Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Video Upload
e-portfolio for Santiago Roel
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.
e-portfolio for Dev Sethi
¡±á����������������>��þÿ ���������������>����������@������þÿÿÿ����=���ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á�5@ ��ð¿������0�������Ü���bjbjÏ2Ï2������������������ �"*��X��X��Ü������������������������������ÿÿ���������ÿÿ���������ÿÿ�����������������ˆ�����6������6��6������6������6������6������6�������������J������Ò������Ò������Ò������Ò�� ���î��L���J������¼��ò���F������F������F������F������F������!������!������!������;�����=������=������=������=������=������=��$���®��R��� ��N���a���������������������6����������������������������!������!������������������a��������������6������6������F��������������F��Û���v�����¹������¹������¹��������’��6������F������6������F������;��������������¹������������������������������������������������������������;������¹�����¹��������������Ç������6������6��������������������������������������������������������������Ç������F������:��
��� ž¦÷XÊ��������Ò������±��‚���Ç��������������G��ô���Œ��0���¼������Ç������N ������3��p���N ������Ç��������������J������J������6������6������6������6��������������Ç�����N ��������������6������Û��l���!��Z���{��@���¹������»��4���ï��0����������������������������������!������!������!������a������a������J������J��„��Î
������������£�����J������J������Î
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������SHARES
Friday, September 25, 2009
e-portfolio for Abdulaziz Al-Awadhi
Section: I4
Technology: Controlee or Controller
No one can deny that technology is heavily intermeshed into every society. We are all affected by technology even when doing the simplest things like driving to work or having a cup of coffee. Recently, there has been a hot debate over technology and the methods through which it continues to grow. In the discussion of technology, one controversial issue has been whether or not technology has grown to control us. In his poem, Emerson sends a message that is quite familiar to the public. Emerson chooses to take the conventional deterministic point of view on technology. On the other hand, Nye strongly refutes Emerson’s argument in his essay. Nye chooses to argue that technology is not at all deterministic; it is our culture and attitudes that shape technology and its effects on society. I believe that Nye is oversimplifying the issue by choosing to argue an extreme side of the argument. I believe that the answer to this issue lies closer to Emerson’s point of view. Although our cultures shape technology, we really have no control over the collaborative effects of cultures. Thus I believe that technology does indeed control us.Both Nye and Emerson believe that economy is important to mankind and that it is an essential part of technology. The writers begin to differ in their opinions when it comes to the way this technology is used and the ways through which it comes to exist. In his poem, Emerson makes it quite clear that he believes that mankind is controlled by technology. He conveys this in his quote: “things are in the saddle, and ride mankind”. Emerson claims that things are predetermined, and that mankind is to be controlled. By Nye’s words, Emerson would be a believer in technological determinism. Nye holds a very strong view against determinism. He believes that technology is a “tool” and not a “force”. He goes on to state that technology will never be a force. It is for this reason that statements such as, “the internet will create peace” are absurd. Although it is true that the Internet is not a force and will never create peace, I think that Nye has failed to understand the objective of the Internet. The Internet’s, means was to spread information across the world. Nye confuses information with understanding. Just because the Internet spreads information, does not entail that it must spread understanding. Understanding comes from the people that are receiving the information, not the medium through which they received it. Thus, Nye’s argument that the Internet is not a force because it does not spread understanding and peace is really not a valid one because this was not the goal of the Internet to start with.
In his essay, Nye mentions the Japanese and their ability to block out the technology of guns due to cultural clashes. Nye uses this example to show how much power culture has on technology. However, Nye later admits that the technology of guns eventually made its way into Japan. In a sense, Nye is contradicting his own argument. He states that a culture can shape technology and choose to reject it all together. His example, however, shows that technology will eventually make its way into a society regardless of the culture. I agree that culture has the power to shape technology. The mistake Nye makes is viewing the world as a single entity with a single culture. From his example, one may see that the culture of a single country cannot dictate technology, at least not for too long. This is because the cultures of countries around that single culture also have some power over technology. So, a single culture can be forced into a technology by the cultures surrounding it. So, although cultures have a definite effect on technology, no single culture has sole control. The control is shared between so many cultures, that it is ultimately lost. If we choose to look at technology like a ship, culture would be the captain of that ship. However, if the ship had hundreds of captains, no one captain is really in control. The control is lost.
In his essay “Does Technology Control Us?” Nye also talks about the possible consequences of technology. He depicts an example of this in computerization. Computerization was attempted by many companies in an effort to save money by making the system more efficient. However, computerization actually caused some companies to lose profit, when it was “sculpted” to increase profit. This again goes against Nye’s argument. This example shows that technologies can have unprecedented consequences and this goes to show that we do not control technology to the extent that Nye argues. This may even imply that technology controls us. Nye also makes references to Marcuse and Roszak who state that technology is the “machine of the state” which is used to enslave the people. And that it was the government that was making all the decisions on the route that technology would take. These decisions made by the government would be concealed by “technocracy”. There is, however, no coherent evidence presented to support this extreme statement. This, I think, is another loophole in Nye’s argument.
In conclusion, it can be seen that Nye and Emerson choose to argue opposite ends of the spectrum. Nye chooses to argue that technology is groomed by society and culture, and that its control over humans is limited. Emerson on the other hand, argues that technology and the “law of things” dictate what we do, and that we have little or even no control over our lives. My own view is closer to that of Emerson’s. Although technology is great influenced by cultures, we have no control over cultures as a group. We can thus only exert a very small amount of influence on technology. Sometimes, we may even be controlled by it.
Word Count: 987
Works cited:
Emerson, Ralph W. Early Poems of Ralph Waldo Emerson. New York, Boston: Thomas Y. Cromwell & Company, 1846. Print.
Nye, David E. Technology Matters Questions to Live With. New York: The MIT, 2007. Print.
e-portfolio for Sebastian Shrady
Sebastian Shrady
WR100
The Neo-human or the role of technology in the future of mankind
For this essay to have reached your hands, numerous technological processes have been used, such as paper manufacturing, transportation, or printing. Technology is in our lives much more than we think, it has connected the world, improved quality of life, and made a lot of things easier. It is seen by most as the future, as "the motor of change that [pushes] society towards the future", but is technology really as positive as people believe? Or will it's consequences end up tearing us down? Emerson believes technology is almighty and powers over man. "Things are in the saddle and ride mankind." In this sentence, Emerson states the basic idea behind his essay: that technology dominates us. That it is like we live in ignorance and permanently believe is it us who ride the saddle, not able to come to terms with the fact that we will always be the horse. Contrary to Emerson, Nye believes it is the decisions we make as individuals, as a society, and ultimately as a species that influence technology's place in our lives. It is only as prevalent as our cultures and choices make it. I believe there is a balance between these great men's ideologies. I believe technology in the right hands can ultimately bring mankind to a new level of prosperity, peace, and harmony. As a species we have made mistakes that threaten everyone and everything around us, and I believe it just takes a small group of brilliant minds to come up with the solutions, and a small group of strong and righteous ones to apply them. Will the world finally follow the select few who have understood how to use technology for our species' advancement, or are we doomed to chaos by humanity's ignorance?
