e-portfilio for Lydia Hausle

Lydia Hausle

Draft for paper 4

To The Left

We have a choice. I suppose one leads us to the left, and the other to the right, and given the circumstances, it is necessary to pick the “right” road. We have disheveled this earth; littered it with soot and ashes, built grandiose cities and roads, as well as cars to be driven on those roads. Some say we are past the point of no return. Others believe we stand at a point in history where adjustments must be made if the human race is to endure. We have a choice; continue as we have, or change. Robert Frost, in his poem, The Road Not Taken, describes a road that splits into two, leaving him with the task of taking either one route or the other. “I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.”[1] In terms of the current state of our earth, the road less traveled by represents territory unexplored by humans; sources of renewable energy, effort to reduce our carbon footprint, and most importantly, a less consumerist mindset. In the same way that shying away from any kind of conformity is difficult, leaving behind a way of life that has been ingrained into our lifestyles for many centuries, and moving towards a greener, more efficient, better earth is going to be a severely harsh task.

Many, many people have long pondered what our responsibility is, and what we owe to our earth. David E. Nye, Carolyn Merchant, Ted Nordhaus, and Michael Shellenberger have published their separate opinions about where our earth stands now, and which “road” is the best choice now.

“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.”[2] David E. Nye would say that the difference between the two paths human kind can follow resides in the approach humans take towards technology. We can either chose to believe that our future is technologically determined, or that we have control over how the technology we create can be used to restore our earth by as a culture, deciding to live a certain way.. “As the variety of human cultures attest, there have always been multiple possibilities, and there seems to be no reason to accept a single version of the future.”[3] That said, Nye explores possible remedies to our current environmental issues.

“It is hard to imagine a culture that is pre-technological or a future that is post-technological.”[4] Because of this, Nye’s suggestions to push humanity towards a more environmentally conservative lifestyle are mostly technological, or involve methods of better incorporating technology into the lives of all people. Our current congressional branch is technologically illiterate. Nye offers a suggestion; incorporate scientists and engineers onto the staff, or create an advisory panel to assist in decision making on a national level. The problem, Nye suggests, is not that the technology we have lacks potential for environmental gain, but rather that nobody in power has any knowledge about what options are available. A second problem he addresses is the lack of transportation options, specifically in the United States. Because of the way our society is set up, cars are the most logical answer to our transportation needs, however, they are not efficient. Nye says that this is a cultural choice, one that is further destroying our earth. Bikes, walking, busses, and trains are all more efficient modes of transportation, however, they are not readily available in the suburbs, where the majority of the population reside. Even cars that are more efficient could be used by a far greater number of the population. However, certain aspects of society prevent such changes from occurring. For example, a great majority of the population do not have the financial means to go out and buy a Hybrid. The wealthy alone can not handle the burden of repairing the entire earth. Nye states that in order to counter that, improved living standards for the poor must be in place if there is to be incentive for the whole population to contribute to a better earth.

A third problem is the consumerist mindset that encompasses much of western civilization. Our per capita consumption is outrageous. Therefore, there seems to be a very simple solution to the problem; consume less. However, there is a considerable amount of doubt surrounding the idea that Americans are ready to do so. Therefore, Nye suggests that the technologies of the future will represent both the needs of the environment, as well as the values of the people consuming them. “Each new machine emerges from and is shaped by the time, the community, and the place of its making.”[5] If the universal ambition could be to move towards a more eco-friendly style of living, it is reasonable to assume that the technologies that would come out of such an era would reflect those values. “By refusing to let any ensemble of objects define our world as already given, we can continue to choose how technology matters.”[6] We need to assume this kind of mind set if anything is going to change for the better.

Carolyn Merchant would approach the metaphor of the two roads in Robert Frost’s poem a bit differently. One path would represent the current homocentric ethic, and the other an ecocentric ethic. The homocentric ethic consists of the belief in natural rights; that “each individual uses non-human nature to maximize his or her self interest.”[7] Continuing down such a path would certainly lead the human race to an uninviting place far past the point of no return.

The second path Merchant suggests is one where humans view non-human nature as a kind of equal, not to be exploited by humans for economic gain. Such a significant transformation in out beliefs would require global social and economic revolutions. “Nevertheless, the possibility exists that such a global ecological revolution may be occurring.”[8] Merchant holds a firm belief in the idea that cultural consciousness is what is going to save or destroy the future of the earth. The change in consciousness would include, but is in no way limited to reducing or eliminating capitalism, reducing rates of human reproduction, and efforts to conserve energy. When combined, according to Merchant, these efforts would reintegrate culture with nature, representing a new reality. “Through the social construction of a new reality, future generations may learn a worldview that is nonmechanistic.”[9]

Had Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger stood at the crossroads described in Frost’s poem, one road would represent a dramatic, unwelcoming nightmare of a trail, and the other a slightly less forbidding, but still complicated path. The first encompasses what would happen to the earth if humans are too scared or too uninformed to do anything about the environment as it stands now. The other is far more complicated, but the end results are much more rewarding.

