Technology

F. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty, talked about the importance of knowledge and freedom, by which he means the absence of coercion, to progression. He would favor what Postrel called a “dynamists” intellectual point of view which advocates the limiting of “universal rule making to broadly applicable and rarely changed principles, within which people can create and test countless combinations”. It is freedom, the use of knowledge and the general absence of structure that allows for capitalism to progress and expand.

But Hayek wrote his book during the 60s when technology was not as fast-paced as it is today. In class a few weeks ago, it was mentioned that we are having a hard time keeping up with technology. So I wonder if Hayek would still think a dynamists point of view regarding progression and capitalist expansion is a good idea. Or maybe he would at least favor a more constrained dynamist or even a stasis intellectual point of view. As Postrel explains, “. . . modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable framework. . . . The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown”.

How much progression do we need or how long will it take us to decide whether we are comfortable enough with regards to our standard of living? Where are we going with all this technological progression? Have there been any policies advocated with regards to slowing society down?

http://isi.org/lectures/text/pdf/lawler8-6-04.pdf
http://geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5599/philosophy/technology.html