Read also earlier posts »Intro: About Naturalism »Part 1: A New Faith, Born Of Lockdown »Part 2: The Need For Naturalism »Part 3: The Equivalence Of God And Nature »Part 4: The Special Role Of Science In Naturalism »Part 5: Right And Wrong Technology
In Part 5, I introduced four questions to judge the rightness of any particular type of technology by assessing its harms to nature, including to human health. I also estimated the rightness of shovels, bicycles, and cars as examples. Now I’ll turn the same questions to the post-industrial products of smartphones and covid vaccines. To review, the four questions are:
Does the technology, as typically and responsibly produced and used, cause harm to the maker or the user of it?
Does the technology, as typically and responsibly produced and used, cause harm to others, or to the environment?
Does the technology cause little harm when first used, but have a potential to expand to widespread use in a way that could cause greater harm?
Does the technology, in its production or use, cause or risk harm through the fundamental alteration of nature?
First, I’ll try to answer these questions, in order, with respect to smartphones.
From my limited reading on the topic, I think it’s accurate to say that there are a lot of chemicals and metals involved in electronics production that are potentially toxic. I hope that in smartphone factories these dangers are mitigated, but I think it’s probably wise to call production exposure a possible concern, especially since production may often be done in developing countries with lax safety rules. As for smartphone users, I’m aware of a large body of scientific research assessing biological effects caused by smartphone radiation. Some studies show harm and some do not, so there is certainly a possibility of harm. I’m also very aware of the addictive nature of smartphones, so there are likely negative mental health impacts on individuals.
As for wider environmental and social harms of smartphones, these are many. Much has been written about the e-waste problem from circuit boards, and I also take it that procurement of the materials used in the production of the batteries—such as lithium mining--may be very environmentally damaging. I’ve also read at least one study on the wider social effect of smartphones, indicating that use of them is tending to create more social isolation not just for individuals but also inside of groups, including among individuals who aren’t even using the phones. This would certainly be a harm.
To make matters worse, smartphones only exist in conjunction with huge networks and widespread use, which multiplies many of the previously stated problems. The microwave tower infrastructure itself may cause harm. Another multiplier is that smartphones have a rather short lifespan. They are not very durable, so one person may use dozens of phones in a lifetime.
To answer the final question, it seems possible that smartphones alter nature. Some studies have linked them not only to DNA damage in the users, but also to lowered sperm/semen viability. Such damage could have an effect on the overall condition and continuance of the population.
Another consideration to judge the harm of smartphones might be their potential replacement if they were no longer used. People not using a smartphone might read books and newspapers more and watch television more. They might reserve online activities for a wired computer (instead of a wireless phone). They might use notebooks and paper calendars more. They might chat on a wired phone or VOIP phone via a wired computer. Overall, these replacements are not perfect in terms of rightness, but on average they seem righter than smartphones in terms of harm to nature.
In conclusion, only a very detailed study by an impartial jury could give an accurate “score” for the rightness or wrongness of smartphones, but the harms that many studies have found are basis enough to say the smartphones are a very questionable technology, and I’d say that they likely are significantly wrong. Even just out of caution, followers of Naturalism might choose to avoid or minimize using them, and seek less harmful alternatives when possible. When using smartphones, Naturalists could strive to minimize the duration of use and employ mitigation practices, such as not holding the phones close to their bodies, frequently using airplane mode, etc.
Keep in mind that for every study finding harm due to smartphones, you are likely able to find another study finding no harm. However, there is evidence to support the notion that industry-sponsored studies are less likely to find technological harms, likely due to funding bias. Any good, thorough analysis of the harms of a certain technology should not consider any studies that have funding ties to the industry that makes the tech, because the chance of false “junk science” is high in those studies.
Let’s look at the covid vaccines now, and I’ll answer the questions again in order.
I have not read anything on the effects of covid vaccine production on the workers who produce them, but I have read a lot on the effects of the vaccines on health. Many researchers have gone into great detail researching the safety of these vaccines, and have found astoundingly ugly results with regard to mortality and injury in vaccinated versus unvaccinated people. Even Pfizer’s in-house six-month report on their own vaccine showed a higher mortality rate in the vaccinated group! The health damage that has been done by these vaccines is likely tremendous. (For anyone who is unsure about that statement, I recommend that you study up on the matter. There are a number of good substacks specializing in this topic that would be good starting points.)
It’s harder to answer the question of general environmental damage here. One possibility is the antibody dependent enhancement that very notable virologists have warned about. Another possibility is that the vaccine itself, given en masse during a time when the virus itself is prevalent, will simply force the virus to mutate more quickly to other infectious varieties, thereby prolonging the epidemic. Both of these are reasonable conjectures, but I think only detailed retrospective studies can give more support to them. In the meantime, the truth that can be spoken from this is that purveyors of this tech should have been much more cautious. It is reckless to proceed with these possibilities.
These vaccines were also conveyed to the public via infrastructure of arm-twisting and mind-twisting mandates and propaganda, which have very likely caused psychological trauma, perhaps especially in the unvaccinated.
However, the truly awful thing about these vaccines is their potential for altering nature. As will any vaccine, they alter the recipients immune system, but some scientists have found that the mRNA vaccines also appear to be able to alter the recipients actual DNA through retro-integration, and others have found that the mRNA “spike protein factory” induced in the bodies of the vaccinated does not necessarily shut down soon after vaccination, as the CDC was first claiming, and that it may persist for a lengthy time. In other words, it’s very possible that these vaccines are creating harmful long-term changes in people, beyond even simple heart or nervous-system injuries. Furthermore, these vaccines rely in their production on two problematic alterations of nature. First, all or most of the covid vaccines have genetically engineered components, and most of the more common covid vaccines relied on aborted-fetus cell lines during their manufacture.
In summary, the covid vaccines—in my view—are a basket-case for ethics with regard to all the four questions, in their use, production, and development. Like an obviously tilted flagpole, these vaccines are simply, obviously, and disgracefully wrong. For the Naturalist, even early information on these vaccines would have seemed very “off”. Because there is no way to mitigate the wrongness of using such products, a dedicated Naturalist would likely have avoided them at all cost and sought either simply no special prevention or else any of the much less problematic treatments that were identified as effective by reputable researchers. A Naturalist would probably not want to take part in producing or promoting these products.
Although the covid vaccines have been especially egregious, it is likely that most Naturalists would also choose to generally avoid other modern vaccines due simply to their alterations of the body’s immune system. In the absence of vaccines, is it possible that overall health would increase? Anyone with a properly open scientific mind should be able to consider this question at length and without prejudice. If some critics reject this question outright, they are doing so on a misguided faith in a false notion of science. Instead of being followers of science, such people are fundamentalist pro-vaxxers in a vaccine religion.
In the next part, I’ll explain how some wrong technologies can be redeemed, and why some can’t be.