槍支體現著關於技術兩種截然對立的哲學。
    一方面，大多數人認為，技術中立且只是為實現我們的目標服務。美國全國步槍協會(NRA)認為，“槍本身不奪人性命，罪魁禍首是人”。所以槍是無辜的，同樣有助於保護生命。最重要的問題是誰在使用它們，使用目的何在。我們被告知，不要將持槍犯罪的責任都歸於槍支。
    另一方面，存在一種觀念，技術暗示我們的價值觀和生活方式。一個槍支自由流通社會與槍支受嚴格控制的社會完全不同。所以如果要問哪一種社會更好或更壞，並同時依據技術來加以判斷是十分合理的。但這無疑將是一個複雜的問題。
    在美國過去的西部，槍被稱作“平衡裝置”。它在體力和智力具有差異的對手間實現了平衡。一個智力體能處於弱勢的人只要懂得拉扳動槍機，就可以制服一個強大的對手。 這種平衡觀念有著驚人的民主內涵。
    讓我們看一下17世紀日本的案例。歐洲商人和傳教士15世紀到日本，帶來了槍和基督教。日本優秀工匠和金屬工人當時無疑已具備高於歐洲的手工技藝，他們很快就生產出了更多更好的槍炮。當時日本在經歷內戰，槍支的引入幫助這個國家實行了統一。新政府德川幕府的閉關逐步減少了外國對日本的影響。槍支被收繳，制槍者受到政府監控。基督教徒被迫改變信仰，於是基督教伴隨著與其一起被引入的槍支，同時在人們的視野中消失了。.這種狀態一直保持了250年，直到美國軍艦強迫日本在19世紀中期結束閉關。
    為什麼在日本槍支是非法的？一個可能的答案是怕槍支落到危險分子手中。日本的封建上層階級從少年時期就被灌輸用劍殺人是一種藝術。高級格鬥能力是貴族統治的基礎。如果未經訓練的普通人輕易的殺死了武士，那這個國家將崩潰。在一個貴族統治的社會，所謂的“平衡裝置”將會帶給政治極端的衝擊。
    通過這個案例，植入技術的價值偏向可見一斑。劍和槍在政治上具有對立的內涵，不僅僅是達到普遍目標的手段。他們形成某種特定社會並且以公民或市民來確定其使用者的身份。事實上，早在日本向世界開放不久之後，擁有槍支裝備的市內軍隊就鎮壓了叛亂的反動武士，拯救恢復明治天皇的新政府。
    武器的平衡作用一直持續至今。高質量的步槍在南北戰爭 (1860年) 時價值40美元。當時槍支是昂貴的武器，支付一支槍要花去非熟練工幾個月的工資。而給整個部隊裝備槍支也使國庫資金緊張異常。今天在非洲戰區可以30美元購買威力更強大AK47，對很多人和組織來說，這個價格微不足道。
     殖民主義之所以存在是因為歐洲有大量輕型武器，而且那裏許多人先於這個星球上其他地方的人知道如何使用這些武器。一些早期手持自動步槍的男子可以使數百英勇的祖魯人俯首稱臣。英國女諷刺詩人Hilaire Belloc 這樣描述20世紀初非洲殖民時期，“感謝上帝，我們擁有大量的槍而他們沒有。”不久以後，這些現成供應的武器使得殖民主義本身不再穩固。在第二世界大戰之後，一個又一個歐洲勢力放棄戰爭和其殖民帝國。目前西方軍隊無法控制中東局勢的現實反映了這種情況的改變。
    國家不再由貴族和殖民者控制，槍支的意義就改變了。它們成了現代化國家動亂的因素，而除了狩獵，它們的使用遭到嚴格抑制。這也是NRA的憂慮所在，他們聲稱普遍擁有槍支保證了自由，但這種說法混淆了發展平等的以往歷史因素和今天支撐平等的文化、法律和政治制度。
     因此我探討了技術的作用。但我們也可以從技術裝置的設計來確定價值。人類需要技術裝置服務，而技術裝置的設計本身體現與之相符的社會條件。例如冰箱，這個有用的裝置確保糧食長期安全儲存。這一基本技術似乎不受社會條件的影響，但這是一種假像。從冰箱大小標準設計到發動機的設計，所有技術設計都與社會條件息息相關。
    美國冰箱大小反映核心家庭的平均大小和使用汽車購物的情況。歐洲城市家庭裏冰箱尺寸則很小，因為那裏比起美國有更多人獨居和徒步購物。冰箱設計是瞭解家庭和城市生活的線索。
     製冷氣體的問題同樣反映問題。冰箱的這部分是破壞臭氧層的。科學家警告公眾和政界並最終通過協商談判制定了有效的國際條約，迫使廠商尋求製冷器的替代品。因此,乍一看似乎是純技術選擇，實際上是為了守恆的社會選擇。
這樣的結論可以成幾何數量的擴展其範圍，技術並非中立於它自身規定的狹窄使用範圍以外。當然槍確實沒有選擇奪走強盜或員警的生命。但是只是對槍支狹隘的認識。在更為廣大包含槍等技術的社會範圍內，它們的設計進一步體現了社會普遍的價值體系。
    這種說法有重大的政治含意。與普遍的流行意見不同，我們不能將我們技術系統的選擇完全依賴於推測技術上完全自主的一些專家。技術決定從來不曾單純過。在某種程度上,其體現了生活觀和價值觀。
    但這並不意味著技術可以獨斷專行。他們在智慧的人類代代努力創造出的一系列可行選擇上誕生。理性的技術決定將總是屬於這一範圍並擴大這一範圍。另一選擇將帶來文化大革命中類似的慘敗,崩潰、毀滅、對機械和人的摧殘。但是對技術人員的尊重並不是無條件接受其意見。在技術限制的範圍內，政治權威必須超越技術機構來決定未來的技術。

On Guns and other Devices

Guns exemplify two opposite philosophies of technology.