The second road requires a wealth of reform. It would require change in terms of politics, economics, and in technology. Concerning politics, Nordhaus and Shellenberger argue that the tactics used by those seeking environmental change are severely outdated. “Our unprecedented wealth and freedom have profoundly changed what we care about, aspire to, and believe in, so it’s no wonder that the old political and moral fault lines no longer apply.”[10] By cutting their arguments so thinly and with such specific complaints, environmentalists have failed to express solutions to problems that are incapable of being put into action. The desires of environmentalists, argue Nordhaus and Shellenberger, need to be more broadly based if anything is ever going to change. “Nothing is more central to this book than our contention that for any politics to succeed, it must swim with, not against, the currents of changing social values.”[11] A second political remedy that Nordhaus and Shellenberger propose would be the formation of a union based on shared global investment, much like the one formed in the post World War II era. If countries like the United States, China, and India could ban together and pull resources to better all involved countries, the environmental affects could be extremely positive.

Nordhaus and Shellenberger stress the importance of economics in terms of its impact on the environmental movement. “Environmentalists… have tended to view economic growth as the cause but not the solution to ecological crisis.”[12] For example, investment in clean energy jobs, research, and transit would all boost economic growth while simultaneously pushing the earth in a “green” direction. The problem we face is that people with money are afraid to invest in something that has so little history. However, with the condition of the earth sinking lower and lower each day, dollars are flowing into an environmental bank. “The story of America as an innovative nation, the increasing importance of high-tech research and development, and the role of strategic public investment have all emerged as key talking points for anyone concerned about global warming or energy independence.”[13]

Like Nye, Nordhaus and Shellenberger hold a strong belief in the role technology will play in the future. “There is simply no way we can achieve 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions without creating breakthrough technologies that do not pollute.”[14] With the combined interests of both Nye, Nordhaus, and Shellenberger, much ground could be made towards a more eco-friendly lifestyle on a global front. Merchant’s view is highly optimistic and somewhat naïve. To believe that the entirety of the human race is even slightly inclined to reform their way of thinking on nearly every front is highly unrealistic. While it is arguable that Nye and Merchant may agree about some of the problems we’re facing, specifically how capitalism encourages the harsh use of the environment for natural resources, their solutions are based in entirely different schools of thought. While some may find truth in the idea that how we think and what we believe to be true holds some weight with the environment, the vast majority needs something solid to believe in; science and technology perhaps.

---

[1] Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken and Other Poems, Dover, 1993, pg. 1

[2] David E. Nye, Technology Matters: Questions to live with, Cambridge, the MIT press, 2007, pg 214

[3] David E. Nye, Technology Matters: Questions to live with, Cambridge, the MIT press, 2007, pg 210

[4] David E. Nye, Technology Matters: Questions to live with, Cambridge, the MIT press, 2007, pg 210

[5] David E. Nye, Technology Matters: Questions to live with, Cambridge, the MIT press, 2007, pg 211

[6] David E. Nye, Technology Matters: Questions to live with, Cambridge, the MIT press, 2007, pg 226

[7] Merchant, Carolyn. Ecological revolutions nature, gender, and science in New England. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1989, pg 263

[8] Merchant, Carolyn. Ecological revolutions nature, gender, and science in New England. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1989, pg 264

[9] Merchant, Carolyn. Ecological revolutions nature, gender, and science in New England. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1989, pg 265

[10] Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007, pg 4

[11] Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007, pg 6

[12] Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007, pg 6

[13] Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007, pg 11

[14] Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007, pg 15

Paper 3

When I was told to read A Clockwork Orange, I knew that our class would hold multiple discussions about the possible meaning of Anthony Burgess’ work. Never with literature are we trained to believe that there is a definite “answer” to the book’s meaning or purpose. However, when learning the laws of physics, I was told with no hesitation that F=ma. I was not asked to question whether the equation was right or wrong. It was just accepted as true. Through our schooling, we are brought up to falsely believe that science and math are black and white subjects, with a right and wrong answer. Had we really been paying attention, however, we would have known better. They teach us the scientific method at a very young age. The definition of the scientific method is “a method of procedure consisting of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[1] The last part of that definition is particularly important because it calls for the modification of hypotheses. That clause clearly implies that scientific theories are never done being tested and never done changing when found false. In their separate works, both David E. Nye and Carolyn Merchant strive to point out that science is never fact, but socially constructed according to the time. This is because all scientific breakthroughs will eventually produce a social situation in which science must rise to solve the problem. Therefore, as science continues to adapt to fit the needs of society, the new problems it creates will forever perpetuate further change.

