Noam Chomsky is an authority in the field of globalization. It is interesting to discuss technology in this context. When Chomsky says that the poor complain, he makes reference to the criticism that globalization destroys local economies. He then says, "the system brings rewards to all." His statement may sound oxymoronic but in reality highlights a fundamental point: in the long run, integrating into the world economy brings fruits to all. Nye talks briefly about outsourcing and the income inequalities it produces. I favor Chomsky, in that globalization facilitates the exchange of technology and favorably shifts an agricultural-based economy to a service oriented one.
Monday, September 28, 2009
e-portfolio for Santiago Roel
ROUGH DRAFT ASSIGNMENT # 1
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
��ÿ�� �� �� �� ��$ ��% ��+ ��, ��K ��Q ��R ��S ��Z ��h ��óêáÕͼ°ÕÍÕÍÕÍÕÍÕÍᥙŽ†~rŽi™~r`i`X�������hdÎ�CJ$�aJ$��h5VÕ�>*CJ$�aJ$�hÜ)�>*CJ$�aJ$�hÝ!n�h?Xý�>*CJ$�aJ$�hÝ!n�CJ$�aJ$��h?Xý�CJ$�aJ$��h?Xý�h?Xý�CJ$�aJ$��h?Xý�h?Xý�>*CJ\\\\
¡±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
¡±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
September 14, 2009 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.
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
1250 Words
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)