A Layperson's Reading of "The Human Condition" (Hannah Arendt) Part 2 [Prologue]

In 1957, an artificial satellite orbited the Earth.

This book begins with the sentence, "In 1957, an object of man's own making was launched into the universe, where for some weeks it circled the earth."

What did people at the time think when Sputnik 1 was successfully launched?

If it were today, would it feel like humanity reaching Mars for the first time?
If humanity were to reach Mars, what kind of emotions would we feel?

There might be unreserved joy that humans are amazing. It could also be viewed very positively as the development of science and technology and the progress of humanity.
However, on the other hand, it also feels a bit scary, like we have finally gone this far. Ordinary citizens who fear change are afraid of rapid change.
If humanity reaches Mars, is it okay to just be unreservedly positive and think humans are amazing?

Regarding the success of the Sputnik launch, there is the expression, "the first step of men who are bound to the earth to escape from it."

This expression hints at a liberation from or rebellion against the human existence we have been given. Is it okay to be unreservedly positive about such an idea?

The question of what direction to use new scientific and technical knowledge is not a problem to be solved scientifically, but a strictly political problem. Arendt says.

Even now, new technologies like AI and the metaverse are appearing one after another, but at the very least, there is a high possibility that I will become increasingly unable to understand them.
If I try to adapt to new technology, in addition to not understanding it in the first place, there is a possibility that I will become unable to express things in the words and thoughts I usually use (or rather, that might already be the case. It is already full of terms and formulas I don't understand).
Then, I might need an artificial machine to think and speak for me.
Wouldn't I then become a "slave to technical knowledge"?

The Emergence of Automation

Thanks to automation, people have gradually disappeared from factories.
It was thought that humans would be liberated from the "toil and trouble" of labor, that they would become free from labor, thanks to "automation".

However, that did not happen.

The moment the desire to be liberated from labor is achieved, this society seeks the next labor worthy of obtaining that freedom from labor.
Even though we don't know any activity more meaningful than labor, we are rushing toward a society of laborers that eliminates that labor. Arendt says there is no worse state than this.
Recently, the topic of jobs being taken by AI has become a hot topic. It is scary to have your job taken by AI.
But perhaps what is actually scarier is "thinking that it is a society where you cannot live if your job is taken away".

This means Arendt already had that sense of crisis back in 1957. That was over 60 years ago.

What "The Human Condition" intends to discuss

Arendt says that this book does not aim to solve this problem.

The purpose of this book is to "reconsider the human condition against the backdrop of the new technologies and anxieties of the time" (and I think this is a story that applies not only to that time but also to the present day).

Arendt says the undertaking she is trying to do in this book is simple.
In other words, this book takes "what we are doing" as its theme.
It aims to "clarify the most basic elements of the human condition

".Arendt says this is "clearly a task that thought undertakes

." It sounds cool.

The Scope of the Book

Actually, in the prologue, it is written quite clearly what this book discusses and what it does not discuss.

First, it does not cover all activities. "It deals only with a few activities that are within the range of all human existence".

Also, "the activity of thinking is not the subject of this book's consideration
".
It says this book is limited to discussions concerning "labor, work, and action".
There are others, but it says it will only deal with these three.

Before reading it, I thought it wasn't MECE, but since it says from the beginning that it isn't, that's obvious.Also, Arendt says she will limit it to "an analysis of the permanent general capabilities of humans born from the human condition
".

I think this means limiting it to an analysis of things that are fundamental to the human condition itself.Also, the purpose of the historical analysis is to "trace the double flight from the earth to the universe and from the world to oneself back to its roots
".I think this means she is trying to highlight the character of modern society that the above episode revealed.

Just from the prologue, it is still difficult to understand how this book connects to publicness, but I am looking forward to seeing how it develops from here.

Next