This image of the mainstream ignorance that accompanies technology is indicated in the last sentence of the excerpt, in which Emerson states that the "laws for thing" "doth the man unking". The more powerful advances are, the bigger and more complicated problems become, leading to an endless cycle in which the can only be one victor, and it shall not be man. In trying to find bigger and better ways to gain something, people realize just how far they are from this end, and they realize they have lived the illusion like many before them, just to be unkinged like many before them. Emerson clearly thinks that man is at technology's mercy. "and ride mankind" sums up his idea that despite man's efforts, it falls victim of it's own creations. This bears much similarity with the novel Frankenstein or the modern Prometheus, by Mary Shelley, in which an ambitious man's ungodly creation turns against him. We try to advance, and take jump without knowing what's on the other side. Although we may not fully understand something, or its consequences, our desire for control, or fulfillment makes us do it anyway. "Technology is only an instrument and man does not always know how to use it" illustrates perfectly what Emerson states in the ninth and tenth lines of his excerpt. Man rushes to advance as fast as possible in order to gain control of everything around him, and yet he cannot keep up with the speed with which he is advancing. The Marxist thought is very similar to this as well. It states that although man's intentions are always for modernization, and facilitation of the human quality of life, there are always unintended consequences that do just the opposite. A quicker method or machine should theoretically give the worker more spare time, so he can have a more tranquil day while improving the quality of his work. The opposite happens, as the mentality becomes "the quicker you can go, the more you can do" . So new technologies actually make worker's lives harder. Scientific and technological advances seem to be steering us not toward the utopia that evolutionary socialists describe, but rather toward a state of unhappiness, exploitation, and an ignorant and selfish desire for supremacy that will slowly but steadily descend us into chaos. We have seen the future that this road steers us towards in movies such as "Terminator", where the machines that men create turn against them, much like Frankenstein. These are obviously exaggerations, but the message they send is a very real and truthful one.
Nye is in disaccord with Emerson. He doesn't believe in such as thing as an inevitable technology, he believes technology has the place in our society that we let it have. "Rather than assuming that technologies are deterministic, it appears more reasonable to assume that cultural choices shape their uses." Thus, a technology is as necessary as our desire for it is strong. Guns, automobiles, and wheels are some of numerous examples of technologies that many would consider absolutely imperative, and yet that others saw as useless due to certain cultural differences, "awareness of particular tools or machines does not automatically force a society to adopt them or to keep them."
Nye, who says that "no technology is, has been, or will be a "natural force."" Humans have used technology mostly to mimic some natural phenomenon, such as flight, speed, or even floating on water, but no matter how many advances, he claims man will never reach nature's level, let alone surpass it. Our desire to achieve this led to a huge increase in technological advances that immediately "seemed to proliferate more rapidly than the political means to govern it." Here he is contradicting himself, for he is saying that technology was already starting to gain control over us. However, Nye still believes it is up to individual societies to accept or reject it regardless of how the rest of the world acts. He gives an example of this with the Japanese rejection of guns.
Marxists coincide with Nye on this, when they "criticized how capitalists use technical systems, but not industrialization itself." Nye thus emphasizes again how culture and technology are related, how "civilization is a complex of interconnections between social institutions and customs on the one hand, and technology and science on the other." He believes that even though there are mechanical inventions that spark change in our lives, there are also very powerful "social inventions" that have a big impact, even to the point where they have triggered mechanical inventions. This capacity of societies to dominate technology and dictate its influence on them is the basis of Nye argument. It is thus us who dominate technology, and not the opposite.
I, however, do not believe this. I am of a different frame of mind than Emerson and Nye, and think that technology is the answer to the world's problems. I have seen how it has been misused though, and how human nature has prevented it from reaching it's potential. "Modern society's vast ensemble of techniques [has]become self-engendering and [has] accelerated out of humanity's control." However, I sincerely believe technology has the ability to fix the problems humanity has created, and lead mankind to that utopia. We have reached a point,a threshold, in which we cannot, like some suggest, steadily eliminate technology from our lives. It is too late for that. Until now, technological creations have dominated us. We have fallen victims to it's appeal. It's capacity to make us less active and our lives easier is one that it's in our nature to desire. We, as a species, are lazy, and any form of technology that permits us to do less with the same results becomes "necessary". The telegraph, telephone, cellphone, pager, instant message, all allow us to be in contact with people without having to go through the process of visiting or even having to hand-write a letter. I constantly see the most idiotic inventions that serve no purpose other than creating more unnecessary comforts. Unfortunately, even though it's a complete waste of resources and money, it seems to be what the people want. And it is that ignorance exactly that is dooming mankind. People do not realized the severity of our current situation. They don't believe we are in a crisis, despite all the warnings. It seems insane that some people would lie about something of this magnitude just because it's in their political or economical interest to do so. At this point for people to have such twisted priorities is pathetic, and disgusting. These people cannot be allowed to have a say in the future of our kind. There is a very small group of men and women who are capable of having technology reach its full potential. They are different, in a way more advanced, than the rest of the population;they have "evolved", and have the ability to overcome their human nature in order to survive. This group of neo-humans understand the fine balance that exists between technology and the rest of the world, including mankind. Not only do they understand it, they live their lives governed by the true fact that, were this balance to continue to be undone, it would bring destruction. This group, who lives in harmony with technology and what surrounds them, are who must lead us. I agree with the "writers on the left" that Nye talks about when they claim "the only possible antidote to be a dramatic shift in consciousness." And yet, the world isn't showing signs of change. We are in a crisis situation, more severe than people seem to realize, and in such a crisis democracy doesn't work. We are past the point of seeking everyone's personal well-being. A system must be set in place that guides us toward and maintains a society in which technology can reach it's full potential and our species can thrive, and this group must do it. We are at a juncture, and we must decide, for the greater good of mankind and everything that surrounds us, to abandon some freedoms in order to preserve others. There are societies that have thrived while being in an authoritarian system, like the Amish: "Their leaders decide such matters, rather than leaving each individual to choose in the market" , and others who have set one in place in an emergency situation, like Ancient Rome (which is the origin of the word "dictator").
