Technology as an End in Itself? – Not a Good Idea!

In everyday language, we tend to use the two terms more or less synonymously. For the argument developed in this text, however, it is important to proceed with conceptual precision and to distinguish clearly between the ideas attached to them: whereas the term technics refers to the concrete form of an intervention in the world that brings about change – that is, to tools, devices, or systems that become effective in our reality and give it form – technology refers to the knowledge required for their application, in other words, to the underlying logics and systemic interrelations. Technics is thus what we see and use; technology, by contrast, entails a knowledge of what structures this use, how it is made possible, and why (cf. Müller & Spieß 2025: 302).

This distinction is more than semantic. It shifts the focus from the surface to the level of design. When we speak of technics, we speak of solutions. When we speak of technology, we speak of the conditions under which innovative solutions can emerge in the first place. This difference becomes decisive particularly in the context of social systems: it is not the individual application that determines whether connection succeeds, but the underlying logic that organizes it. In this sense, we are less interested in the question of which technics is used than in which technology – understood as an ordering principle – underlies it and what forms of relationship it enables or prevents. Even if, then, “the term technics […] is analytically richer than technology” (ibid.), what follows is concerned less with materially constituted artifacts than with the dimension of use. Put differently, what interests us here is less the hardware than the software running on its basis.

“The world we inhabit is a technical world” (Bense 1949: 191). We are constantly surrounded by technical artifacts: artificial light turns night into day, pacemakers and prostheses enable us to live self-determined lives even in the face of physical impairments, and computers have become indispensable in virtually every office and living space in the world. To welcome technics into the heart of our collective life, however, requires a process-oriented perspective closely tied to the concept of technology.

The age we live in is one in which virtually every technological innovation, no matter how small, is almost reflexively understood as progress. New tools, new platforms, new systems—and with them new habitus formations—spring up like mushrooms, and even the sheer speed at which existing digital solutions continue to evolve is, to put it mildly, impressive. Yet this is precisely where a frequently overlooked problem lies: one cannot shake the feeling that technology is increasingly becoming an end in itself. In a bid to attract attention, many players in the market try to prove that they have understood how to make adequate use of supposed innovations. A whole range of buzzwords is then used to proclaim that a given solution is a “game changer” or a “must-have.”
And yet, not everything that is technologically possible is automatically meaningful. Nor does every digital solution actually improve the everyday lives of the people who use it. On the contrary, there is a growing sense that technology is being developed because it can be developed—not because it is genuinely needed in that form. This article takes a critical look at why technology as an end in itself is not a good idea and why we urgently need a more critical perspective.

To regard technology as an end in itself describes a phenomenon in which practices no longer emerge from a clearly defined need, but simply from the fact that they are technically feasible. The focus lies less on creating something genuinely market-ready than on proving that something can in fact be done.

This becomes evident, for example, when new features are developed without addressing any real problem, or when complex systems are built that nobody truly understands, let alone is able to use. Innovation driven primarily by feasibility rather than by explicit meaningfulness is another phenomenon that can arise in the wake of a self-referential genesis of technics.

In the process, the central question shifts from “What do people need?” to “What can we implement technically?” And this is precisely where things begin to go awry: when technological interventions in the world serve less as a function than as a flex, we quickly reach a point at which the conglomerate of supposedly “simple” solutions turns into an opaque tangle of complexity.

Broadly speaking, there are many reasons why technological modes of operation should not be introduced for their own sake. In what follows, however, we will confine ourselves to four distinct reasons – while noting, of course, that there are several others as well.

A classic pattern: a solution is developed first, and only afterward is a suitable problem sought for it. This kind of approach often results in products that may be technically impressive but have little relevance in everyday life. Users are forced to adapt to systems, rather than systems adapting to people. In this way, one is often occupied solely with creating a novel problem for which a supposed solution can then be offered. The result is low initial uptake, high frustration, and a sense of overload on the part of users.

Technology is often associated with efficiency and simplification. In practice, however, the opposite is often the case. Especially when a veritable flood of similar tools begins to emerge, it is far from easy for individual actors to maintain an overview.
New tools bring:

Instead of reducing complexity, then, it is all too often merely displaced. In the end, human users are the ones who have to absorb it – and are more likely to be overwhelmed than sustainably relieved. For older adults or users who are less comfortable with technology in particular, this can become a genuine factor of exclusion.

It becomes especially critical when technology is deployed in domains that fundamentally depend on human closeness, trust, and relationship.

One example is the way social isolation is addressed. Increasingly, digital solutions are being developed that attempt to “simulate” connection or to “optimize” it in a technocratic manner. It becomes particularly problematic when there is even an attempt to substitute for human closeness. For analog relationships cannot simply be automated at will.

When technology becomes too dominant in such contexts, there is a risk that it will not connect people but—on the contrary—lead to profound alienation and thus to a veritable downward spiral.

