e-portfolio for Branden Kim (Hyunsoo Kim)

ROUGH DRAFT OF PAPER ONE

Technology has advanced throughout the years, and there is not a single doubt that technology has crucial effects in our society. Even as we are typing our assignments, at least several different forms of technology are taking in place. Whether it be a laptop, a desktop, a keyboard, or even a computer mouse, a form of modern advancement is being utilized. The question that matters is if humans follow the concept of technological determinism. Technological determinism generalizes that people are affected so heavily by technology that technology itself works as an uncontrollable force. This force governs the lives of humans and “determines” how the society will function. Such concept was first introduced by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his excerpt from Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing (1846) David E. Nye however, refutes Emerson's idea in his essay “Does Technology Control Us”.

“Things are in the saddle/ And ride mankind.” These two lines from Ralph Waldo Emerson's work support his concept of technological determinism. “Things are in the saddle” in this short excerpt symbolizes “technology” and we people “ride” in it without much choices in our hand. Emerson wrote this relating to a period of slavery where different forms of technology were being introduced. Slavery work force was necessary in mass producing items such as cottons and clothes and even building of railroads as it is stated “ 'Tis the day of the chattel/ Web to weave, and corn to grind.” In this time where new forms of machinery are emerging, people take advantage of whatever is available to them. Their lives are controlled and are functioned according to the the new technological advancements and this can be seen in Emerson's texts, “But it runs wild/ And doth the man unking.” The man has lost his power over technology that his life “runs wild.”

David E. Nye strongly disagrees with Ralph Waldo Emerson's idea of technological determinism as he states, “This is nonsense. No technology is, has been, or will be a natural force.” (Nye, 19) He gives several reasons supporting his cause. Japanese has adopted guns since 1543 from the Portuguese and even used them in their successful battles such as Nagoshino. (Nye, 17) In the times where swords and heavy armors were starting to become abandoned, the Japanese instead returned to their old custom of swords, bows, and arrows. The Japanese had choices whether to adapt the usage of guns or not. They chose not to and did quiet well until Commodore Perry threatened their security. This outside forced led the Japanese to keep up with the world powers by adapting to the usages of guns again. (Nye, 18) It was not the technology that led to this change, but a social problem brought by the outsiders. Mennonites and the Amish people in the United States, reject today's common knowledge of technology. (Nye, 18) Nonetheless their numbers are growing and this proves that technology is not vital but recommended. David E. Nye states, “Communities can make self-conscious technological choices and can resist even very powerful technologies.”

People may argue that technologies such as televisions have overwhelming effects in our societies. They can state that televisions helped to change the negative views upon the African American society into a more positive one and gave more rights to women. (Nye, 19) Nevertheless, many historians believe in the idea as stated by Nye, “new technologies are shaped by social conditions, prices, traditions popular attitudes, interest groups, class differences, and government policy.” (Nye, 19) Furthermore, David E. Nye gives an example where televisions do not have much of an impact in China and Arab nations. The two nations definitely have televisions but their society is not as opened or free compared to the United States. Nye states, “In United States television is secular, not religious' private, not public' funded by advertising, not taxation; and a conduit primarily of entertainment, not education.” (19)

David E. Nye gave a more definite and obvious example that technological determinism does not exist by bringing up the usage of wheels in North Africa. In many areas around the world, wheels are definitely beneficial when transporting goods from one place to another. In North Africa, however, it was not the same case. Camels took over the role of the wheels since they were cheaper and easier to be maintained. (Nye, 20) Again, it was not the technology or the invention that influenced the people in North Africa, but the physical environment which led them to make the decision they did. (Nye, 20) Fernand Braudel supports Nye by stating in his Capitalism and Material Life, “Technology is only an instrument and man does not always know how to use it.”

Since industrial revolution, technology has been advancing at a drastic rate, and many argue that it has brought negative consequences among us. Advancements in technology widened the gaps between the social classes and brought pollution. (Nye, 23) Factory owners mistreated their workers and later on replaced them with machines. However, according to David E. Nye, it is not the technology that caused all this, but the people's self-interest and greed. (Nye, 23) Also according to Nye, machines are neutral and the negative consequences are brought by the people who misuse it. (Nye, 22)

Werner Sombart in his Technik and Kultur supported Nye's idea that cultures are more influential than technologies in general events. (Nye, 25) He gave an example of how Ancient Rome declined due to the failure in cultural and political ways and not from lacking in technology. William Ogburn also added that women's suffrage was the result of “converging forces and influences,.. mass production, urbanization, birth control, the adoption of the typewriter, improved education, and the theory of natural rights” and not mechanical inventions.

