technology has no purpose. it is a natural phenomenon that arises without any in-built ethics or direction. technology can manifest as a tool (to amplify human potential) or a machine (to replace human labour). the effect of a technology can be influenced broadly, for example by who owns and promotes a technology (open-source vs proprietary models) and which groups in society it is put to use to benefit.
> technology can manifest as a tool (to amplify human potential) or a machine (to replace human labour).
I don't see a material distinction in here. A machine is simply a more effective tool - effective enough to do the work mostly by itself. The "replace human labour" part is a consequence of the economic systems we have.
Yea actually it does, the purpose is whatever the users/builders use it for. So a stick has any purpose that it's user can think for it - starting a fire, hitting an animal to kill it, support for a mud wall etc...
Technology arises out of a sense of purpose from it's user. This is pretty common understanding in philosophy of science.
I think what you say is basically equivalent - technology has no inherent purpose in it besides the one we give to it; that purpose itself is a feature of the human user, not the feature of any given technology (i.e. it doesn't "stick" to an object).
Personally, I see technology as the way to extend the power of our (individual and collective) will to make something happen.