Dean Kamen is a famous inventor, and personal idol, who in my opinion represents the answer to the world's technological problems. He is a neo-human. His corporation, called DEKA, is a center that promotes innovation only in the realm of "helping the world". It is a place where great minds get together to find solutions to some of the world's difficulties. Although they easily could, they don't invent items that are marketable yet useless, only ones that will do some good. That is exactly what mankind needs to finally reach it's potential. This is what the world needs to become that utopia in which mankind doesn't try to surpass nature, but learns to live in perfect harmony with it.
PAPER 2: Measuring an Argument Against Your Own Experience
Rough Draft Composed in Class Friday, 10/2
Second Draft Due in Class 10/14
Third Draft Due for Evaluation & Critique of Interim Portfolio on 11/6
Final Draft Submitted with Interim Portfolio on 11/16
In this essay, you will assess the thesis and argument of another author and then evaluate the claims of that author against your own experience. This assignment will also require you to articulate and defend your own thesis on the same issue.
You have a choice between two authors for this assignment: David E. Nye ("Work: More or Less, Better or Worse?" in Nye, Technology Matters 109-134." and Kevin Carey ("College for $99 a Month" The Washington Monthly, September/October 2009). If you choose to write on Nye's essay, your job will be to evaluate his thesis on how technology affects the world of work, and measure his claims against your own experience. If you write on Kevin Carey's article, you will be required to evaluate his claims on how technology is affecting the world of higher education, and measure his claims against your own experience. In each case, you will also be required to articulate and advance your own position on the issue.
Michael Wesch on Information Technology
Here is a video by University of Kansas professor Michael Wesch on the impact of IT on how we store and process academic content.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
E-Portfolio for Lani Rush
This video is about all the technology that is becoming available in all levels of education. One emphasis is the individual tailoring of the learning process, which I think is a crucial step forward in the technology of education. I don't know how reliable this video is, as it is from YouTube, but I thought it was interesting and had a couple good points.
ROUGH DRAFT PAPER ONE
Who Controls Whom?
For anyone who has been woken by the irritating buzzing of an alarm clock or interrupted from peace and relaxation by a phone call, Emerson’s plaintive cry that “Things are the in the saddle/ And ride mankind” seems, empirically, to be true1. An average person in the United States has daily conflicts with personal desires and technology, such as a job consisting of staring at a computer screen or struggling with a troublesome copy machine. On a greater scale, many feel as though they have little control over the technology used and promoted in their own society. Some might feel that television serves no purpose and is an inferior form of communication, but that has not stopped the evolution of that particular medium. Others reject the automobile as an inefficient mode of transportation, but a large majority of people in the United States still use it as their primary mode of transportation. These feelings of frustration towards technology at a personal and societal level lead many people to feel that technology is an unstoppable force that marches onward, which is the foundation of technological determinism. Emerson’s claim that things control mankind is also echoed in determinism. Nye investigates the historical aspect of technological determinism, but his final thoughts conclude that uses of technology are shaped by society and technology is not a separate, autonomous force.
The belief that technology is inevitable and dominant is further encouraged by the thoughts of many historical scholars. Nye presents many examples of prominent scholars’ belief that technology dictates to mankind, notably Karl Marx. Marx was adamant in the inevitability of industrialization and its influence on world economies, suggesting that industrial revolution would inevitably lead to social revolution.2 This belief implies that once a technology has been introduced to a culture, societies and individuals have no say in the consequences and results of the new technology. Furthermore, both Lenin and Charles Steinmetz, a prominent General Electric scientist, believed that society would inevitably become socialist when a national electric grid was established.3 Other intellectuals, such as Marshall McLuhan and Alvin Toffler, presented externalist views, the idea that “machines inexorably impress change on society.”4 Though the academics disagreed on the source of societal change, communication medium for McLuhan and electronics and the space program for Toffler, they shared the fundamental principle that technology is a separate entity that influences culture rather than integral part of society that evolves simultaneously.5 This externalist view is very removed from the creation process of many technologies, and is not supported by more internalist analysis that reveals the capricious nature of invention and technological progress.6 Another scholar presented by Nye, Michel Foucault, believed that “the individual author, inventor, or citizen was not the master of his or her fate.”7 Foucault emphasized that the individual was completely at the whim of the values and structure of the current society and introduced a new level of determinism.8
The position that views humanity as subservient to technology seems correct when examined in the context of the average person in the United States’s daily life and some historical scholars’ opinons, but when examined at a societal level, it can be seen that cultures influence the uses of technology. Perhaps as individuals our influence is small, but societies can control the technologies permitted. One such example given by Nye is the rejection of the gun in samurai-era Japan. Although the Japanese were aware of the technology of the gun, it fell into disuse due to the samurai class’s favor of more traditional weapons.9 The Amish and Mennonite societies also employ this practice, using only selected and approved technology to ensure self-sufficiency of their communities.10 These allegories contrast with Emerson’s idea of dominant technology, as does Nye’s continued analysis. Historically, technological determinism is favored by many learned people, but there are several examples of a rejection of determinism. A student of Leo Marx, Langdon Winner, believed that “human beings do not stand at the mercy of a great deterministic punch press…individuals are actively involved in the daily creation and recreation, production and reproduction of the world in which they live.”11 Winner implies that humans are not passively involved in their environment, that they shape and change the technology used. The former anecdotes support this ideal, as well as the thoughts of William Ogburn. Ogburn acknowledged the impact of the industrial revolution, but unlike Marx he realized that “social change is seldom the result of a single invention”12 In essence, Ogburn recognized the blurred lines bewteen culture and technology and realized that trying to determine causation was nearly impossible.13 The complex view of the interplay between technology and society is further explored by Nye.
An interesting concession that “people become enmeshed in a web of technical choices made for them by their ancestors,” further complicates the relationship between technology and culture.14 This admission addresses the feeling of being trapped in a technological world discussed earlier, but it is not determinism. Nye makes this clear by stating that “most specialists in the history of technology do not see machines as coercive agents dictating social change, and most remain unpersuaded by determinism.”15
Nye’s personal beliefs that “deterministic conceptions of technology seem misguided” are mirrored in my own ideals.16 Although it feels as though our individual influence makes no difference in the grand scale, I do not believe that is true. It has been shown that societies can reject and control technology through the examples of the Amish and the Japanese, and societies are composed of individuals. Granted, it takes dedication to principle and influence to change society as an individual, but it is not impossible. Although the majority of my desk is now occupied by cords, cords for a computer, a lamp, an internet hook-up, a cell phone charger, an alarm clock, an iPod charger, a refrigerator, etcetera, I do not feel that these objects determine my life. I still choose when I work on homework and when I take a walk outside. All the aforementioned devices are tools, conveniences. Some seem more necessary than others, such as a refrigerator over an iPod, but the bottom line remains that no object, no philosophy can dictate your life without your consent. People choose to feel trapped by technology and allow it to rule their lives through inaction. For example, many older generations feel that today’s technology is inaccessible or too confusing, but one can find many elderly people with a firm grasp of a myriad of new technologies. These outliers are not participating in the dominance of technology over man, rather, they are choosing to learn to master the newest tools available. I believe that new technology is always optional. From personal experience, individuals choose the technology they allow in their lives. The composite of these individual choices determine society’s response to technology, whether it be acceptance or rejection, and thus people are the masters of technology, not the opposite.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
From Ralph Waldo Emerson's poem, we can say that he definitely believes that technology has a major control on us.The poem or the extract starts on the lines of technology in a position of control and power.This technology rides the mankind-- controls the way things are done.The second paragraph tells that technology(which is referred to as thing in the passage)is useful and helps us in the day-to-day activities.It makes itself the king above all.
