In the discussion of technology, one controversial issue has been whether human beings control their technological creations, or vice versa. On the one hand, Emerson laments that “Things are in the saddle / And ride mankind.” On the other hand, Nye believes that “no technology is, has been, or will be a ‘natural force’.” My own view is that technology controls only those who gamble with it, those who become obsessed with a machine and put all their spirits and hopes in it.
Emerson believes that technology is in control and therefore mankind is subject to its power. There is a fallacy in this logic: correlation does not imply causation. Certainly there is a correlation between the aggressive evolution of technology and the misuse of it. However this is not to say that mankind is not conscious of it, or - for that matter - that technology has acquired some sort of intelligence. Fire did not reach the Earth by itself. Prometheus brought it to mankind. Fire by itself does not exert any power on mankind.
Nye refutes Emerson on similar grounds. He puts forth an interesting example that proves that cultures can make “self-conscious technological choices” (p.19). The Japanese rejected the gun, and the Mennonites reject modern faming equipment as well as many other forms of technology.
Those who discover and develop technology hand it to the rest of the world. Contemporary Prometheus’, Einstein and Nobel, felt betrayed by humans themselves when they saw their inventions be put to harms way. “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity,” lamented Einstein. Essentially he regretted having played with fire for too long. That his research on nuclear energy was distorted to develop the nuclear bomb was not a process where the technology itself radicalized. Someone made that choice quite consciously.
Emerson takes Einstein’s thought even further as he writes “But it runs wild [technology], / And doth the man unking.” However Nye brings up an interesting point: “The tool often exists before the problem to be solved. Latent in every tool are unforeseen transformations” (p.2). Indeed, this process of technological distortion further proves that humans control their technological creations. What they do not control, is in what hands the creation ultimately falls into.
Nye cites Edward Tener’s book Why Things Bite Back to illustrate “the revenge of unintended consequences.” Tener demonstrates how technology can backfire and generate inefficiency. He references a study by the American Manufacturing Association that indicated that “only 43 percent of the firms that tried” optimizing time by computerization raised profits, “and 24 percent actually suffered losses” (p.21). A contemporary example to supports this underlying idea is the Blackberry “smartphone” phenomenon. Research in Motion Limited markets its product as a mobile office platform: Internet connectivity on the go, easy sync with office servers, etc. Millions are sold as a portable secretary that reminds you of meetings and keeps you connected with the business world. Nevertheless, it also generates similar inefficient processes where people are constantly looking down at their phones and replying more-than-not to a non-business text or email during meetings. In short, technology is a tool that does not promise anything and “it appears more reasonable to assume that cultural choices shape their uses” (p.21). Paradoxically, most of the world chooses to become dependent on technology.
While Nye and Emerson dispute on the grounds of technological determinism, they never touch on the idea that humans can be slaves of it.
While technology is a symbol of human imagination, it also tends to contain it. Nowadays, most humans cannot envision a social interaction without Facebook facilitating it. People are spending more time on their computers writing something on another person’s wall than going out to the real world and experiencing social interaction. Whenever people do strike a conversation it starts to sound a lot like an Facebook or MSN chat; monotonous and ruptured. People feel distressed and awkward when they do not have the time to think their responses. Spontaneity goes to die. Although this technology may limit our scope of imagination it does not, and never will acquire the power to control it.
Does this technology called Facebook control human beings? Emerson would agree that this technology is controlling the social sphere. Nye would cite Ogburn who asserts that “a social change is seldom the result of a single invention” (p.26). Regardless of whether Facebook controls humans or not, or whether it was a process of evolution in social behavior, many people are indeed becoming “addicted” to Facebook. It is not that Facebook controls their life. The fact of the matter is that because people feel more lonely now it makes Facebook - a practical social tool - extremely popular.
When we are obsessed with technology, we are automatically enslaved by it. Take for example the Iphone. People entrust so much power in this device that all of a sudden it will make them more efficient, increase their productivity, and enhance their ability to make money, network and access information. Not only that, it soon becomes the only way to do so. The Iphone is simply a tool and not a necessity. The moment we put all of our chips in a tool like the Iphone we risk loosing our power. When the Iphone falls and shatters, we feel we have lost a fundamental component to our success; we fall with it.
Lesson be learned: Prometheus brought light to a dark world. Humans experienced light during night. Also, they distinguished the absence of such light at night. Over time, many humans would suffer from the darkness at night. It must always be remembered that in the beginning, the night was always dark.
No comments:
Post a Comment