One tech-related concern with religion is that it appears to be
One tech-related concern with religion is that it appears to be a positive feedback loop to the accelerating rich-poor gap, as the disenfranchised opt out of modernity.
Hear now the words of Steve Jurvetson, a seer of our modern age, who warns of a shadow that creeps silently through the halls of progress. He speaks of the rich-poor gap, widening like a great chasm, and of the role that religion, in its ancient mantle, may sometimes play in deepening this divide. His words are not an attack upon faith, but a recognition of a peril: that when the disenfranchised turn away from the fires of modernity—its tools, its machines, its knowledge—they may find comfort in eternal promises while neglecting the powers of the present. And thus the circle feeds itself: poverty turning to retreat, retreat birthing deeper poverty, until the cycle becomes a feedback loop of despair.
Consider the march of history. In the days when the printing press was born, knowledge spilled forth like water over dry land. Those who embraced the new technology drank deeply and rose in wisdom, prosperity, and influence. But others, fearing the device as a work of darkness, clung only to the traditions of oral word and priestly gatekeepers. Over time, those who rejected the press fell behind, not only in wealth but in power, unable to stand against nations who armed their children with literacy. Thus the pattern revealed itself: to step away from the tools of the age is to consign oneself to the margins of history.
Jurvetson’s warning is clear: the disenfranchised opt out of modernity not merely because they scorn progress, but because progress seems to scorn them. When one is hungry, when one is denied the seat at the table of power, the gleaming technologies of the few appear as alien gods. It is then that faith becomes not a flame of hope but a shelter from the storm, offering meaning when the world of science and industry has turned its back. Yet if this shelter hardens into rejection of progress itself, the gap deepens, and the cycle of loss repeats like an eternal wheel.
History again offers its lesson in the tale of the Ottoman Empire. For centuries it stood as a beacon of learning, of culture, of might. But when Europe embraced the industrial revolution with its steam engines, its mechanized armies, and its new sciences, many within the empire rejected these tools as foreign corruptions. Faith was wielded as a shield against change. Yet in turning away, they fell into decline, unable to match the powers that rose from the West. The empire, once proud, became the "sick man of Europe," undone not by weakness of spirit but by refusal to wield the tools of modernity.
This is not to scorn religion itself, for faith has ever been the guide of the human soul, lifting men beyond themselves, inspiring sacrifice, hope, and unity. The danger lies when faith is wielded as a wall against learning, rather than as a torch to illuminate the path ahead. Religion and technology need not be enemies; indeed, the true harmony of the ages is found when eternal values guide the hand that builds the machines, ensuring that progress serves humanity rather than enslaves it.
Let the lesson be this: Do not flee from modernity, even when its lights seem harsh. Take what is useful, discern what is noble, and bind it with your deepest values. Do not let the chasm of wealth and power widen through neglect, but step forward with courage to claim your share of the tools that shape tomorrow. For the tools themselves are not evil; they are hammers, chisels, and fire, awaiting the hand that will wield them for the good of all.
And so, practical counsel for those who would walk wisely: Seek education, even if humble, for knowledge is the true wealth that cannot be stolen. Learn the tools of your age—whether the language of machines, the craft of science, or the wisdom of networks—lest you be left behind as history marches forward. Unite with others in community, so that technology is not the property of the few but the inheritance of the many. And above all, let faith be the compass, not the anchor; let it direct your course through modernity without chaining you to the shores of the past.
Thus remember Jurvetson’s teaching: the danger is not in faith, but in the retreat from progress. To turn away is to be left behind, but to step forward with faith in one hand and knowledge in the other is to rise above the gap, and to ensure that modernity becomes not the privilege of the few, but the shared triumph of all humankind.
DKBUI DUY KHPA
Jurvetson’s point makes me think about the broader implications of technological inequality. I’m curious whether he believes the feedback loop he mentions is accelerating globally, or if it’s specific to certain regions and economic conditions. How do cultural attitudes toward religion and technology interact with economic opportunity? Furthermore, could tech-driven solutions, such as mobile banking or online education, help bridge the gap without requiring communities to abandon their beliefs, and if so, how?
KTKiet Tran
This statement raises complex ethical and sociological questions. I’d like to ask Jurvetson whether he views religion as a protective mechanism for vulnerable populations or primarily as a barrier to technological progress. How can society avoid framing religious practices negatively while addressing the economic gaps that may be reinforced by opting out of modernity? Also, what lessons can be learned from regions where technology adoption has successfully integrated with traditional belief systems?
TNTran thi nhung
Reading this, I’m struck by the idea of a feedback loop linking disenfranchisement, religion, and economic inequality. I wonder if Jurvetson has examples where religious communities have embraced technology or modern economic tools successfully. Could fostering collaboration between tech initiatives and religious organizations create pathways for the disenfranchised to participate in modernity? Additionally, how significant is the role of education, infrastructure, and policy in breaking this cycle, compared to cultural factors?
LKKhanh Linh Kieu
This quote prompts reflection on the unintended social consequences of rapid technological advancement. I’m curious whether Jurvetson believes that religion inherently discourages engagement with modernity, or if it merely provides alternative frameworks for those excluded from the tech economy. How can policymakers and technologists encourage inclusivity while respecting cultural and religious practices? Does he see potential for technology and religion to coexist in ways that reduce inequality rather than exacerbate it?
CHAo Cong Hau
Jurvetson’s observation raises interesting questions about the intersection of technology, economics, and culture. I wonder if he sees religion as a symptom of economic disenfranchisement or as a contributing factor to resistance against technological adoption. How does he suggest society address the digital divide without alienating communities that find solace in traditional belief systems? Could targeted education or access initiatives bridge this gap, or are deeper social and cultural interventions necessary?