David E. Nye presents various examples in this essay which are quoted by many famous historians or critiques or just writers. If one has to compare both the given passage and Nye's essay, there would not be a single word that could describe the relation between them. There are examples in the essay which go with the given passage.However,there are situations in the book where the given passage by Emerson is proved wrong.But overall, the arguments that Nye presents refutes the given statement "Things are in the saddle/And ride mankind".
This is clear when we start looking at all the examples.For example, 'guns' were a form of technology that were introduced to the Japanese in the sixteenth century. No society could resist them as they proved to be more powerful than the bow and the sword.Yet, the Japanese government,after a while, rejected the production and the use of guns.Soon, the gun disappeared.Another example of this sort is the rejection of home telephones and automobiles by the Mennonites and the Amish in the United States.These two examples show that we are the ones controlling technology by making choices.The above mentioned examples are completely against what is mentioned in the passage.In the book, it also says that people,sometimes, take up the technical choices made for them by their ancestors.For example, during the last 150 years , many societies have adopted electric light or central heating and made them a part of their day-to-day lives. This might seem like technology's control over us but it isn't. It is just that people of later generations are trapped by the choices made by previous generations/ancestors.There are examples in the book which show that technology has a bad impact.Machine was neutral but it was because of it's misuse that led to it's bad impact on the society. "Mechanization led to worker exploitation, social inequality, class warfare , social collapse", as stated from the book tells us this. Finally there was revolution.Even here, it is we who chose this . Therefore, we cannot quite say technology(here machines) took over the whole society.There are some instances where cultures shaped the events that happened in a society more than the technologies shaping them.
According to me, it is "WE" who control technology.Technology, in the first place , is something invented or discovered by us.It can only gain popularity if we use it.In the other words, technology depends on us for it's survival.The moment we reject some kind of technology in the society, it is nowhere to been later on in that society.Technologies are shaped by social conditions, traditions,attitudes of the people, etc.A piece of technology may have different meanings or impacts in different places.For example, in one part of the world, television is viewed as strengthening fundamentalism as it gave women an outside view of the world.But, in another part of the world, it is just mainly meant for entertainment purposes and not education. The difference in accepting/viewing a technology differently is because of the cultural choices made by us.Technology can never be a force.It purely depends on us whether we have to accept it or reject it. It also depends upon the usefulness, pros and cons of that particular tool or machinery. For example, after the invention of the wheel, maintaining roads and taking care of horses and oxen was very expensive.Therefore, some places like North Africa preferred transport of goods by camel as it was much more convenient.This shows that we have higher power in controlling the technology.Sometimes, technology makes our lives so comfortable that we are not ready to reject it from the society.Here, we have a choice -- to accept or reject. Technology can be avoided too.These choices are made us and technology doesn't force itself upon us.For example, the use of computers has caused eyestrain, back problems and many more things. We have a choice to reject them but we don't because they make our lives much more easier and less complicated. We chose to make our life convenient and the computers did not choose us. It is our choices that shape various technological forms.We control even the most powerful form of technology.The moment we say "NO", everything that has to end will end.At every instance, we have two options.One leads us to the right path and the other to the wrong one.It is upto us to make the right choice.The choice here is to choose the right kind of technology which proves it's usefulness not only in the beginning but also throughout generations together.This is being done by us every minute of the day -- making choices. This is how it is us who have control over the technology.Those who are under the belief that technology controls us are blinded by the fact that man is superior to technology as he is the reason it exists in this present world and that only he can tame it the way he wants to.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Sebastian Shrady
WR100
" 'Tis the day of the chattel". With this first sentence, Emerson sets a tone of human supremacy, for man is the one who possesses, who controls. Yet the second sentence shatters this original idea, for even though the examples given ( "web" and "corn" ) are indeed human possessions, they require human attention and work. So despite possessing these "things", humans must obey nature's laws to work them, and are thus controlled by them.
"Things are in the saddle and ride mankind." One of the very first times that man succeeded in controlling nature was when he managed to tame beasts, the most notable of which was the horse, to use them for his personal gain. In this sentence, Emerson states the opposite, saying that it is really nature who is dominating us. In the end, despite advances in technology,in the field of farming for instance, we are still nature's puppets and work around seasons, climate, types of land and soil, and many other parts of her to achieve our agricultural goals. It is like we live in ignorance and permanently believe is it us who ride the saddle, not able to come to terms with the fact that we will always be the horse.
this image is indicated in the last sentence of the excerpt, in which Emerson states that the "laws for thing" "doth the man unking". The more powerful advances are, the bigger and more complicated problems become, leading to an endless cycle in which the can only be one victor, and it shall not be man. In trying to find bigger and better ways to tame the wild, people realize just how far they are from this end, and they realize they have lived the illusion like many before them, just to be unkinged like many before them.
Emerson clearly thinks that man is at nature's mercy. "and ride mankind" sums up his idea that despite man's efforts, it cannot conquer a entity so mighty, and that no matter how advanced our technology may become, it will not make the tables turn.
This opinion is shared by Nye, who says that "no technology is, has been, or will be a "natural force."" He believes like Emerson, that no matter how great the technology, it will never surpass nature, and man will thus never truly dominate nature, he will never truly be "king."
"Technology is only an instrument and man does not always know how to use it" illustrates perfectly what Emerson states in the ninth and tenth lines of his excerpt. Man rushes to advance as fast as possible in order to gain control of everything around him, and yet he cannot keep up with the speed with which he is advancing. Many emerging technologies we believe are bringing us closer to our goal, but are really accelerating the pace with which we are losing control, steadily getting outside our grasp.
The marxist thought also seems to be in accord with Emerson's. It states that although man's intentions are always for modernization, and facilitation of the human quality of life, there are always unintended consequences that do just the opposite.
