth tool. I have a number of automated devices in my home. 

When I am away from the house, I use these devices for security such as turning on lights or detecting motion and recording on a camera. My connected thermostat dials back the HVAC, conserving energy and saving money. However, this automation can become a little too convenient. Just as the TV remote has made us couch potatoes, home automation further lulls into never leaving the easy chair.

Tools for Malice

Malice is the “desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another.” (Merriam-Webster)  Although I earlier listed social media as a technology that could be used for virtuous purposes, like most technology, it can also be abused for evil. 

Social media is a malice tool when used for cyber-bullying, spreading lies, or insulting someone. Perhaps worse, some social media sites use algorithms that are focused on increased engagement resulting in emphasis on angry posts.

Cars are a malice tool when road rage overcomes the driver. Some technologies are so dangerous that we, as a society, choose to regulate them. These include heavy machinery and certain chemicals and drugs. Likewise, the automobile is regulated via licenses, insurance requirements, and driver’s license requirements. Regulations help prevent tools being used for malice. But even with regulation, we sinners find a way to abuse the technology, such as when road rage gets the better of us when behind the wheel.

Wrap-Up

Jesus calls us to love beyond those that love us. He calls us to love our enemies, to love those that hate us. My sin-tainted inclinations make it easy to do the former and quite challenging to do the latter. Tools can help – technology used thoughtfully can be an instrument towards loving our neighbors.