#philosophyoftechnology

Eugenics is often seen as a dark relic of the past—linked to racist policies and forced sterilization. But what if a new, subtler form of eugenics is quietly taking shape in Silicon Valley?

Not through explicit genetic selection, but through an ideology that glorifies optimization, intelligence, and high performance as the only measures of human worth. Social Darwinism, once discredited, is being repackaged in the language of innovation and progress.

Who gets to shape the future?

Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and other tech leaders present themselves as visionaries, architects of a better tomorrow. But their worldview shares a troubling core belief: only the most capable, the most intelligent, the most "enhanced" deserve to thrive.

Peter Thiel openly criticizes democracy, arguing that "freedom" thrives only under the rule of an enlightened few. Musk speaks of biological enhancement and space colonization as essential to humanity’s survival. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley startups pour billions into genetic engineering, AI-driven talent selection, and life extension—but who will have access to these advancements?

The Rise of Economic Eugenics

This is not traditional racial eugenics, but an economic form of selection where only the "most productive" individuals matter. Tech moguls advocate for skilled migration policies—not for the sake of inclusion, but to extract the best and discard the rest.

Medical research funding follows the same logic: rare diseases get sidelined because they aren't "profitable," while cognitive enhancement and biohacking attract massive investments. In a world where resources are limited, who gets to decide who is worth saving?

A Dangerous Future

This ideology is no longer confined to Silicon Valley. It has echoes in political movements that prioritize the strong over the vulnerable, cutting social aid and shifting towards a ruthless meritocracy.

If we continue down this path, we risk creating a world where only the optimized, the efficient, and the wealthy are deemed worthy of survival.

How do we resist this shift?

The real challenge isn’t just technological; it’s ethical. Do we accept a society where only the strongest thrive, or do we fight for a future that values all of humanity—including its fragility?

A few years ago, I realised that my phone knew my desires better than I did. This isn’t an exaggeration. Every notification, every recommendation seemed perfectly timed. But how? The answer is simple: my data, constantly collected, was feeding invisible algorithms.

This reality disturbed me for a long time. Not just because I hate the idea of being watched, but because I wondered: if my choices are influenced by algorithms, am I still free?

A World of Data, A World of Control?

We live in an era where our data is extracted and monetised by companies we often don’t even know exist. Yes, we’re aware that Google and Facebook collect our information. But few people know about data brokers – these companies that buy, analyse, and resell our digital lives.

Shoshana Zuboff, in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, describes this phenomenon as a new form of power. She argues that our behaviour has become a raw material, extracted and exploited to anticipate our actions and influence our decisions. What struck me most in her analysis is the idea that digital surveillance is no longer just a tool, but an entire economy.

Can We Talk About Freedom When Everything Is Anticipated?

I grew up believing that freedom meant having choices. But today, every choice I make online is guided by algorithms. When Spotify recommends a song, is it my personal taste or a machine that analysed my past listens? When Netflix suggests a film, is it a free choice or a calculated suggestion designed to keep me on the platform longer?

Byung-Chul Han, a contemporary philosopher, criticises this society of transparency where everything must be visible, measurable, and exploitable. He writes that in this quest for data, we lose our opacity – that space where our individuality could exist without constant scrutiny. And without that opacity, freedom becomes an illusion.

Why Should We Care?

Many might say, “I have nothing to hide, so it doesn’t matter.” But it’s not just about privacy. It’s about control. Every piece of data collected is another brick in a structure where our behaviours are predicted, influenced, and sometimes manipulated.

When data brokers sell our information to advertisers, it’s not just to show us an ad for shoes. It’s to shape our digital environment so that we buy those shoes. Or worse, to influence our political opinions, our relationships, or even our ambitions.

Where Are We Headed?

What troubles me most is how normal this data collection has become. We accept cookies without thinking. We give apps access to our contacts, location, and photos simply because they ask for it. And each time we do, we give away a little more of our freedom.

But not all is lost. The first step is to understand this system. The second is to act. My Medium article dives deeper into how our data is extracted and sold – but more importantly, what it means for our freedom. Because in the end, the question is simple: do we really want to live in a world where our choices are no longer truly ours?

Read the full article here

Hello, World!!

Welcome back to my blog!. 

So I was listening to one of my lecturer’s podcast (Waseem Akhtar) and It’s called "Philosophy & Ethics of Technology" with Professor Peter-Paul Verbeek. Professor Peter-Paul Verbeek is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy of Technology at the Department of Philosophy of the University of Twente. He is chair of the Philosophy of Human-Technology Relations research group and co-director of the DesignLab of the University of Twente. He is also honorary professor of Techno-Anthropology at Aalborg University, Denmark and is chairperson of the UNESCO World Commission on the Ethics of Science and Technology (COMEST). His research focuses on the philosophy of human-technology relations, and aims to contribute to philosophical theory, ethical reflection, and practices of design and innovation.

So Professor Peter-Paul started by talking about the history and development of Technology. He says people are threatened by technology and this is because it has an impact on how we live our lives. As soon as we started using the writing technology, it had a great impact on our memories and it got pholosophers really worried. He says technology is an opportunity to re-invent ourselves. Professor Paul-Peter defined Philosophy of Technology as a sub-field of Philosophy. It helps to understand what technology is and how we can ask the right questions about technology and evaluate it. He stated that technology is a way of thinking about the world, where the world becomes a manipulative object, and we become the manipulative subject. Technology differentiates human beings from animals and it helps to shape how we live our lives.

Professor Paul-Peter also talked about mediation being a way to express our technology, like the means or medium that we use to express technology, For example, if you think that technology is a will to power, the medium and means of technology will show that. On one hand, you think you’re in control of technology, next minute, you see it taking over you, this is where ethics of technology comes in. Ethics of technology helps to shape our ideas and interaction of technology. He used the Anastasia as an example. Its a good technology that has helped people to be operated on without feeling pains.

He emphasized that we need to understand the principles and ethics regarding robots, we need to evaluate it from with-in and understand it more deeply how it can impact our lives. Robots shouldn’t be seen as a replacement for humans. It’s not about asking if they should be allowed in our society, instead we should figure out what values we need to follow, when we give them a place in our society. People thinking we will become slaves to technology is science fiction, and it’s not bad if technology is smarter than humans. For example, a human  would prefer working with a shovel than using their hands to dig. So the question is, how can we deal with Technology and Artificial Intelligence? How can we make it explainable and avoid the ideas of being biased and naive?