A quicker method or machine should theoretically give the worker more spare time, so he can have a more tranquil day while improving the quality of his work. The opposite happens, as the mentality becomes "the quicker you can go, the more you can do" . So new technologies actually make worker's lives harder. Scientific and technological advances seem to be steering us not toward the utopia that evolutionary socialists describe, but rather toward a state of unhappiness, exploitation, and an ignorant and selfish desire for supremacy that will slowly but steadily descend us into chaos.
I, however, do not believe this. I am of a different frame of mind than Emerson and Nye, and think that technology is the answer to the world's problems. I have seen how it has been misused though, and how human nature has prevented it from reaching it's potential. Technology has the ability to fix the problems humanity has created, and lead mankind to that utopia. We have reached a point,a threshold, in which we cannot, like some suggest, steadily eliminate technology from our lives. It is too late for that. As a species we have made mistakes that threaten everyone and everything around us, and I believe it just takes a small group of brilliant minds to come up with the solutions, and a small group of strong and righteous ones to apply them.
Until now, technological creations have dominated us. We have fallen victims to it's appeal. It's capacity to make us less active and our lives easier is one that it's in our nature to desire. We, as a species, lazy, and any form of technology that permits us to do less with the same results becomes "necessary". The telegraph, telephone, cellphone, pager, instant message, all allow us to be in contact with people without having to go through the process of visiting or even having to hand-write a letter. I constantly see the most idiotic inventions that serve no purpose other than creating more unnecessary comforts. Unfortunately, even though it's a complete waste of resources and money, it seems to be what the people want. And it is that ignorance exactly that is dooming mankind.
Dean Kamen is a famous inventor, and personal idol, who in my opinion represents the answer to the world's technological problems. His corporation, called DEKA, is a center that promotes innovation only in the realm of "helping the world". It is a place where great minds get together to find solutions to some of the world's difficulties. Although they easily could, they don't invent items that are marketable yet useless, only ones that will do some good. That is exactly what mankind needs to finally reach it's potential. This is what the world needs to become that utopia in which mankind doesn't surpass nature, but learns to live in perfect harmony with it.
e-portfolio for Solomon Belay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMcfrLYDm2U
Video from a movement led by Karl Fisch and Scott McLeod called "Shift Happens". The fact in the video are meant to raise awareness and provoke change. The video mentions trends in technology effect school and work.
ROUGH DRAFT OF PAPER ONE
With time there is a progression. Looking back at history until the present age, it is almost unanimous that the biggest indicator of progression that people notice is the technological advancements of the world. Technology seems to be the greatest factor of human advancement in the most recent centuries. A debate that initiates with the topic of technology is whether or not it is inevitable. This argument of technological determinism is worldwide and is disputed amongst the most knowledgeable of people in the technological field. This topic of debates dates back to a couple of centuries ago as proven by the early poems of philosopher and poet Ralph Waldo Emerson.
In Emerson’s personal ode written to a good friend of his, William H. Channing in 1846, he writes two verses discussing the idea of technological determinism. In this two verse excerpt from his ode, Emerson blatantly mentions the functionality of technology several times. His first line starts off: “’Tis the day of the chattel”. What he most likely means by this is that it was becoming the era of increasing technology. Throughout these two verses, he seems to mention technology through the word “things”. This can be seen in lines 3 and 4 when he says: “Things are in the saddle,/ And ride mankind. Here you can see that the words things and technology are basically synonymous. He is saying that technology is in the driver’s seat and is starting to control or “ride” mankind. This can be seen as a deterministic statement. He continues in his second verse and goes on to say that there are two separate laws of the land: “Law for man, and law for thing”. He compares these two as if they are both equal forces. He also says that “its runs wild”. This is basically saying that man can’t control technology and technology will overpower and control man as explained by the last line: “And doth the man unking.”
Emerson’s verses strongly defend his belief of determinism of technology, but on the other hand, David E. Nye’s essay “Does Technology Control Us?” has a lot to say about Emerson’s stand on the topic. Nye, in his essay, uses several historical examples to show times in history when new technology was rejected due to cultural beliefs. He builds the argument and conjures evidence stating that cultural traditions shape progression and not technology. One of his main examples of a civilization rejecting the newest form of technology is the example of the gun and the Japanese samurai class. The gun became the top and most advanced weapon of choice around the world. But based on cultural opinion, it was looked down upon in disgrace in Japan. The samurai class preferred the sword so the gun was banned from Japan for an extensive period of time. This was a time when technology was not in the saddle as Emerson said and the Japanese took control based on their cultural beliefs. Another example that Nye gives countering the idea of technological determinism is that of the wheel. He goes to say that the wheel, a seemingly inevitable piece of technology, was not used in North Africa at the eve of its creation. He claims Northern Africa used the camel for transportation because of the terrain and the weak road systems they had. This goes against Emerson’s belief that “things” will ride mankind because the wheel was not driven in Northern Africa for a while.
Most of Nye’s examples are arguments refute what Emerson was saying in his poem. Nye goes on to say clearly: “This is nonsense. No technology is, has been or will be a “natural force.” Nor will any technology by itself break down cultural barriers and bring world peace.” I believe this statement sums up his whole essay. When I weigh in my personal beliefs, I agree with Nye and his claims. My personal experiences with technology make me lean towards Nye’s argument. Technology was always served as entertainment and also a helpful resource for me. But I found that at times when my basic instinct told me that it was not needed and better not to be used, I was able to reject it and its influence on me temporally. There were times in my life when technology did not control me and I was able to reject its use and go on with my life. For instance, every time I run outside or practice for my team I go outside and enjoy nature while improving myself as a runner. At these times when all I have are mental thoughts and motivation in my head, technology is the last thing on my mind and it does not control me. Also, my parents were both born and raised in a small African village where that was no eminent form of technology. They always told me story about how life was simple and enjoyable then and it proves to me that man is not controlled my technology for life or happiness. This always showed me that although I use technology a lot, I never had to be dependent on in fully in life. Although technology does have an immense influence in my life, I control the way I live and I don’t believe that technology can change that.
Based on my personal beliefs and experiences, I reach the conclusion that human beings control their technological creations and not vice versa as Emerson is lead to believe. I believe that technology is built as a tool for mankind that it very helpful, but life itself is too broad. It is too vague of a tangibility to be control by something that mankind simply built. Life was not built by mankind and I don’t believe that man can build or invent a force that can control life. All in all, the underlying point is that that the tool of technology is a very valuable one that can be used in life, but it does not control mankind itself.
Word Count: 1,002
Work cited
Nye, David E. Technology Matters Questions to Live With. New York: The MIT, 2007. Print.
Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing (1846) Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Early Poems of Ralph Waldo Emerson. New York, Boston, Thomas Y. Cromwell & Company: 1899
e-portfolio for Tony Seok
The world’s carrying capacity determines how many biological species it can sustain. This refers to space, food supply, water supply, sunlight, etc. Hence, it is normally thought of as a scientific fact. However, according to Nye “Ultimately, the world's carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social construction." Thus it can no longer be referred to as a scientific fact due to the influx of technology. Technology manipulates all the factors that determine the world’s carrying capacity.
Before the reign of technology the availability of space played a major role in determining the carrying capacity. Each specie needs their own niche and niches cannot overlap otherwise there will be an increase in competition. In simple terms, human beings have to limit their population at a certain area depending on the space available. However, as technology slowly came to life, space was dramatically increased to support the growing population. In highly populated societies the issue of space is fixed by building buildings. This increases the number of people living in one area. For example in Seoul, Korea a majority of the population live in apartments. If these apartment buildings did not exist only a hand full of people can occupy that lot, but with the buildings this number increases to 200-300 people. Furthermore, the apartment buildings get taller and taller as the technology progresses. In terms of animal species there are increasing amounts of national parks, which allow different biological species to grow and prosper undisturbed. However, even with this so-called untouched wilderness “the intermingling of culture and nature continues”. People control these places whether or not it is intentional. For example, people determine the migration of plant species as well as firebreaks and camp sites. This factor of the carrying capacity is no longer a scientific fact because it is not natural. It is something constructed by the society in order to manipulate the carrying capacity.
Additionally, food supply also affects the carrying capacity of the world. Before technology, the population size was dependent on the food supply, but now, food supply is dependent on the population. Naturally food is available based on when it’s in season. However, in the world today season does not limit what is available. Technology, such as planes and buses, has stepped in to provide food that is out of season. During the World War selective breeding and hormone injections were used to increase food supply, particularly poultry. This was done in order to supply sufficient amounts of protein for the general population regardless of ones social status. This idea of selective breeding is still used to meet the needs of the growing population. Society is strives for economical power, hence increasing food supply benefits both general population as well as the competing industries. From this one can see that whilst depends on nature for basic necessities. Instead people manipulate nature to satisfy the standards of society.
Furthermore, more people are living longer due to medical technology, thus increasing the population of the world. With the invention of x-ray machines and microscopes scientists were able to examine bacteria and viruses in order to find a cure. This increased the average life span dramatically. This means that the population after technology erupted is much greater than before. This is no longer a scientific fact because the carrying capacity is increased due to unnatural causes. Moreover, new medical discoveries allow people who are almost infertile to have multiple children. This increase in birth rate and decrease in death rate means that the population continually grows. Technology once again manipulates the natural carrying capacity by lengthening the average life span as well as increasing birthrates.
Despite increasing the carrying capacity, this manipulation of nature has taken a toll on the earth. Technology benefits people but it has consequences against nature. For example “burning coal produces not only electricity but also smoke containing sulfur dioxide that falls to the earth as acid rain”. This benefits humans as it produces electricity for their comfort however it kills plants, fish and other wildlife. Technology is destroying the environment through the green house effect yet most people cannot live without it. This also means that the population of certain plants and animals has decreased dramatically. Only now that awareness has been raised that people are realizing how many species have become extinct due to technology and increase in human population. It can be said that the extinction of species can be blamed on humans and their manipulation of nature.
In today’s world it is difficult to say what is natural and what has been manipulated by culture and society. The increase of technology gave people the power to extend the carrying capacity of the world. Advancements in infrastructure, food and medicine have allowed an increase in human population. Technology provides sustainable abundance but it does come at a price. The manipulation of nature has caused destruction such as the ozone layer and green house effect.
ROUGH DRAFT OF PAPER ONE
In today’s world it’s very rare to imagine life without technology. People cannot live their everyday lives without it. Even the smallest things require some sort of technology, for example in order to talk to someone outside your immediate vicinity you use a phone. It’s come to the point that people depend on it. This is ironic because man believes that since they built technology they automatically have control over it. However, the reality of it is the dependency on technology is so overwhelming that we lose our control over it. Ralph Waldo Emerson clearly states this in his poem “Ode, inscribed to W.H. Channing.
When analyzing Emerson’s poem, one can notice that he uses the “chattel” and “thing” as a metaphor of technology and this is ironic because both technology and the chattel are commonly thought of as possessions. Hence, it is controlled and owned. But, he goes on to say “Things are in the saddle and ride mankind” and this is ironic because the initial precept, that man has the control, is altered. Our society is lead to believe that the man is in the saddle. However it is the “thing” that rides man. This implies that man almost subjects himself to technology. Emerson then goes on to talk about the two laws present in society. He emphasizes the separate laws applicable to man and thing. This shows how they are two separate entities that do not work in partnership. Historically man, by nature, builds and creates his own towns and fleets, however through the technological advances man has been replaced and it is now technology that “builds town and fleet…” However, as suggested by Emerson, this technologically built towns and fleets “runs wild,” suggesting that technology is an entity that man has no control over. Though this society is built by technology and makes lives much easier, mankind has lost control over it. Hence, man is “unking” to something that they have built.
In comparison to David E. Nye’s essay “Does Technology Control Us?” it is noticeable that Nye suggests a variety of perspectives regarding how people saw the power of technology in relation to the human society. For instance, one of the first examples Nye presents is the rejection of the gun by the Japanese. In this example, Nye conveys how the nation of Japan was able to reject such a beneficial and advanced form of weaponry in order to preserve the Samurai culture of using ancient traditional weapons including swords. This clearly shows that Nye is proposing that the human society is capable of determining whether or not to advance their society with a new form of technology or not. However, later throughout Nye’s essay, one can notice that he also states examples in which technology does seem to have a dominant role in society. For example, Nye tells his readers that some Victorians were afraid of losing control or “political means,” to be specific, over the rapidly growing use and amount of machinery. Nye creates a follow up to this example by mentioning how Marx “argued that industrialization’s immediate results were largely negative for the working class.” This is solely due to the fact that skilled workers lost their jobs as their wages were cut down and as the newly made factories did all the work they were required to do. And because of this, some believe that “industrialization broke the bonds of communities and widened the gaps between social classes.” Overall, Nye does not directly present his opinion of whether or not technology controls the human power to live in their society. Instead, he mentions the arguments that other historians of technology believe, which does not affirm or refute, but complicates what Emerson has stated in his poem.
