e-portfolio for Joshua Kraskin

ROUGH DRAFT OF PAPER 4

Josh Kraskin
WR100 FH
Professor Deese

There was once an astronaut who claimed that if all of the world’s leaders could gaze upon the earth from space, there would be no more war or strife between nations. Indeed, looking at our planet from the heavens would be a profound experience to say the least and would undoubtedly elicit some thought provoking questions. For example, some might ponder the direction in which the human race is headed. If David E. Nye, Carolyn Merchant, and Rachel Carson were to be put in this situation, they would come up with various responses. Nye would claim that man would choose to use technology to make advances in civilization. Merchant would preach that humans must return to ancient and intimate views of nature if we are to survive. Carson would believe in a middle ground in which man must develop and use environmentally sound technologies to live sustainably. I believe that man’s destiny lies in science, and that technology will either be our savior or the cause of our destruction.

David E. Nye, author of Technology Matters, is a professor at the University of Southern Denmark. He has also been a visiting scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a university that is world renowned for its scientific break-throughs. As a historian of technology, Nye has a thorough understanding of the relationship man has had with technology over the centuries. By analyzing and comprehending what has occurred in the past, we are better able to make decisions today and envision what tomorrow will bring. That being said, Nye is convinced that the future of human civilization is interwoven with science. He states that, “technology is not something that comes from outside us; it is not new; it is a fundamental human expression. It cannot easily be separated from social evolution, for the use of tools stretches back millennia, long before the invention of writing. It is hard to imagine a culture that is pre-technological or a future that is post-technological.” (Nye, p. 210) Nye explains that technology has always been a part of us and always will be. Therefore it is safe to assume that Nye would believe in a future in which man and technology have a synergistic relationship. However, he would not make a decisive bet on whether the human race will endure or perish in fifty years. Throughout his essays, Nye stresses the fact that technology itself is not deterministic; instead, the fate of a people is determined by the culture and values of society. For instance, he writes, “People can choose wasteful methods that bring high agricultural yields bust hasten soil erosion. They can build power plants and factories that produce inexpensive but pollute the air, leading to acid rain and deforestation. They can choose to recycle metals or not, to use powerful pesticides such as DDT or not, to allow genetically modified plants into their environment or not. Overall, each culture chooses how large a ‘footprint’ it will leave on the land and whether it will live in limits set by its environment or treat nature as a stock of raw materials.” (Nye, p.213-214) He goes on to state that, “as the variety of human cultures attests, there have always been multiple possibilities, and there seems no reason to accept a single vision of the future.” (Nye, p. 210) Due to the multitude of different cultures that are present across globe that vary greatly from nation to nation, Nye could not make a precise prediction about the future of our species. However, Nye would be certain that there would be a significant role for technology in our future.

Carolyn Merchant, author of Ecological Revolutions, would have a more definitive yet pessimistic view about the future. In Ecological Revolutions, Merchant discusses the transformation of the pristine New England environment, inhabited by Native Americans, into industrialized colonies, dominated by the Europeans. It is made clear at multiple points in her writings that Merchant is against the advancing of harmful technology and wishes to see man return to having a spiritual connection with nature; in her opinion, this is the only way for human to continue existing on this planet. She writes, “to survive we must once again recover the meaning of mimesis, actively making ourselves ‘like’ the environment, not as object, but in the deepest sense of visceral remerging with the earth.” (Merchant, p. 267) Merchant also explains that just being in harmony with nature is not enough; she explains that, “Deep ecologists argue that reform environmentalism is insufficient to deal with the magnitude of global environmental problems. They call for a fundamental transformation in Western epistemology, ontology, and ethics. Deep ecology represents a change from a mechanistic to an ecological consciousness rooted in biospecies equality, appropriate technologies, recycling, and bioregions as ecological homes. The new philosophy is infused with an environmental ethic oriented toward establishing sustainable relations with nature.” (Merchant p. 267) What this means is that we must radically overhaul our current views and policies toward the environment and assume sustainable lifestyles; only then will we be able to assimilate ourselves into nature as our pagan ancestors once did. Merchant would gamble that man’s destiny is bleak if we do not “return to Gaia.” However, if we can accomplish this feat, then we shall prosper in a future where, “humans are neither helpless victims nor arrogant dominators of nature, but active participants in the destiny of the webs of which they are a part.” (Merchant, p. 270)

Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is one of the most influential pieces of writing on modern environmentalism. As an environmental scientist, Carson explores the harmful ramifications of pesticides such as DDT and discusses several sustainable alternatives. While it was her original intention only to warn people about the usage of these hazardous chemicals, the concepts presented in Silent Spring can be applied to many situations that humans face regarding technology and nature. Carson writes, “We stand now where two roads diverge […] The road we have long been traveling is deceptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed, but at its end lies disaster. The other fork of the road—the one ‘less traveled by’—offers our last, our only chance to reach a destination that assures the preservation of our earth.” (Carson, p. 277) Carson is explaining that man has a choice: he can either pollute his environment with toxic artificial substances in hopes of easy economic prosperity; or he can decide to put forth the effort to develop sustainable solutions that will ensure the survival of the earth and its creatures. Therefore, Carson, like Nye, would not be able to make a definitive prediction about the state of the human race in fifty years, since “the choice, after all, is ours to make.” (Carson, p. 277)

As I watch the earth rise from the Lunar Sands Casino, various scenarios of the future storm my mind. They differ greatly; one shows cities in ruins under a perpetually gray sky caused by a nuclear winter, while another depicts humans existing with one another and nature in perfect harmony. While these two visions are on opposite ends of the prophetic spectrum, they are both possible outcomes for the human race. I agree with both Nye and Carson in that there is not one single, definite future; there are far too many choices that lie ahead to accurately prophesize what the next fifty years will bring. However, regardless of whether the world of 2064 will lay in ruins or prosperity, it will be technology that leads us to our fate. Technology has always been a part of being human; nature gave us no other way to survive. We do not have sharp claws or teeth to hunt prey; we are not particularly powerful or fast; we do not have fur to keep us warm or a thick hide to protect us from predators; but what we do have, and what has been the only thing that has kept our species alive and dominant for tens of thousands of years, sits between our ears. We have sharpened spears to hunt prey; we have worked as a team to overcome our individual weakness; we have sewn furs together into clothing so we do not freeze during the winter. Our ability to create objects to solve the issues of survival is our greatest, and possibly our only gift. Therefore, it really is impossible to envision a future society of humans in the absence of technology. Even if we exaggerate Merchant’s wishes of returning to the ways of our primitive ancestors, science would still be present; bows and arrows and teepees were still considered modern technology at one point. As Robert Frost would agree, we stand where two roads diverge; both end in drastically different places, however it is science and technology that will bring us to the either destination.





This video contains many surprising statistics that discuss the increasing use of technology by both younger and older generations.


ROUGH DRAFT OF PAPER ONE

Josh Kraskin

Professor R. S. Deese

WR100

Technological innovation is often considered synonymous with the progression of human civilization. Ever since the first member of the genus Homo, Homo habilis, began to fashion tools from stone, man has continued to manipulate his environment to improve his chances of survival. (David C. Kreger, “Homo Habilis”) While we have come along way in the past two million years, our ability and yearning to create objects that better the quality of life has not been extinguished; nor does it seem that it will do so anytime in the future. While many consider this a positive and constructive notion, there are others who are convinced that technological novelty will ultimately bring about the destruction of mankind.

In “Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing” (1846), Ralph Waldo Emerson expresses feelings of apprehension toward technology. In the first stanza, he writes, “’Tis the day of the chattel,” explaining how we live in an age of material possessions. He then goes on to state, “Things are in the saddle / And ride mankind.” Emerson means that not only are objects above man, but also control us, like a cowboy does a horse. In the second stanza, Emerson continues to describe his trepidation toward human’s increasing dependence upon technology and tangible possessions. He writes, “There are two laws discrete […] Law for man, and law for thing; […] The last builds town and fleet / But it runs wild / And doth the man unking.” Emerson is explaining how there are fundamental and separate “laws” for both man and machine; while he does not elucidate upon the laws of man, he states that although technology “builds town and fleet,” it is uncontrollable and will eventually abolish mankind’s dominance on the earth.

