positive effect? "very probably" -not-.
Heidegger’s conception of machines and technology is essentially nineteenth-century. Today, the concept of the "machine" is universal and qualitatively entirely different, (chaos and complexity) to the point that Heidegger would likely be left catatonic. (I do not share Heidegger’s critique of technology, as being technological is an inherent part of human nature; even in the Neolithic era, humans were already technological.)
However, the underlying critique, the essence of the "Butlerian Jihad", might be read as: at what point does a tool remain merely a tool, and at what point does it become an end in itself?
Knowledge, strength, power, technology, and machines are all tools; they ought to be utilized to contribute to progress. Yet, the very concepts of evolution, progress (and the environment) are elusive. Herbert offers his own interpretation, a task that required an entire book.
Heidegger’s conception of machines and technology is essentially nineteenth-century. Today, the concept of the "machine" is universal and qualitatively entirely different, (chaos and complexity) to the point that Heidegger would likely be left catatonic. (I do not share Heidegger’s critique of technology, as being technological is an inherent part of human nature; even in the Neolithic era, humans were already technological.)
However, the underlying critique, the essence of the "Butlerian Jihad", might be read as: at what point does a tool remain merely a tool, and at what point does it become an end in itself? Knowledge, strength, power, technology, and machines are all tools; they ought to be utilized to contribute to progress. Yet, the very concepts of evolution, progress (and the environment) are elusive. Herbert offers his own interpretation, a task that required an entire book.