After analyzing both Emerson’s and Nye’s arguments, I personally believe that humans have control over their technological creations only to a certain extent. When I say “only to a certain extent,” I mean that when the technological creation is massive and is continuing to grow rapidly globally humans can lose control over it and be dominated by it. For instance, humans can have control over the machinery they use when working. However, similar to Marx’s argument within Nye’s essay, when these machines are advanced to do the same type of work in a much faster speed in a short amount of time, factories are created which does not require that many workers to be working at the same time. At this point, it is clear that humans lose their power over the technological invention. Another example that is a bit modern would be the advancement of weapons. Yes, in Nye’s essay, the Japanese were able to reject the guns and the benefits it came with. But in today’s world, guns have been adopted all over the world, technology has improved the power of weapons so much that it is so lethal and destructive if used. When the guns were first invented, humans had the power to control them to a certain extent. At this point, it was used for one purpose: to shoot at single targets at a time. Now, however, the idea of guns have assisted in developing other weapons, such as machine guns, missiles, nuclear weapons, and now even biological weapons. This conveys the lost of human control over the technological weapons as the power of these weapons are not controllable when released. The damage it will result in is inevitable and technology, even as of today, is still continuing the advancement of weapons.
To conclude, I tend to believe that both Emerson’s and Nye’s arguments are partially true. But if I had to choose one, I would say that Emerson’s poem is more realistic at this point in today’s world. Technology has grown so rapidly and massively that no nation or group of people tends to reject it. It is so advanced and useful that people rely on it in their daily lives, making their life a lot comfortable and relaxing. Nye simply does not state his opinion clearly within his essay on whether or not he believes humans are under the control of their own technological creations or vice versa, leaving me no other option but to agree with Emerson.
E-Portfolio for Xudong Chen
Rough Draft 2 of Paper 3
Earth's Carrying Capacity?
People worry about people. Not just in a personal way, but also in a global perspective. How many people can the world sustain before it runs out of room? According to Nye, the world's carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social construction (pg 108). In other words, the the carrying capacity depends on the culture and the way people live. I agree with Nye's view on this topic. The carrying capacity does indeed depend on the culture and lifestyle of people.
In his essay, Nye talks about technology, the different cultures and their environmental impact, and how they affect the carrying capacity of the earth. He compares different cultures in the world and their individual resource use. Improvements in technology are also cited to show how the increase or decrease the carrying capacity of the globe. Many different people are also cited in Nye's essay to show different viewpoints leading to a similar conclusion. From my experiences around the world, I agree strongly with Nye's thesis.
Towards the end of his essay, Nye cites the difference in power consumption between the Americans and Europeans as an example of the variable carrying capacity. “Such countries have a standard of living as high as in the United States, but use only half as much energy per capita”(pg 105) which may prove to be a more sustainable way of living. A higher standard of living does not have to come with the burden of a higher power consumption, and in turn, a more significant environmental impact. The Europeans achieve this in many ways. The average European car is much more efficient and smaller then the average American car. Europeans don't have to travel as far to buy day to day goods. They also use public transportation much more then the average American. Their homes are also smaller and overall they are overall less wasteful then the normal American. They still have all the luxuries of life such as computers, televisions, and cars, which keeps their standard of living as high as the United State's, but they achieve this standard of living with much less excess and waste then the United States. Changing the lifestyle of the more wasteful people could increase the carrying capacity of the planet.
Thomas Moore, cited in Nye's essay, thinks there is an even more efficient way of living. He envisions an utopia, which drastically reduced human wants and adopts a modest lifestyle (pg 100). The utopia's citizens reject luxury on principal and thus removes one of the most wasteful parts of modern day living. The adoption of this utopia would drastically increase the carrying capacity of the planet but also lower standard of living, which is something most people would not like to do. But there are well known people who have lived such simple lives in the developed world. When Henry David Thoreau lived at Walden pond, he had a small rug as a door mat. He “soon found that this small rug had to be taken up and shaken... the rug was merely a small nuisance” (pg 103) and something not necessary in his goal for a simple life. This was very similar to the utopian living envisioned by More, and proves that such a way of living is achievable. The world would be able to support much more people if humans were less materialistic. The way of living chosen by a culture has a large impact on the carrying capacity of the world, but it is not the only one of the factors in the carrying capacity.
Technology itself isn't completely a socially construction, but the adoption and exploitation of technology is. “Since the Renaissance, Western societies have been particularly adept at exploiting technologies to produce a surplus of food, goods, and services.” (pg 96) This temporary increases the carrying capacity of the world by allowing more food and other goods to be produced for the same amount of raw material, but in a few generations, the carrying capacity would be less before. For example, a dam in the desert would create more farming space, until the salts and chemicals leftover from agriculture turns the land back to desert, and after the dam has permanently altered the downstream environment. Because of this, the technologies adopted by cultures also affect the carrying capacity.
Most of my extended family lives in China, and some of them have a much lower standard of living then the average American. They live the semi-rural life with a normal sized brick house with no heating, a few light bulbs and florescent tubes, a few simple beds, a gas or wood fired strove, and the basic furniture. They don't own a car, a large tv, soft beds, air conditioning, or many of the other luxuries that are deemed inseparable from life here. Vacationing for them is traveling to the nearest city and walking around a bit. They usually bath with a single bucket of cold water. Much less then the gallons of water for the average American shower. Most of them didn't even own a computer until me and my family gave them two older laptops this summer. Though they live a harder life then most Americans, they also use a lot less energy and resources. The things my extended family uses and live in are also less resource intensive then their overseas counterparts. Bamboo and wooden chopsticks are much more efficient to make then metal and plastic silverware. They keep everything they use for as long as they can to save on buying something new, which reduces the resources used on new furniture. Beds are wooden or bamboo planks with a thin layer of cloth, which is much less material intensive then two layer mattresses. Brick houses require much less maintenance there then wooden houses, thus saving on repairing costs. Water from a well requires much less energy to transport then water from a reservoir. I probably use more resources a month then one of them uses in a year because of things like a shower head instead of a bucket, metal silverware, heating, computer use, and a multitude of seemingly insignificant things. Their way of living will produce a much higher carrying capacity then my way of living.
I have lived in Germany two years ago for two weeks on a exchange program, and as Nye said in his essay, the Europeans indeed have a less resource intensive lifestyle then the Americans. My host family has two cars. A large van that is rarely used, and a small Volkswagen Gulf. Compared to the SUVs many people drive to work everyday in the United States, the Gulf is much more efficient, and does the same thing, get people to work, with much less waste. Much of my host's house is lit up with florescent lamps, which are much more efficient then incandescent light bulbs still used in the majority of American homes. The most common modes of transportation were by foot, on a bike, or on public transportation, all of which are more efficient then driving a car to everywhere. The food in Europe is better then that of the United States while being less resourceful to get to the consumers. The food has to travel less to get to the consumers, which saves a lot on transportation and the consumers commonly bike or walk to the store, which saves even more in transportation resources. Overall, the lifestyle of Germany requires less resources then that of the Unites States.