David E. Nye discusses several valid points about technological determinism throughout “Does Technology Control Us?” Technological determinism is the belief that the spread and adoption of technological innovation is inevitable. Nye provides several examples that refute both technological determinism and Emerson’s lament that “Things are in the saddle / And ride mankind.” For instance, Nye describes how Japan was first introduced to firearms in the 16^th century. Not only did guns prove successful in battle, but also the Japanese were able to manufacture them efficiently. Yet as powerful and practical as the firearms were, the Japanese chose not to adopt the technology. (Nye, 17) Nye also gives a modern example by discussing the Amish and Mennonites. He explains that these groups “do not permit any device to be used before they have carefully evaluated its potential impact on the community.” (Nye, 18) Because feudal Japan and the Amish were isolated physically and socially, respectively, they were able to resist new technologies that have had profound impacts on other cultures. (Nye, 18) Both of these examples disprove Emerson’s statement; just because a useful technology or “thing” is introduced to a society does not mean it will reign supreme and “ride mankind.” (Emerson)

Despite Nye’s arguments against technological determinism, he does discuss several cases in which determinism does seem plausible. Nye explains how in certain nations television is “strengthening fundamentalism.” (Nye, 19) In places like China and parts of the Middle East, television is censored and is often used as a medium to brainwash citizens into taking up certain beliefs. In these countries, it seems that technology is indeed in control of man, or “in the saddle.” (Emerson) However, Nye writes, “In the United States, television is secular, not religious; private, not public; funded by advertising, not taxation; and a conduit of primarily entertainment, not education.” (Nye, 19) Therefore it is not technology acting on its own to control mankind, but instead it is man that is using technology to further his own agenda. Nye also touches upon that “technological determinism is widely accepted in individualistic societies that embrace laissez-faire economics.” (Nye, 18) While it may seem that “television or the Internet was ‘inevitable’” (Nye, 18), it was merely that we live in a capitalist society where “most consumers, given the chance, will buy [new technologies].” (Nye, 18) Nye is proving that these technologies were not unstoppable forces, but simply popular commodities that were readily and cheaply available. This argument further refutes Emerson’s view of objects as dominant over man.

Living in the 21^st century, I come into contact with technology at almost every moment of the day. Every morning I awake to the infuriating buzz of my alarm clock. I then check my cell phone to see if anyone had called or text messaged me while I was sleeping. Next, I make my way to the bathroom to make use of the indoor plumbing. After taking a hot shower provided by the water heater in the basement of the building, I boot up my laptop and check the weather to help determine my attire for the day (unfortunately I am unable to admit that I can access the internet without checking my facebook as well). I then head to the first floor via the stairs, as an (non-life-threatening) elevator ride is a luxury in Sleeper Hall. Once safely in the lobby I head to the cafeteria; however, not before my BU Terrier Card is swiped into the computer system and a meal point is deducted from my account. I could continue listing my accounts with technology as the day progressed, but that would just be obnoxious. Needless to say, technology is very much integrated with almost everything we do in today’s world. However, I never feel as if it defines who I am. While I do enjoy playing video games or watching television every so often, one of my favorite things is just to go for a walk in the woods, or sit outside and play the guitar. Despite the growing popularity of electronics, there will always be those who take pleasure from activities that have been enjoyed for centuries.

Moore’s Law, theorized by Gordon Moore in 1965, co-founder of Intel, states that, “the number of transistors that can be fit onto a square inch of silicon doubles every 12 months.” (Jon Stokes, “Classic.Ars: Understanding Moore’s Law”) This means that computer processors are increasing in power and speed at an exponential rate. There is no way that civilization is going to escape technology; but I don’t believe that we are at its mercy. Due to the incredible capabilities that machines will have in the near future, technological innovation will have to be strictly regulated in order for humans to stay in control. However, if man is responsible and can control what he creates, then we are in complete control of our technological destinies.

Work Cited

Emerson, Ralph W. Early Poems of Ralph Waldo Emerson. New York, Boston: Thomas Y. Cromwell & Company, 1846. Print.

Kreger, C. David. "Homo habilis." Archaeology Info. Web. 14 Sept. 2009.

Nye, David E. Technology Matters Questions to Live With. New York: The MIT, 2007. Print.

Stokes, Jon. "Classic.Ars: Understanding Moore's Law." Ars Technica. Web. 14 Sept. 2009.