Interesting conversation. For a moment I was concerned Andy was about to go on a misdirection into machine/robot "rights", but demystifying it and emphasizing the real human labor exploitation that goes into development of current and likely any future AI systems is an important point.
I do have one comment with Andy's point about "It's just a choice away to re-engage with a real person... anyone listening to this podcast, at least, can make their way to a building where there will be some people who are actually still gathering in these latter days. And some of them want to know you.": maybe I'm missing the point, but has the church as a whole ACTUALLY stopped and reckoned with, processed or even apologized for the damage done during covid, and how the church may have had a part in accelerating this breakdown by churches who remained closed for extended periods of time basically signalling that the in-person gathering of the brethren is "optional", because the church was reactive, perhaps living in the spirit of fear that he even described, or captured by organizational paradigms about risk, harm, and mitigation of risk? (I'm not trying to get into a political argument, judgement, or pick a fight, but it just seems like this hasn't been reckoned with or acknowledged enough).
Finally, regarding the "window of opportunity" in the US, who should be the ones to lead this - policymakers with an ethos toward serving true public goods? the Church? Do we expect "Christians" to be the ones who will champion and be the strongest voices for this?
It seems to me that if the answer to these is yes, Christians will need to do one or a combination of either:
1. Reckon with how we live in the kingdom of mammon, and forgo some financial security to stop/refuse to contribute to the growth and economic mechanisms that fuel and reinforce the commodification of attention and personalization. (i.e. maybe to the point that we stop caring so much about our 401(k) and begin to really live out radically a posture of not only charity but forgoing financial gains as a refusal to participate in an unhealthy system).
2. Some kind of a robust exit or alternative community structure strategy, which can be framed as a Benedict option or something else.
OR
3. Policymakers and people to commit themselves to working in government or large organizations to steer tech organizations and government policy towards a genuine public interest, attempting to counter the beast of the machine of commodification not merely by refusing to participate in financialization or attempting to exit social structures.
What I do know is that the vapid "faith-work" posture and "Christian in the marketplace" approach of many evangelical and reformed engagements is a total dead-end, and probably actually contributed to the unhealthy state of commodification we are in now, because of its implicit narrow affirmation of what people were already doing and seeking (Aaron Renn has touched on this in his formulation of a "Theology of Pride"), its uncritical and non-judgemental approach toward taking work, marketplace, and the ethical-moral implications thereof at face value without questioning the underlying motives, mores, assumptions, and moral principles of market structures.
Interesting conversation. For a moment I was concerned Andy was about to go on a misdirection into machine/robot "rights", but demystifying it and emphasizing the real human labor exploitation that goes into development of current and likely any future AI systems is an important point.
I do have one comment with Andy's point about "It's just a choice away to re-engage with a real person... anyone listening to this podcast, at least, can make their way to a building where there will be some people who are actually still gathering in these latter days. And some of them want to know you.": maybe I'm missing the point, but has the church as a whole ACTUALLY stopped and reckoned with, processed or even apologized for the damage done during covid, and how the church may have had a part in accelerating this breakdown by churches who remained closed for extended periods of time basically signalling that the in-person gathering of the brethren is "optional", because the church was reactive, perhaps living in the spirit of fear that he even described, or captured by organizational paradigms about risk, harm, and mitigation of risk? (I'm not trying to get into a political argument, judgement, or pick a fight, but it just seems like this hasn't been reckoned with or acknowledged enough).
Finally, regarding the "window of opportunity" in the US, who should be the ones to lead this - policymakers with an ethos toward serving true public goods? the Church? Do we expect "Christians" to be the ones who will champion and be the strongest voices for this?
It seems to me that if the answer to these is yes, Christians will need to do one or a combination of either:
1. Reckon with how we live in the kingdom of mammon, and forgo some financial security to stop/refuse to contribute to the growth and economic mechanisms that fuel and reinforce the commodification of attention and personalization. (i.e. maybe to the point that we stop caring so much about our 401(k) and begin to really live out radically a posture of not only charity but forgoing financial gains as a refusal to participate in an unhealthy system).
2. Some kind of a robust exit or alternative community structure strategy, which can be framed as a Benedict option or something else.
OR
3. Policymakers and people to commit themselves to working in government or large organizations to steer tech organizations and government policy towards a genuine public interest, attempting to counter the beast of the machine of commodification not merely by refusing to participate in financialization or attempting to exit social structures.
What I do know is that the vapid "faith-work" posture and "Christian in the marketplace" approach of many evangelical and reformed engagements is a total dead-end, and probably actually contributed to the unhealthy state of commodification we are in now, because of its implicit narrow affirmation of what people were already doing and seeking (Aaron Renn has touched on this in his formulation of a "Theology of Pride"), its uncritical and non-judgemental approach toward taking work, marketplace, and the ethical-moral implications thereof at face value without questioning the underlying motives, mores, assumptions, and moral principles of market structures.