If all the people in the world simplified their lives, that would greatly increase the carrying capacity of the world. When people become less materialistic is when we will see an increase in the carrying capacity of the world. Much of the resources in the developed world is focused on satisfying the materialistic wants of people. Many people in the New England area don't need a car, much less a truck, to travel. An bus, electrical scooter, or a bicycle are much more efficient way of transportation then a three thousand pound car carrying a two hundred pound or less person. People do not need fifty inch plasma televisions to watch soap operas when a much more efficient laptop will do, nor do they need a big house when a smaller one would suffice. It is quite possible, as shown by the Europeans, to lower power consumptions while still keeping a high standard of living. A culture that only has and needs the bare necessities of life will allow more people to live in a set space then a culture that wants large houses, big cars, and a pool.
The carrying capacity does indeed depend heavily on the culture and lifestyle of people. As put by Nye, “If people want to eat meat everyday and wear natural fibers, the world can support fewer people then it can support if people are vegetarians and buy synthetic clothing. Ultimately, the world's carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social construction.” (pg 108) The examples give by Nye supports this well and my experiences of the world also support the idea that the carrying capacity is a social construction.
Works cited:
Nye, David E. “Technology Matters: Questions to Live With.” Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2007
Rough Draft for paper one
Xudong Chen
Deterministic Technology
David E. Nye and Ralph Waldo Emerson have very different views of the deterministic ability of technology. Emerson believes in the determinism of technology, that people are controlled by technology. Nye on the other hand, states that people control technology and that people can choose to adopt or reject a new technology. The examples that Nye adds to his essay, and my personal experience with technology, refutes Emerson's claim that technology is deterministic. Human beings control technology through the needs of their environment and their governing force.
Emerson states that “things are in the saddle/And ride mankind”(1) He deduces that people are controlled by their technology and not the other way around. During Emerson's time, this seemed like a very probable idea. Emerson grew up in the industrial revolution in America, when people were replaced by machines, when ready made clothing appeared, and when technology improved the way people did things. Much like today, communication and transportation technology improved a lot during Emerson's lifetime. The telegraph was invented and the printing press came to widespread use. Now news can travel fast, and also be spread to the people quickly. People who lived far away could now communicate to each other in an instant. During his time, people switched from hand making clothing, to buying ready made clothing, people started holding grain in silo, and people began to travel more due to steam power. Technologies and machines like the sewing machine, the telegraph, and the steam engine, caught on very quickly with little resistance during this time, which made technology seem like an all powerful force with it's own life and direction. From Emerson's point of view and his surroundings, technology did seem deterministic, but Emerson only had a limited point of view of the world. Unbeknownst to him, many cultures in the world have proven that technology is not a deterministic force of itself.
Nye provides a great example of the power of a culture over technology. In the 1500s, the Japanese were introduced to guns from the Portuguese traders. This created a new wave of battle advancements for the Japanese warriors. But this wave of technology did not last long. The Japanese eventually abandoned the gun and went back to their swords and bows, despite all the advantages that the gun offers. This abandonment of a clearly superior technology shows that a culture can halt and reverse the spread of technology. Even though the Japanese eventually had to adopt guns, it was not because of the inevitable spread of technology. The Japanese readopted guns for protection against the westerners who were forcing their way into Japanese trade. They adopted guns in self defense. If the westerners never attempted to open up Japan to trade, the Japanese could have held off adopting the gun indefinitely. Even in the US during Emerson's time, there were cultures who proved that technology was not a force of itself. The Amish were very selective about the technology they allowed in their community. They lived a strict religious lifestyle, which allowed them to reject many technological advancements like the telegram, the internal combustion engine, and the factories introduced in the industrial revolution. In more modern days, the Amish prevented the spread of television, internet, and many other modern amenities, into their culture. They are able to prevent the spread of technology into their culture because of their beliefs and their way of government. One seemingly inevitable technology is the wheel, yet some cultures have rejected this antique and ubiquitous piece of machinery. In North Africa, the wheel has been rejected since the 3rd century AD. Because of the sandy and arid condition of North Africa, creating and maintaining roads for wheeled vehicles and supplying water for the horses were too expensive and the people of the area returned to using camels for transportation because camels were more suited to transporting goods in the desert. The Mayans and the Aztecs knew about the wheel, and even used them on toys, but the Mayans and Aztecs never used the wheel for practical purposes despite the advantages it provides.(2) Even technology as simple and seemingly irresistible as the wheel can be declined.
In my opinion, technology is not a deterministic force. Technology used is determined by the people using it and the environment the people live in. The Japanese and the Amish were able to resist technology because of their culture and their ways of government. The Japanese believed a lot in the honor code and thought that guns were not an honorable weapon, and so discarded the gun. Amish people are governed by ministers and bishops, who determined the technologies that will be allowed into the Amish community. In North Africa, the environment dictates that the method of transportation has to be able to survive the harsh environment of the desert and also be able to carry enough goods to be practical. The wheel match neither of these requirements. Wheel born modes of transportation do not travel well across sand and the animals pulling these carriages require frequent supplies of water which is hard to get in the desert. The wheel was abandoned for a much more practical mode of transportation, the camel. Many modern technologies have proven that people are in control of what they want to adopt and when. A prime example is the flying car. The first development for a frying car started in 1926 with Henry Ford's "sky flivver". But despite the great improvements in both airplanes and cars, the flying car never caught on on society. There are examples of road an sky legal flying cars such as the Taylor Aerocar and the Fulton Airphibian but they never caught on with the public, weather due to cost, safety, or other issues. A more modern example of good technology that did not catch on is the Segway. The Segway contains many advancements, was viewed as the technological pinnacle at the time, and had was supposed to be the next big thing. According to the views of Segway's creator, people now should all be riding Segways instead of walking, but as one can tell by looking outside, the Segway did not catch on with the public. Segway is also a prime example, like the flying car, of a well developed, well know, and available technology that was not embraced by the public. All of these show how technology is controlled by their human creators and clearly refute Emerson's lament that “Things are in the saddle/And ride mankind”(1)
David E. Nye and Ralph Waldo Emerson have very different ideas on the deterministic power of technology. David E. Nye thinks that people have control over the direction of technology, while Ralph Waldo Emerson believes that technology is deterministic and control human beings. Unlike what Emerson maintains, human beings have control over their technologies, which is proven by the examples given by Nye, and more modern examples of rejected technology. Human beings control technology through the needs of their environment and their governing force.
Works Cited:
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