The Thought on Technological Alienation in *Dialectics of Nature*

*Dialectics of Nature* discusses many theories of natural science, yet the term “technology” does not appear. Many people accordingly believe that Engels was not concerned with technological issues and that his thought contains no elements of the philosophy of technology. In fact, this is a misunderstanding; Engels indeed possessed a rich philosophy of technology, and the foresight of his thought is especially evident in his discussion of technological alienation.

《自然辩证法》中论述了许多自然科学理论，却未出现“技术”一词。许多人据此认为，恩格斯不关心技术问题，其思想中也不包含技术哲学的因素。其实，这是一种误解，恩格斯确有丰富的技术哲学思想，其思想的前瞻性尤其体现在他对技术异化的讨论上。

The term “alienation” originates from the Latin *alienatio*, later translated into English as “alienation,” with meanings such as estrangement, transfer, separation, and difference. On the philosophical level, “alienation” refers to the transformation, under certain conditions, of a force originally belonging to a thing itself into a force opposed to and alienated from that thing. Therefore, based on the category of “alienation,” technological alienation can be defined as: the objects created by people through technological practice ultimately become forces opposed to and alienated from people themselves. In capitalist society, technology has penetrated every aspect of nature, society, and human life. Engels believed that foreseeing the consequences of production activities is easier in the natural sphere than in the social sphere. Thus, unlike Marx, Engels focused more on analyzing technological alienation from the natural dimension.

“异化”一词源于拉丁文alienatio，后转译成英文alienation，有疏远、转让、分离、差异等义。在哲学层面，“异化”指在一定条件下，原本属于事物自身的力量转化为同自身相对立的、异己的力量。因此，基于“异化”范畴可将技术异化定义为：人们通过技术实践创造出来的对象物，最终成为与人自身相对立的、异己的力量。在资本主义社会，技术已渗透到自然、社会及人类生活的方方面面。恩格斯认为，对于生产行为后果的预见，在自然方面要比社会方面更为容易。因而，与马克思不同的是，恩格斯更侧重从自然层面剖析技术异化。

Engels affirmed the driving role of technology in social development: “In the most advanced industrial countries we have subdued the forces of nature and pressed them into the service of mankind; thereby we have infinitely increased production, so that a child now produces more than a hundred adults formerly did.” [1]1 Friedrich Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 460. But at the same time, he did not turn a blind eye to the negative effects brought by technological alienation. In *Dialectics of Nature*, Engels deeply studied the relationships between technology and humans, and between technology and nature, pointing out that humans and nature should originally be in dynamic equilibrium, yet the intervention of technology broke this equilibrium. Especially in the capitalist era, humans, driven by immediate interests, engaged in unlimited technological practical activities. Engels pointed out that with the development and application of science and technology, capitalist agriculture made great progress; irrational management in agriculture was replaced by the adoption of science and technology, promoting agricultural development. However, this progress “is not only a progress in the art of robbing the worker, but also a progress in the art of robbing the soil; every advance in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given period is at the same time an advance in ruining the lasting sources of that fertility.” [2]2 Ibid., p. 461. The problems evident when capitalism applies scientific and technological achievements to agricultural development are obvious: capitalists, driven solely by profit, do not follow the objective laws of soil fertility development, and the long-term use of chemical fertilizers results in damage to the soil itself, leading to soil compaction and difficulty in growing plants. In addition, the heavy use of pesticides, while protecting crops from pests and diseases, also produces a lasting toxic effect on humans and organisms. Once humanity’s unlimited extraction exceeds the bottom line that nature can bear, humans transform from the subjects of production practice into objects subjected to nature’s violent revenge. When the vast majority of people in the 19th century were still intoxicated by the rich returns brought by technology, Engels soberly saw the revenge from nature. He wrote in *Dialectics of Nature*: “Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us.” [3]3 Ibid., p. 460.

