e-portfolio for Benjamin Holtzman

Rough Draft Paper 4

What will become of the human race 50 years from now? Not only the human race, but mother earth itself? As human beings have come more civilized, sophisticated, and technological, we have had an increasingly large impact on earth. Every action has a reaction, and everything we do on this planet affects it in one way or another. In today’s society, where a country’s GDP is a measure of their greatness, we produce goods without care for how our methods of production affect the earth. We have forgotten about the central importance of our ecosystem, opting instead to put the greater emphasis on the “econosystem.” And the results of our actions? We are seeing ever higher national GDP’s, alongside the deterioration of our planet. Farsighted individuals see the consequences of our actions and caution us to change our ways, yet we still do not do enough. It is possible that in the next half century our attitudes will change, yet many people have varying viewpoints on if we are capable. David E. Nye, a believer in the ability of humans to stay away from technological determinism, would most likely say that human civilization 50 years from now will be healthy and growing. Carolyn Merchant, who is not much of an optimist, would probably say that human civilization is headed for doom and gloom. Rachel Carson, who sees great hope in the future of our dealings with nature, would most likely see hope in the future of our existence as well. Although optimism is a virtue, it is in human nature to put the economy ahead of the ecosystem. Humans will continue their course of actions, until it becomes economically advantageous to protect our earth.
David E. Nye has faith in human kind. Technological determinism is the belief that technology controls our decisions, and ultimately our future. According to Nye, “technological determinism lacks a coherent philosophical tradition,” (31) and is merely a fabrication. It is not technology that controls us, but we who control technology. The extent to which a group of people allow technologies to become a part of their lives depends solely on their cultural decisions. Many of today’s most modernized countries have allowed technologies to spread into almost every aspect of its citizen’s lives. These technologies have been beneficial and raised our standard of living, but they have come with side effects. Some of the technologies we have created can measure the extent of these side effects, such as pollution, and fossil fuel usage. We realize that we cannot go on using current production techniques without the liabilities of pollution becoming greater than the benefit of our technologies. Slowly but surely, people are making conscious decisions to limit consumption in order to help the environment. As individuals have become more environmentally conscious, big businesses that are some of the foremost creators of pollutants have taken notice, and are rearranging their production models into greener more efficient ones. As this cultural trend continues over the next 50 years, the ecosystem will become more prevalent in our cultural decisions. With all hope, the future is looking very bright and green.
Along with Nye, Rachel Carson understands that our future depends on the choices we make as a society; choices that are defined culturally. In an attempt to sway public opinion away from the road of high production, low pollution; and toward the road of environmentally friendly living, Carson wrote “Silent spring.” In her book, she explains the effects of pesticides and pollution on the environment, as well as discusses eco-friendly alternatives. One of her main topics is the use of DDT as a pesticide, and how harmful it is to the environment. In the final chapter of her book, titled “The Other Road,” she lists many different techniques of controlling insect populations that are being studied that do not hurt the environment in any way. She believes that “all such experiments are first steps toward wholly new concepts of insect control which the miracles of electronics may some day make a reality.” (288) Her optimistic view shows that she believes as technology improves, greener alternative techniques will become just as easy as current harmful techniques. Humans will without a doubt make the switch to the techniques that preserve their ecosystem. Carson’s writing points towards a world in which we will choose to discontinue our harmful practices, and live in a world that is rich with natural life.
When it comes down to it, humans think in terms of economics, and always will think that way. It is nice to be optimistic like Rachel Carson, to think that humans will sacrifice production or wealth for the safety of the environment. But in reality, making this sort of sacrifice simply goes against human nature. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the needs that have to do with our safety such as financial security are far more important to us than moral needs such as protecting our environment. The only way that that we as a society would voluntarily give up wealth for the sake of the environment, is if everyone is the community were so economically well off that everyone volunteered to give away some of their disposable income towards this cause. Unfortunately in a capitalistic society, this case is so unrealistic, it could be classified as impossible. Instead of relying on individuals to save our environment, the government could step in. Pollution is a negative externality caused by the way that we produce goods. People do not notice it, because it does not directly affect them. If the government were to put higher taxes on natural resources such as gas and oil, it would in effect internalize the externality, making consumers and companies pay for their use of pollutants and natural resources. For example, if the government were to double the current tax rate on gasoline, the economic benefit of driving a car would decrease. The “invisible hand” of the market would make people search for an alternative mode of transportation, one that was economically friendly and tax free. This trend occurred just over a year ago, when gas prices were reaching all time highs, and people were opting to buy more fuel efficient cars, or use fuel free modes of transport such as biking and even walking. The government could also raise corporate taxes on pollutants. Once taxes reached a high enough level, it would become more economically profitable to switch to a greener mode of production. Only then will corporations stop polluting. If governments worldwide are willing to take these steps, than the future on earth will be green indeed.
The best way to make changes in our environment is to make changes in our economy. Optimists like Rachel Carson and pessimists like Carolyn Merchant have very valid points, but fail to see the picture as a whole. David E. Nye understands that all of our decisions are made culturally. Yet our culture and our nature itself put economics in front of environmental sustainability, as can be seen in Maslow’s hierarchy. Only when the choice of environmental protection is the choice that is most economical, will we be willing to save our environment. Our governments realize this and are making changes. As policies become more bent towards environmentalism, the outlook for the future becomes brighter. These trends will continue, and 50 years from now, earth will be overflowing with natural life.