When everything presents itself as technologically feasible, it becomes difficult to decide what is actually meaningful – and where a certain kind of flex is merely at work. Technology-driven innovation as an end in itself causes priorities to blur, projects to lose focus, and any clear sense of direction to disappear. And without such direction, any technology is quickly perceived as just another arbitrary gimmick.

The reasons for such a development are manifold; even so, certain recurring patterns can be discerned. We should remain aware that technology always expresses a particular stance: it is never “neutral,” but always comes with specific assumptions about the world and its inhabitants (cf. Ihde 1990). Precisely for this reason, it is so important to critically chart technological spaces of possibility rather than simply accept them as they are. The emergence of highly specialized AI systems, for instance, is itself an expression of a veritable redefinition of “intelligence” as such. Whereas intelligence was often once associated with contemplation, it is now increasingly tied to acceleration. Never before has it been so easy to grasp complex matters as quickly as it is amid the current flood of AI. AI, IoT, platform architectures – much is technically realizable. But the fact that something can be done does not necessarily mean that it should be done. Somewhat rash action is flourishing today. The ultimate yardstick is invariably the bottom line. The resulting pressure to innovate, of which many companies regularly complain, increasingly leads to action being taken first, with intellectual reflection following only afterward – if at all. “New” is reflexively translated as “good,” even though that equation can claim validity only for short-term developments. Accordingly, a lack of user focus is being criticized ever more frequently. If we proceed to develop products without knowing the actual needs and deficits of real users, that may be well-intentioned – but doing it well would be quite another matter.

But what does actually follow from such a diagnosis? If technology is no longer to serve as an end in itself, a clear counter-position is needed: technology should always be conceived on the basis of a human need. That sounds simple – but putting it into practice is a demanding undertaking. It not only entails the most obvious point, namely a radical problem-centeredness, but also reaches into the anticipated relationship between humans and technology: excessive seamlessness, for instance, should be avoided. For although it may appear aesthetically appealing to promise frictionless functionality – and thus to promote a veritable re-enchantment of the world (cf. Hartmann 2005: 276 f.) – technology is never neutral. It always produces configurations of power, and in this respect it is crucial to empower the human subject sustainably rather than subordinate it to technical reality. In contrast to fostering a hype in which short-term attention is generated through sensationalism and an excessive focus on supposed solutions, a long-term approach is primarily problem-oriented. Rather than forcing the introduction of certain technologies at all costs, what suggests itself in a world shaped by technological maturity is an open-minded view of the actual problem: sometimes the best solution is a clarifying conversation, a social intervention, or a structure that needs to be created – not an app. It is equally important to ensure that human relationships matter more than mere functions. Every function is only as good as the meaningful support it makes possible. To that end, the technology employed may very well recede into the background. A world that largely dispenses with visible interfaces is one in which potentially everything can become an interface (cf. Kaerlein 2015). Ideally, users do not even notice that they are using a specific technology – they simply experience the promised added value.

Ideally, all of this should always be grounded in the principle of trust, founded on manifest simplicity. The point is less to promise a maximum of functionality than to provide a clear core benefit in language that is easy to understand. And that also always means building a trust-based relationship with users. Without such trust, even the best technology will never prevail.

If in the future we begin to understand technology no longer as an end in itself, then the way we look at innovation will also change fundamentally. Innovation would no longer be synonymous with more features, more data, and increased complexity, but would instead go hand in hand with a sharpened awareness of problems, clear structures, and applications recognized as meaningful.

The goal, then, should not be the explicit rejection of technology, but rather its more conscious use. This requires not only demonstrable competence, but also a self-assured stance grounded in practice. It is just as foolish to demonize technology wholesale as it is to regard it as a cure-all. Let us take it for what it is: a possibility for continually rethinking and extending human agency. Technological practice is at its very best when it does not occur for its own sake, but in order to empower people.

Bense, Max (1949): Technische Existenz. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, Stuttgart.

Hartmann, Georg (2005): „Entzauberung/Wiederverzauberung der Welt.“ In: C. Auffarth et al. (Hg.) Metzler Lexikon Religion. Springer Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, S. 276-277.

Ihde, Don (1990): Technology and the Lifeworld. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Kaerlein, Timo (2015): „Die Welt als Interface. Über gestenbasierte Interaktionen mit vernetzten Objekten.“ In: Florian Sprenger & Christoph Engelmann (Hg.) Internet der Dinge. Über smarte Objekte, intelligente Umgebungen und die technische Durchdringung der Welt. Transcipt Verlag, Bielefeld, S. 137-160.

Lyotard, Jean-François (2014): „Ob man ohne Körper denken kann.“ In: ders. Das Inhumane. Plaudereien über die Zeit. Passagen Verlag, Wien.

Müller, Marcus & Spieß, Constanze (2025): „Technik als kontroverser Begriff in Diskursen um Mensch und Technologie.“ In: Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (2025) 55: S. 297-327.