On the one hand, most people believe that technologies are neutral and merely serve our goals. The American National Rifle Association (NRA) argues that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Guns are innocent means, equally useful to defend and to take life. The only important question is who is using them for what purpose. Don’t blame guns for the crimes committed with them, we are told. (And above all, the NRA affirms, No gun control! don’t take away our assault rifles!)

On the other hand, there is the notion that technologies have implications for our values and our way of life. A society in which guns circulate freely is a different place from one in which they are strictly controlled. It is reasonable to ask which kind of society is better and which worse and to judge the technology accordingly. But this is a complicated matter.

In the old West on the American frontier, guns were called “equalizers.” They equalized adversaries of differing strength and intelligence. A weak stupid person could beat a strong intelligent one so long as he knew how to pull the trigger. This conception of guns as equalizers has surprising democratic implications.

Consider the case of 17^th century Japan. European traders and missionaries began to visit Japan in the 15^th century, bringing with them guns and Christianity. The Japanese were already excellent craftsmen and metal workers, no doubt better than their visitors, and soon they were manufacturing more and better guns than the Europeans. There was a civil war at the time but the introduction of guns helped unify the country. The new government, the Tokugawa Shogunate, closed Japan to foreign contacts and gradually eliminated foreign influences. Guns were collected and gun makers brought under government control. Christians were forcibly converted and the religion, like the guns that had accompanied it, disappeared from view. For 250 years this condition prevailed until American warships forced Japan to open up in the mid 19^th century.

Why were guns outlawed in Japan? One answer seems to be the fear that they would fall into subversive hands. Killing with the sword was an art in feudal Japan learned by members of the upper class from childhood. Superior fighting ability was the foundation of aristocratic rule. If an ordinary untrained individual could easily kill a samurai, the state would collapse. The “equalizer” was politically explosive in an aristocratic society.

From this example one clearly sees the value bias built into technology. Swords and guns have opposed political implications and are not simply means to universal goals. They shape a society of a certain type and establish the identity of their users as either subjects or citizens. Indeed, soon after Japan was opened to the world, a citizen army equipped with rifles put down a rebellion of reactionary samurais and saved the new government of the Meiji restoration.

The equalizing effect of firearms continues to this day. A good quality rifle at the time of the American Civil War (in the 1860s) cost about $40. The rifle was an expensive weapon at that time, paid for with the wages of many months of unskilled labor. Equipping whole armies with guns strained the resources of states. Today in the combat zones of Africa one can buy a far more powerful AK 47 for $30, a trivial sum for many individuals and for the groups that organize the fighting.

Colonialism was possible because only Europeans had large numbers of firearms and many who knew how to use them before the rest of the planet. A few men armed with early automatic rifles could hold at bay hundreds of fierce Zulu warriors. The English satirical poet Hilaire Belloc wrote of African colonization in the early years of the 20^th century, “Thank God that we have got/The Maxim Gun/And they have not.” In a later time, the ready availability of such weapons made colonialism unsustainable. In the period after World War II one European power after another gave up the fight and decolonized its empire. Today the inability of Western armies to dominate the Middle East reflects this changed situation.

Once countries are free of aristocrats and colonizers, guns change their significance. They become factors of disorder for modern states and their use is strictly suppressed, with the exception of hunting. This is what worries the NRA. They claim that widespread gun ownership guarantees freedom, but this argument confuses a bygone historical factor making for the growth of equality with the cultural, legal, and political institutions that sustain it in the present day.

So far I have discussed the consequences of technology, but we can also identify values in the design of devices. The human needs served by technical devices are themselves shaped by social conditions that are reflected in design. Consider the banal example of the refrigerator. This useful device makes it safe to store food for prolonged periods. The basic technology appears to be indifferent to social conditions but his is an illusion. Everything from the standard size of refrigerators to the design of the motors is socially relative.

The size of American refrigerators reflects the average size of the nuclear family and the use of automobiles for shopping. The types of refrigerators found in European cities vary much more widely in size, with very small units far more common than in America because so many people live alone and shop on foot. Refrigerator design is a clue to family and urban life.

The question of the refrigerant gas is equally revealing. This component of the refrigerator was shown to damage the ozone layer. Without ozone in the sky to absorb ultra-violet light, human beings would be unable to go out in the sun. Scientists alarmed the public and politicians eventually negotiated an effective international treaty that obliged manufacturers to find another refrigerant. Thus what at first sight appears to be a purely technical choice of refrigerant gas actually reveals a social choice in favor of conservation.

The argument could be multiplied over and over to show that technologies are not really neutral outside the very narrow context of uses they themselves define. Of course it is true that guns do not prefer to kill either cops or robbers. But this is a very restricted view of guns. In the larger context of society technologies such as guns embody and further social choices. Their design reflects values widely held in the society they serve.

This argument has important political implications. Contrary to a popular view, we cannot leave the choice of our technological system up to a few experts, presumed to make decisions on purely technical grounds. Technical decisions are never pure. At some level, they always embody values and express a vision of life.

This does not mean that technical decisions are arbitrary. They rest on generations of hard work by intelligent people who have created a range of workable options. Sensible technical decisions will always fall within that range or expand it. The alternative is disastrous failure, breakdowns, destruction of machines and people such as was seen during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. But respect for technical personnel should not mean uncritical acceptance of their views. Within the limits set by technical knowledge, political authority must prevail over technical authority in the definition of the technical future.