ROUGH DRAFT OF PAPER ONE

Ben Holtzman
Are machines smarter than we are? In today’s theaters, movies like “Terminator” and “I Robot” show us a futuristic world in which technology becomes so advanced, it takes over man as the ruler of earth. Although this idea may seem futuristic and impossible, people were thinking similar thoughts long before computers, radios, or even Edison’s incandescent light bulb were invented. Ralph Waldo Emerson, leader of the Transcendentalist movement in the 1800’s, held this view. In Emerson’s “Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing,” he writes that technology “runs wild, and doth the man unking.” He is saying that technology, not people, are in control of the future. This idea of technological determinism says that the growth and advancement of technology is inevitable. However, many people believe that this idea is ludicrous, and that humans are in fact in complete control of what technologies come out, and how advanced they become. In David E. Nye’s essay “Does Technology Control us?” the author refutes the entire idea of technological determinism. Using historical examples of societies turning against technology, certain technologies being used differently in different nations, and theories of scholars like Werner Sombart, Nye shows that the humans, not technologies, are indeed in control of their destiny.
Nye’s examples of the Japanese, the Amish, and North Africans all going against technologies comes as proof that a society can reject a technology, no matter how beneficial it may seem. The gun arrived in Japan in 1543, and was by far and away more powerful than any Japanese weapon. Guns were used for many years, but eventually the Japanese went back to the traditional weapons of the Samurai warriors. The rejection of this superior technology was caused by the Samurai’s belief that it is more honorable to fight and die by the sword or arrow, weapons that take skill and training to wield, than by the bullet of a gun. In America, the Amish reject many technologies, opting to produce less, but be more self supportive. This conscious decision allows the Amish to prevent the difficulties of spending “thousands of dollars on farm machinery, gasoline, and artificial fertilizer.” (Nye, 18) Much earlier in history, when the wheel was the most important invention of the age, North Africa found that it was not so essential. In their sandy, dry, desert climate, they had historically used camels to transport goods across the sand dunes. When the wheel came into use, oxen and horse were used to pull carts; but these animals were not as well adapted to the desert as camels were. It turned out that the camel, an animal that needs less nourishment than an ox or horse, and can travel without the use of roads, was more beneficial to the needs of the traders. Therefore, the wheel, one of the most important technologies of our age, did not have a use in North African culture, and was put aside as an unnecessary technology. These three societies proved that although “things are in the saddle,” (Emerson) they certainly do not “ride mankind.” (Emerson)