The arguments that Nye and Merchant make about science both stem from the same idea; that science is socially constructed. Both, at some point or another, use the words “socially constructed” to describe science. However, their arguments split from each other based on the subject matter. While Merchant is concerned primarily with ecology, Nye concentrates on human sustenance.

“Ecology is a particular twentieth century construction of nature relevant to the concerns of environmental historians.”[2] From page four, Merchant points out that entire fields of science stem from the changes brought about by previous scientists. The field she is concerned with, ecology, is relatively new and has already changed so much in its short-lived time. She argues that these changes are the effect of what is believed to be “reality” at a certain point in history. For example, when Native Americans had control of the New England land, their reality was animism. Every earthly object and creature had a soul that had to be considered. Therefore, while the environment was used for sustenance, it was never abused and there was a respect between human and non-human nature. However, when colonists began to settle, their reality was different. Their reality was mainly concerned with God. The puritans used the written word of God to legitimize agriculture and development of the land. Merchant argues that the land served as a religious metaphor where land represented the wild and uncontrollable Eve and that men must provide salvation through control. Because of the omnipotent belief in God throughout society, the ecology of the area changed. It changed again when capitalism began to replace the puritan way of life. Capitalism’s reality is money. This reality called for the complete management and control of nature. As capitalism expanded, and continues to expand, science is constantly being redesigned. When capitalism dictated that slaves needed to be more efficient, science built the cotton gin. When transportation by foot became ridiculous, science made the car. Society is responsible for how science is established and re-established throughout the course of history.

Nye’s primary focus is how science is readily changed to sustain the cultural choices of humans. “People continually put the land to new uses, and what appears to be natural to one generation of people is often the product of struggle during a previous generation.”[3] For example, when I look outside my window, the looming buildings and bright lights, as well as the loud trains and beeping cars are nothing but background. However, those buildings and cars represent a long stretch of time filled with scientific and technologic advancement. Nye’s argument is that because we have built a society that chooses to ride in trains and work from skyscrapers, science must constantly change so that the earth can sustain our culture. The fossil fuels are running out, and when they do, society will pressure science into constructing an alternate form of energy. Even at the expense of our earth, we are not inclined to redefine cultural values. People are largely disinterested in lowering a standard of living, and because our standard of living depends so heavily on the rape of the environment, science must adapt. Thomas Carlyle claimed that, “Men are grown mechanical in head and in heart, as well as in hand. They have lost faith in individual endeavor, and in natural force of any kind.”[4] The irony is that while the scientific advancements made are meant to better our quality of life, they in fact force us to live a certain way, eliminating a part of our autonomy.

While the bulk of their writings take separate paths, Merchant and Nye both believe that science is constructed by society. Both provide ample examples of the ways in which science has changed for the sake of society. However, Nye’s argument is far more solid. Much of Merchant’s book is littered with feminism, which often clouds the main argument. For example, when she mentioned the Bible and the Puritans “taming” the land, much of her personal opinion about the implications the practice had on women forced her away from the original argument. For mainly this reason, Nye prevailed with a more dominant argument. In addition to that, Nye goes further into how humanity, not just science, is being greatly affected by the constant demands society places on science.

Even after writing this essay, I have trouble accepting the fact that in the future, the science I know to be “true” may change. Science is a practice that is so readily depended on, and the idea that it is merely a collection of theories that may or may not be true is highly uncomforting. Unfortunately, this particular subject is the kind that makes a person sit back and question what in the world, if anything, can be trusted.

---

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

So, I realize that this video isn't directly about education, however, it is about information, and education is about information. Therefore, this video is relevant to how technology is effecting education. The video hits a couple of key points. Firstly, the video begins with a type writer. It is blurry, symbolizing how old methods of relaying information are less effective than new ones. Secondly, it points out how many different way we can access information because of technological advancements; we are no longer bound to books, encyclopedias, newspapers, etc. "we can rethink information beyond material constraints". The end of the video points out the responsibilities we acquire from having immeasurable information at our fingertips; the responsibility to "harness", "create", "critique", "organize", and "understand". Education is about harnessing, creating, critiquing, organizing, and understanding information in a specific context. Technology is paving the way for us to do just that more efficiently and effectively than ever before.

