Drones: Deliver Us From Evil?

drones deliver us from evil

Until Sunday a week ago, drones had a pretty poor reputation. Evoking dark visions of “death from above,” they were seen as killing machines, armed with bombs and bullets, guided by the hands of remote pilots seated comfortably at a military base with a joystick and a video-game-like console. Even the term, “drone,” connotes a mindless, merciless robot.

All that changed when Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon.com, reimagined what drones might deliver. Last Sunday, on 60 Minutes, Bezos revealed plans to use drones to carry online orders from his warehouses to our homes. He called it Amazon PrimeAir and said he hopes to be flying in 5 years. The Internet lit up with the news.

Amazon PrimeAir showed us that drones can carry “death from above” or, as one writer put it, “showers of blessings.” Before Bezos’ announcement, it was easy for us to simply think of drones as bad. But now, this new possibility suggests that we can begin to think of them as good. So which is it, bad or good?

This question brings us back to a long-held belief: “Technology is neutral. How you use it determines if it’s good or bad.” So the argument goes: If you’re the military delivering your payload of bullets, a drone is bad. But if you’re Amazon delivering a payload of LEGOS, a drone is good. Now that Bezos has turned drones on their head, we have a chance to ask “Is technology really neutral?” Is it really just a matter of bullets vs. LEGOS?

Let’s set the bullets and LEGOS aside for a minute. Let’s just look at drones themselves. They’ve already changed the way we do battle. They are already causing us to wonder what it means to be “at war” and to ask whether war is right when people from only one side are in danger. In the same way, drones will change the ways we live and work and shop in peacetime. Bullets or LEGOS have nothing to do with that. It’s not a question of if life will change, but how. And then, will those changes make our lives better or worse?

Those questions are much harder to answer. But one thing is for sure: Life will be different.  Technology is not neutral. Life will change. And neither bullets nor LEGOS can prevent that.

We can’t imagine all the ways that commercial drones will change our lives. For now, Jeff Bezos has invited us to imagine online shopping with drones,where every purchase is only 30 minutes away. In some sense, the drone reincarnates the milkman, the paper boy, the mailman—now with all sorts of new products.

Also, we need to think beyond Amazon. Drones have the potential to change more than just our shopping habits. With a new delivery system in place, we may have fewer reasons to leave home. If a drone can drop items off, couldn’t it also pick them up? We could have new ways to send packages, return forgotten keys and gloves, or expedite an important contract. We will no longer have to get in our cars to return these items to friend or stores. All these new possibilities take flight with commercial drones.

Drones may eventually allow us to be home more and see each other less. It will be more convenient to send the contract or forgotten keys via drone, but will it change how often we see each other? Will shopping malls survive? If not, where will our teenagers loiter? Will drug traffickers have a safer way to transport their own payloads? What will happen to UPS and FedEx? What about pizza guys? Will Jimmy Johns be even freakier fast?

My point is that our habits will change at multiple levels. The more and more we integrate drones into our lives—regardless of what they carry—the more and more we will do things differently. And as our habits change, our social practices will too. In different ways than we do now, we will interact with friends and neighbors, colleagues and companies. Those new routines will be both beneficial and detrimental. Will our society be better or worse for it? It’s hard to know.

To believe that drones are neutral is shortsighted. The argument merely focuses on the question of bullets vs. LEGOS. If you only focus there, good and bad are pretty easy to determine. What’s more, we do this all the time with other mediums: TV (Are you watching cartoons or violence?), the Internet (Are you donating to charity or watching porn?), smartphones (Are you scheduling lunch plans or sexting?), cars (Is it convenient travel or environmental pollution?), clothing (Is it modest or provocative?), contraception (Is it sex without consequences or unwanted pregnancies?). These either–or approaches make the same mistake as bullets vs. LEGOS. For us to really wrestle with their long-term effects requires more imagination.