If Emerson’s idea of technological determinism were true, than a new technology would have the same effect on all cultures across the globe. This however, is not the case, as is demonstrated by Nye in his example of the television. TV in America is viewed as a positive unifying force that creates positive change for the future. It has “’helped change the Negro into the proud Black,’ has ‘given women an outside view of their incarceration in the home.’” (Nye, 19) Yet this positive social progress that is the outcome of this technology in America is not the same in other cultures. In the certain countries in the Arab world, television is used to strengthen fundamentalism. For example, the satellite television network Al-Manar brings news and entertainment to Lebanon, the country it is based out of, as well as much of the Arab World. Al-Manar says it has “ambitions of participation in building better future for the Arab and Muslim generations by focusing on the tolerant values of Islam… [and is a] true reflection of what each and every Muslim and Arab thinks and believes in.” (Al-Manar) Yet on the front page of its website on 9/12/09, there is a computerized graphic of a burning Star of David in an article about Israel. Anti-Semitism is surely not a view held constant among all Muslims, but television stations like Al-Manar focus on bringing these ideas to the forefront of their society. This use of the technology of television is completely different from its use in America. This proves that it is the humans using the technology, not the technology itself that determine what its use will be.
Contrast to the beliefs of Marx and many of his followers that history is controlled by technology; many prominent figures who do not believe in determinism are mentioned by Nye. One of the mains combatants Nye mentions is Werner Sombart, an economist and sociologist at the turn of the 20th century. He wrote “Technik und Kultur, where he argued that cultures often shaped events more than technologies did.” (Nye, 25) William Obgurn also believed that technology did have an influence, but did not override cultural influence. In general, technology allows for changes of thought and questioning of old ways, yet in the end it is the ideals of the society that decide the future. One final figure mentioned by Nye is Langdon Winner, a student of Marx. He rejected technological determinism in his book Autonomous Technology, making it “easier to think of technologies as socially shaped, or constructed.” (Nye, 30) Winner even argued that Marx was not in fact a determinist, and gave proof that he thought otherwise. Nye uses these scholars as a final basis to refute Emerson’s ideas.
Historical anecdotes, different cultures use of the same technologies in unlike ways, as well as the thoughts of many scholars, show that technological determinism is nothing more than a falsehood. Technologies that I use everyday do help to determine my actions. I use computers to take notes because it is more time efficient than writing. I use a debit card because it is more convenient and safe than carrying around a wad of cash. I drive a car at home, because it is the best way for me to travel longer distances. Yet I choose to use these technologies because they are beneficial to me. When they cease to be beneficial, I stop using them. I have not used a car since coming to Boston because it is easier to walk, which also takes no technology at all. I am very much in control of my use of technology, and will continue to determine my future.


Works Cited

Al-Manar TV. “About Us.” (Sept. 12, 2009)

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing.” (1846) Early Poems of Ralph Waldo Emerson. New York, Boston, Thomas Y. Crowell & Company, 1899

Nye, David E. Technology Matters: Questions to Live With. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2007.