恩格斯肯定了技术对社会发展的推动作用：“我们在最先进的工业国家中已经降服了自然力，迫使它为人们服务；这样我们就无限地增加了生产，现在一个小孩所生产的东西，比以前的一百个成年人所生产的还要多。”但与此同时，他并没有对技术异化带来的负面效应视而不见。在《自然辩证法》中，恩格斯深入研究了技术与人、技术与自然之间的关系，指出人与自然本应处于动态平衡之中，然而技术的介入打破了这一平衡。尤其是在资本主义时代，人类出于眼前利益进行着无限度的技术实践活动。恩格斯指出，随着科学技术的发展和应用，资本主义农业取得了巨大进步，农业上的不合理经营被科学技术的采用所取代，促进了农业的发展。但是，这种进步“不仅是掠夺劳动者的技巧的进步，而且是掠夺土地的技巧的进步，在一定时期内快速提高土地肥力的任何进步，同时也是破坏土地肥力持久源泉的进步”。资本主义将科技成果运用于农业发展时所存在的问题显而易见，资本家唯利是图，不遵循土地肥力发展的客观规律，长期使用化肥的结果是破坏了土壤本身，导致土壤板结，很难再生长植物。另外，农药的大量使用，在使农作物免受病虫害侵害的同时，也对人和生物产生了持久的毒化作用。一旦人类无限度的索取突破了自然界所能承受的底线，人类就会由生产实践的主体变成被自然疯狂报复的客体。当19世纪的绝大多数人还沉醉于技术带来的丰厚回报时，恩格斯却清醒地看到了来自自然界的报复。他在《自然辩证法》中写道：“我们不要过分陶醉于我们人类对自然界的胜利。对于每一次这样的胜利，自然界都对我们进行了报复。”

Engels did not stop merely at revealing the phenomenon of technological alienation, but proceeded from phenomenon to essence, delving deeply into the roots of technological alienation. Among these, the limitations of human cognitive ability constitute the subjective cause of technological alienation, while the natural attributes of technology and the capitalist system constitute the objective causes. Although humans have always purposefully and planfully understood and transformed the world, due to limitations in cognitive ability, they are completely unable to fully grasp objective natural laws or accurately predict the consequences of certain technological applications, thus giving rise to technological alienation. As Engels described, “When the Arabs learned to distil alcohol, they never dreamed that they had thereby created one of the chief instruments for the extermination of the native inhabitants of the then undiscovered American continent.” [4]4 Ibid., p. 461. Engels believed that the constraints of various conditions in a given era, as well as the complexity of nature itself, determine that people’s understanding of natural laws can only remain at the surface level, preventing them from promptly discovering and accurately predicting the far-reaching impacts of technological applications. On the one hand, human understanding of natural laws is limited by various conditions of a given era (such as the level of scientific and technological development at the time), so it is impossible to accurately predict the future. Engels said: “We can only know under the conditions of our epoch, and as far as these conditions allow.” [5]5 Ibid., p. 462. On the other hand, the complexity of nature itself also increases the difficulty for humans to deeply explore natural laws. Engels pointed out: “For in nature nothing happens in isolation. Everything affects and is affected by everything else, and it is mostly because this manifold motion and interaction is forgotten that our natural scientists are prevented from seeing clearly the simplest things.” [6]6 Ibid., p. 463. It should be noted that although Engels expressed concern about the uncertainty of technology, he remained optimistic about technological progress and raised the possibility of technology being regulated: “even in this sphere, through long and often painful experience, through the comparison and study of historical materials, we gradually learn to understand the indirect, more remote social effects of our production activities, and thus are enabled to control and regulate these effects.” [7]7 Ibid., p. 464.