To get beyond the simple bullets/LEGOS question, we should zero in on the technology itself. We should ask ourselves, “Does life with drones (or TV, the Internet, smartphones, cars, clothing, contraception) enhance or diminish our lives and our society, and how?” Asking this kind of question moves us past the “technology is neutral” fallacy and forces us to think more creatively—and more critically—about what drones actually mean. From there, we’ll all be better able to weigh good and bad, and we’ll better understand just what it is that drones are delivering.

Other articles

Support Second Nature

Second Nature depends on the generous donations of readers like you.

Second Nature is published by the International Institute for the Study of Technology and Christianity (IISTC), a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to studying technology in light of the Christian tradition.

Your generous contributions make this work possible. Please consider donating today to help us continue this important work.

About the Contributor

Adam Graber

Adam Graber
Adam Graber is an editor at Tyndale House Publishers. He has written for Catapult Magazine and the Journal of Religion, Media and Digital Culture. He blogs at thesecondeclectic.com and on Twitter @AdamGraber


  1. Joseph McDonald says:

    Could we not also ask another question? Should we be developing or have developed drones, at all? Our basic position with regard to (contemporary, especially machine infused) technology is, well, there it is. It’s not neutral, but we got it, so we have to deal with it. So, let’s see what drones (or autos or railroads or the steam engine or computers) mean and, not incidentally, what can they do that we approve?

    I wonder whether anyone said, as the original drone was in design, should we be doing this? Our thinking and work on this is not neutral, you know. Will the “direction” of small unmanned aircraft, regardless of the “rightness” of their “creation structure,” merely push us into the obvious job of “safe” killing (ignoring the collateral damage to a wedding party?) Well, an answer might have come, we don’t know all that drones can or will do, in the end. But, because we have the skill and expertise to design and develop these things, let’s do so and see what happens. Afterward, the philosophers and theologians can sit around and wring their hands about putting them to good or evil purposes. But, we will have done our “creation” job by bringing them into existence, no?

    It’s not difficult imagining some structural engineers and architects sitting around a pile of bricks, sipping fermented goat’s milk, wondering how these bricks could be treated to build “a tower that reaches Heaven. Let’s make ourselves famous, so we won’t be scattered here and there across the Earth.” (Genesis 11, The Message) But, said one rather pious architect, should we really do this? We don’t know the effect this will have on us and our families, to say nothing of God.

    Ah, pshaw, Abdul! We can fire them well and use tar for mortar and . . . besides, we won’t know what this tower can mean until we get it built and tested. Well, sure, but maybe we shouldn’t even be thinking along such lofty lines. Maybe we should stick to what we know about creation ordinances and focus on shalom for the earth instead of making a name for ourselves with mere technology. Let’s invent what we need when need of it. We can’t go wrong with that.

    Oh, Abdul, you idiot! God is the god of technology. He expects us to use our minds and invent stuff, regardless. Then we can figure out what it means and how we might use it for “good.”

  2. Good article with good questions! I have one small quibble, which is this sentence: “In some sense, the drone reincarnates the milkman, the paper boy, the mailman—now with all sorts of new products.”

    The problem is just the opposite: drones disincarnates the milkman, the paper boy, the mailman, and therein lies the problem: what were once human relationships are now man-machine interactions, and you will NEVER feel towards your Amazon drone as you currently do to your UPS driver delivering an Amazon product. And this seems to be true for good or ill: even if I hate my UPS driver, it is a living human hatred, which at least implies the possibility of reconcilable differences. In other words, I would far prefer a UPS guy I hate to a flying drone I love. And to the Afghan villagers being destroyed by drones, I suspect this is an entirely moot question — if Jeff Bezos ever sends an Amazon drone to their village, these drones will either be met with armed resistance or with a scattered village — not one child is going to pick up those Legos. The old medium has preceded the new message too strongly in this case.

Speak Your Mind


Support Second Nature

If you find value in the work we do at Second Nature, please consider making a modest donation. Every donation, no matter how small, is a huge encouragement to us in our work.