Rough draft paper #3
The world has an unlimited potential carrying capacity. In order to reach a population in the hundreds of billions, or even trillions, all that we would have to do is make some small changes to our lives. All humans would have to become vegetarians, or even find a way to create nutrition directly from sunlight, just like plants do themselves. We would also have to be ok with the idea of limited personal space, because a crowded world means less room to be alone.
Although this fictional future is theoretically possible, it is extremely unlikely. People that I know need their personal space, and definitely would not accept becoming lifelong vegans. Because of our cultural needs, the population of the world will never grow so large. In “Sustainable Abundance or Ecological Crises,” David E. Nye explains that “the world’s carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social construction.” This social construction is the outcome of people’s deemed necessities of certain types of foods and shelter, as well as their wants for the many luxuries of life.
The main thing that a world carrying capacity is scientifically tied too is food production. Without food, people cannot live, therefore creating a population limit. This limit can only be calculated when looking at current available food production, because the way food is produced is constantly changing. Due to technological innovation, farming techniques have been in a constant state of evolution.
The agriculture of the United States began with “pastoral landscapes of irregularly shaped fields [used for] family farming with draft animals.” (89) Farming methods seemed to improve collinearly with the status of settlement further west. Changes to how agriculture was produced, for example John Deere’s innovative steel plow in 1837, improved the ease of farming, and therefore the output that a farmer could produce. By the time American settlers reached the Pacific Ocean the end of the western frontier, farming methods had gone the small family farms of New England, to massive industrialized farms of California. Modern farming involves “electric pumps that water fields…airplanes [that] spray the fields to keep down weed and kill insects, and a combination of high-tech machines.” (90)
Looking at continual trends of the past, it is not difficult to predict that farms will continue to increase production. However, the current trend is not using better equipment to farm larger fields more efficiently, but instead make the fields more efficient themselves. Current biological engineering projects have to do with changing the chemical makeup of the plants themselves, making them grow faster, larger, and healthier. This process has been carried out at a very slow pace for years through selective breeding. Bioengineers cut straight to the chase, changing DNA structure to completely eliminate bad aspects of crops, and increase those aspects that we view as positive. The technological ability to produce more food on less land shows that there is really no limit in sight for the amount of nutrition available to support the human population.
The second aspect that creates a population limit is also a necessity of life: shelter. More so than nutrition, shelter has a lot to do with human culture. In modern America, people think that the larger their shelter or home, the better it is. Theoretically, when the world’s population grows to very large numbers, there will not be enough available land for everyone to have a large house with its own lawn. “If People in dry areas want green lawns and chlorinated swimming pools, there will be less water for irrigation,” (108) as well as less land for farming. This problem is easily solvable, and is already being solved today. All one has to do is look at the culture of Manhattan Island.
With a population density of 71201 people per square mile, it is quite obvious that there is no room for large estates. Modern technology once again solves the problem, and gives us the ability to build not only horizontally, but vertically as well. People living in parts of this city pay more for a small one bedroom apartment than someone living in the countryside would pay for a 5 bedroom house. The culture of city dwellers put less of an emphasis on the size of their shelter, than suburbanites and country dwellers. If the population were to grow dramatically, it is possible that the majority of the countryside would be needed for food production, and all people would be forced to move into cities.
Here is where a cultural limit can be put in place. If people are not willing to move to the city, than the food production cannot grow further, and it will be impossible to support a higher population. Now, the population limit would depend solely on people’s willingness to move to cities; and into shelters that are not on the ground, but instead hundreds of feet in the air.
Human culture regarding shelter is but the first of many cultural decisions that we must make when constructing the population limit. Along with decisions on shelter, our views on whether we can live without certain luxuries also pave the way for a set population limit. One such luxury is our style of clothing. Clothing itself is a necessity, but the way modern culture uses clothing transforms it from a necessity to a luxury. If clothing is meant to keep you warm, than why do people pay extra money for ripped clothes? A lot of clothing is made from nature like cotton and wool. But if the land is needed for food production, cotton production must decrease. “If people want to…wear natural fibers, the world can support fewer people than it can support if people…buy synthetic clothing.” (108)
Every luxury involving large amounts of land must at some point be cut out to make room for the production of food for an ever growing population. Too start with, lands like national parks that we take for granted will eventually be needed for farmland or for city growth. After that, large parks used for sporting fields of all sorts will need to be cut out, and replaced by indoor arenas and fields. Once again, this trend is already occurring in large cities. This trend could continue forever, but eventually will be halted by human decisions. It is only a matter of what we are willing to give up in order to grow as a population.
There is no scientific limit to the capacity of earth that can be found simply by an equation. The carrying capacity is literally unlimited. In order to reach seemingly impossible population levels such as one trillion people, we could not lead lives that we do currently. We would have to change our eating habits, our conceptions of an acceptable amount of personal space, and the amount of luxuries we keep a part of our lives. Carrying capacity is nothing but a temporary, socially constructed idea. As social culture changes, the idea of a carrying capacity will change with it. The number of people that can live on our world in the future is the number that people alive now are willing to permit.