恩格斯并未仅仅停留于对技术异化现象的揭示，而是由现象到本质，深入挖掘技术异化产生的根源。其中，人类自身认识水平的限制构成了技术异化的主观原因，而技术的自然属性及资本主义制度则构成了技术异化的客观原因。尽管人类自始至终都是有目的、有计划地认识世界、改造世界，但是由于认识水平的限制，人类根本无法完全掌握客观自然规律以及准确预知一些技术应用的后果，因而就造成了技术异化。正如恩格斯描述的那样，“当阿拉伯人学蒸馏酒精的时候，他们做梦也不会想到，他们由此而制造出来的东西成了使当时还没有被发现的美洲的土著居民灭绝的主要工具之一”。恩格斯认为，特定时代诸多条件的限制以及自然自身的复杂性，决定了人们对自然规律的认识只能停留于表层，而不能及时发现与准确预知技术应用产生的深远影响。一方面，人类对自然规律的认识要受特定时代各种条件的限制（如当时科技发展水平等），所以不可能准确预知未来。恩格斯说：“我们只能在我们时代的条件下去认识，而且这些条件达到什么程度，我们才能认识到什么程度。”另一方面，自然本身的复杂性也给人类深入探究自然规律增加了难度。恩格斯指出，“因为在自然界中没有孤立发生的东西。事物是互相作用的，并且在大多数情形下，正是忘记了这种多方面的运动和相互作用阻碍我们的自然科学家去看清最简单的事物”。应当指出的是，恩格斯虽然对技术的不确定性表示担忧，但是依然对技术进步持乐观态度，提出了技术被调节的可能性，“就是在这领域中，我们也经过长期的、往往是痛苦的经验，经过对历史材料的比较和研究，渐渐学会了认清我们的生产活动在社会方面的间接的、较远的影响，从而有可能控制和调节这些影响”。

Although technology is a product of humans and possesses human attributes, the creation, invention, and application of any technology cannot escape the constraints of objective natural laws, and thus possesses natural attributes. Engels took physics as an example, pointing out that just as the consumption of energy in the process of transformation is unavoidable, the natural attributes of technology determine that the negative consequences of technology use cannot be avoided. Even in the future realm of freedom, where producers can rationally regulate the material and energy transformation between humans and nature, a certain amount of energy loss must still be expended. Furthermore, in Engels’ view, the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system itself inevitably lead to technological alienation. To be precise, as the capitalist mode of production penetrates the society of commodity producers, the laws of commodity production increasingly become the coercive laws of competition, acting upon each individual producer. In order to produce more exchangeable products, each individual enterprise takes improving machinery and increasing its productive capacity as its own coercive command. Technological progress continuously raises the degree of capitalist socialized large-scale production, while the coercive requirement of capital accumulation for commodity exchange leads to recurring problems such as overproduction, disorderly competition, the impoverishment of the proletariat, and the relative surplus of the laboring population.

技术虽然是人的产物，具有属人性，但是任何技术的创造、发明及其应用所产生的后果都无法摆脱客观自然规律的限制，因而具有自然属性。恩格斯以物理学为例，指出正如功能在转化过程中的消耗是必不可少的一样，技术的自然属性决定了技术使用的消极后果无法避免。即便是在未来的自由王国中，生产者能合理调节人与自然之间的物质能量转化，也要付出的能量损耗。此外，在恩格斯看来，资本主义制度自身固有矛盾亦必然导致技术异化。确切地说，随着资本主义生产方式渗入商品生产者的社会，商品生产规律就愈加成为竞争的强制规律，并对各个生产者发生作用。为了生产更多的交换产品，每一个单个生产企业都把改进机器、提高机器的生产能力作为自身的强制命令。技术进步推动资本主义社会化大生产的程度不断提高，而资本增殖对商品交换的强制要求导致不断出现生产过剩、无序竞争、无产阶级贫困、劳动人口相对过剩等问题。

Engels’ thought on technology elaborates on the positioning of technology from the perspective of historical materialism, systematically analyzing the paradox of technological development under the capitalist social formation. At present, technological innovation has become an important driving force for China’s economic and social development. We should follow the direction indicated by Engels, accurately identify the positioning of technology in the sphere of production, and systematically grasp the relationship between technological progress and social progress. Only in this way can we provide better support for contemporary socialist production practice with Chinese characteristics.

恩格斯的技术思想从唯物史观视域阐述了技术的定位，系统分析了资本主义社会形态下技术发展的悖论。当前，技术创新已成为驱动我国经济社会发展的重要推动力，应按照恩格斯所指引的方向，找准技术在生产领域的定位，系统掌握技术进步与社会进步的关系，如此才能为当代中国特色社会主义生产实践提供更好的支持作用。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