If true, there would be a contradiction between “technology” as modernization and “modernity” as spiritual liberation. Thus, I ask, what is the real connection of the two subjects of our talk, technology and Human Rights or what I prefer to talk about the context of technique and humanism?

 

We meet here upon a problem, that is the problem of translation. I speak from a German and at the same time from a Chinese point of view, but I am asked to speak and write in English. That disturbs our common terms that we make use of. Though there are different ways of understanding, I cannot go into details here. I shall, however, try to come close to some kind of reasoning that will serve three languages and modes of thinking.

 

What does technology mean? The word is of Greek origin and had from the very beginning to do with the arts, the Liberal Arts. This did not change before the 17th century in Europe. The Greek term techne turned away from aesthetics to a “means” at the end of 18th century: After and according to G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) it turned into a term for Karl Marx (1818-1883) that would help to solve the problem of human alienation. “Technology” was for him the way of improving the fate of mankind. He dreamt of the realization or even resurrection of the true human being through technological progress. Or to say it with other words he wanted what became the slogan in 20th century the unity of technique, culture and mind.

 

We are still waiting for this kind of progress, right? What is the problem inherited here up till today? Arnold Gehlen (1904-1976) once declared us humans to be beings of deviancy (Mängelwesen). This is nothing new as Greek philosophers already talk of Ananke, that stands for a kind of suffering that humans have to face from the very beginning. That is why we need technique to overcome not only our shortcomings, but also our fate as existences in need. We cannot rely upon any instinct just as animals do. Thus, we build trains for instance in order to be quicker than a leopard. But as soon as we trust rail ways, we shall lose the feeling for our feet and for our walking boots. Therefore, philosophers from Zhuang Zi (365?-290) up till Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) opposed again any kind of advanced or modern “technology”. Zhuang Zi and Heidegger? Yes, the latter was very much influenced by the Taoists in his thinking!

 

We can go on further in our musings. For the French thinker Michel Foucault (1926-1984) living in modern times is nothing else than living under the threat of a panopticon: We are watched all the time. From everywhere. So where does our help come from? From the idea of Human Rights? It is just as never foreseen the surveillance by video that guarantees the very last freedom of us? All we are now left with seems to the choice between a knife or a bomb in daily life. Even peaceful Bonn warned her people these days not to wear weapons at the Train Station. Her people? You know what I mean. Even under surveillance people die every day just for nothing. Really just for nothing? No, they die because they are different. Different in what way? Different in the sense of coming from the outside? No, even living inside does not help you. Even inside everyone is different. And inside murders inside.

 

Human Rights? What one forgets, “Les droits des hommes” announced in Paris 1789, did not include women. “Hommes” meant neither women nor slaves. France still has colonies, even at the East Coast of Canada! But I have to do justice. There are French colonies which want to be French colonies and not to be free! Really!

 

Human Rights? That is in the sense of humanism for Karl Marx the removal of total alienation. Is that possible? Humanism is a very late term in mankind. It is a dream. Can it be realized? We can really live in a state free of any kind of alienation? We are dreamers. But China makes this dream possible? There is the promise for Paradise as announced by her president. We shall wait and see and hope for the best.

 

Human Rights? In the “West” they are not a case of the law alone any more. They are more or less now in the hands of social media. They threaten any one whom they want to destroy. And they can do so. Why? It is hard to control them. Technology makes it possible. In German we say every day the media will chase another pig through the village. In the end this pig though declared by court of justice is of not guilty it is already dead. Dead? Yes, crushed by the social media. For the rest of its life. No chance to recover. There are too many examples. One after the other. In China? Who has to sit in prison, is not put into jail by the media, but by law. There is a difference of course. We have to talk about this later, perhaps not in this paper.

 

This is what technology and Human Rights at least in “Western” countries mean? Chinese media do not chase pigs. They? Let us think about it. This is another question. I myself do not want to be chased any more by Austrian or German newspapers just because I tell my truth.

 

But what is the truth? It is what media tell with the help of technology worldwide? It is very often a lie. Everyone knows, but hesitates to believe.