A study done in 2005 at Ball State University showed that an average of nine hours daily are spent using some kind of media[1]. Cell phones are glued to the palms of teenagers globally, while Facebook and Twitter demand our constant monitoring. Nine hours out of a twenty-four hour day is a considerable amount of time to allocate to anything, whether it be reading, chatting with friends, or surfing the World Wide Web. What were these nine hours spent doing before the widespread use of hand held devices? Is it a problem? Could the human race reverse this cultural obsession, and if so, do we want to? These questions apply not only to the technology of today, but to all-time. When man used two sticks to create fire, a technological advancement was made. The same goes for the use of the cotton gin, the coffee grinder, and any other major or obscure invention. As the use of these inventions became more of a necessity than a luxury and advancements on the bare inventions were made, dependency formed. This dependency is the cause of unrest among many people. In an era of near constant technological development, it is imperative that the human race considers that alternative to empowering us, technology may in fact leave us powerless.

Ralph Waldo Emerson was, for the greater part of his boyhood, raised by his Aunt Mary. She instilled in him potent opinions about nature, creating a platform for Emerson’s work as an adult. She preached the importance of a harmonious relationship with nature and was overtly skeptical of city life[2]. Much of Emerson’s work epitomizes these ideas. In his Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing, Emerson explores the relationship between man and his inventions. “The last [thing] builds town and fleet, but it runs wild, and doth man unking”[3]. While Emerson does not reject the idea that technology creates marvelous things, he asserts that our technologies, grand as they are, control us. Man created the town and armies, the television and computer, the hammer and screw. Now, after their creation, their demands prioritize above the desires of humans. The analogy that Emerson used to best embody this idea is that of the saddle. “Things are in the saddle, and ride mankind”[4]. Emerson clearly believes that not only are humans controlled by their creations, they are in fact pushed into a life of servitude by them. Technology, Emerson claims, is man’s burden.

In the short passage from the poem, Emerson presents a one sided opinion about technology’s relationship with mankind. David E. Nye, however, has 226 pages to discuss the in depth mechanics of a world coping with the rapid growth of technology in his book, Technology Matters. In his second chapter, “Does Technology Control Us”, he presents information and abundant examples of how researchers have come to believe or reject the idea of technological determinism. He approaches the research results far more objectively than Emerson, and therefore complicates the idea that technology is tyrannical, as Emerson suggests.

Determinism suggests that technology is inevitable; that humans today could not live without the technologies forged yesterday. In accordance with that, Nye offers the image of a world without the light bulb or cars. It is true that such a place seems highly unrealistic. It is simply a fact that keeping pace with the way we work, communicate, and entertain ourselves could not be maintained by anything less than a world of cell phones, airplanes, and iPods. However, Nye also supplies examples of how societies have rejected a technology and managed to keep up with the rest of the world just fine. For instance, the Amish rejection of technology, and the Japanese rejection of guns when they were first incorporated into weaponry. Although the Amish community is relatively miniscule in comparison to the billions of people in the world, they still live today as modestly as possible. As for the Japanese, they cannot be blamed for eventually protecting themselves from the heavily armed west.

The most controlling aspect of technology is it’s potential for growth. Nye points out that most inventions are created with a narrow purpose in mind. However, humans manage to manipulate just about everything to fulfill multiple functions. First, Edison invented the light bulb. Today, that technology has grown in ways that no one could predict. Cities now glow at night. Often times, as Nye emphasizes, humans find use for a technology that may be completely unrelated to the device’s original purpose. For example, the telegraph, originally used to communicate for military purposes, was the basis for all telephones to come, as well as other modes of communication. The potential for seemingly obscure inventions to become highly useful in every day life has become intoxicating to humans, which may contribute to a belief that technology does indeed have a firm grip on humans.

However, Nye, and most other researchers reject the idea of technological determinism[5]. Alternative to that, Nye states, “In short, rather than assuming that technologies are deterministic, it appears more reasonable to assume that cultural choices shape their uses.”[6] David E. Nye is no liar. We choose to live in a society that is obsessed with being in the now, being the best, and being the most socially renowned. It’s not so much laziness that forces humans to submit to technology, but the convenience factor. “Specialists… readily agree that people are often reluctant to give up conveniences.”[7] These machines that we build must be kept as aides to assist us in life, and mustn’t grow to be better versions of people. This is the problem we’re facing today.

Emerson proposes a single idea about technology, which Nye expands on in his book. I cannot agree with Emerson, for a number of reasons. We are the literal creators of machines. Without humans, they would not exist. The opposing argument would then be that humans are in complete control of technology. I cannot agree with that either, because as above stated, human nature will always drive us to make better, quicker versions of already existing inventions. At this point in history, it is true that we need technology, and technology needs us. When I see a machine paint a Sistine Chapel, or write a poem professing love for another, I will accept that technology holds the reins. Until then, the best we can do is maintain a fragile, but crucial balance.