Outside forces can be definitely influential in determining people's lives, and technology is one of them. Fortunately, we have the ability to make choices whether to adapt to the modern technology or not. I sure do agree that technology takes a role in certain decisions, but not fully. As David E. Nye states that technology is shaped by society, I also believe that cultures affect the community more than the machines. Humans will have control over their technological creations since we are the ones that created such technology.

Works Cited

Nye, 17

Nye, 18

Nye, 19

Nye, 20

Nye, 22

Nye, 23

Nye, 25

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

Rough Draft For Paper 3

“Ultimately, the world’s carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social

construction.”

In recent history, the topic of overpopulation gained attention. Overpopulation, as many believed, will bring crisis such as starvation and spreading of diseases throughout the world. There would not be enough source of food for everyone and whether or not the person may live or die depends on the concept of the survival of the fittest. However, as Nye states, “Ultimately, the world’s carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social construction,” he asserts that the world’s ultimate capacity of people animals, plants, and the whole population in general depends on the way our society is constructed and not on any previously set scientific values. Like Nye, I concur with the idea that social construction affects the world’s carrying capacity economically and culturally.

David E. Nye uses Daniel Defoe’s classic “Robinson Cruesoe” (1719) as an
example to solidify his view on the ecological crisis. Robinson Cruesoe is a seaman who was stranded on a deserted island off the coast of South America for over 26 years. In a location with zero human population other than Cruesoe himself, he managed to build fortified shleters, catch fish, tame goats, weave baskets, make pottery, and even farm. His means of survival depended upon using his knowledge to obtain the necessities from his surroundings. Nye makes a point that Cruesoe did not become superior because he had metal tools and weapons. He also brings up that Cruesoe did not build tables, chairs, or any of the furniture although he had the knowledge to due to the reason that those items were not necessary for the means of survival. It is not the science itself but together with social construction that will affect the world’s carrying capacity.

It can be clearly stated from our common sense of knowledge that total
population had risen dramatically throughout the last century. As the number of people increased throughout the last century, the advancements in technology had also been taking place, which led to the changes in the ways people lived and utilized the nature around us. “Landscapes are part of the infrastructure of existence, and they are inseparable from the technologies that people have used to shape land and to shape their vision,” stated Nye. (Nye, 89) In this quote, Nye is trying to state that technologies and landscapes go together. The more changes in landscapes, there are usually more technological advancements. For example, Japan’s increasing population has become a concern for the Japanese government. For this reason, the Japanese has been building high-rises, but the problem with this was that Japan is frequently hit with earthquakes. Therefore they utilized the technology of high-rises being able to withstand earthquakes in order to maximize the space for their overpopulation. Japan’s population has reached to about 128 million by 2009. If the number 128 million occurred at the time around 200 years ago, without a doubt there will be catastrophic events such as mass starvation and deaths caused by diseases which results from unsanitary conditions. Nonetheless,technology and the ways of our social construction has changed the ill-fate.

People once thought that the world population would never stop increasing
until food would run out for people to suffer from starvation. They believed that all of our natural resources are going to be used up so there would not be any substitues for our necessary energy. It turned out to be false however, since technologies have changed people’s social conditions and lives. People started having lesser number of babies because the average life expectancy sore up due to better medicine and surplus of food. It was not the matter of survival anymore but the matter of commodity. I agree with Nye’s idea that social construction affects the world’s carrying capacity since the world has become more liberal than religious from the past and this also took account in producing less children in the family.

Many of certain natural resources are running out, but our societies are working to produce different ways of energy efficient technologies. We always have alternative plans when things start to go in a negative way. Technology is reasonable for this, and as long as our societies are ready to adapt to new changes and prepare for the better future,our world’s population seems bearable. I agree with Nye that there is no set limit to the world’s carrying capacity.

Rough Draft for Paper #4

Branden Kim

WR 100 FH

Professor Deese

“The end of the Earth.” This disturbing concept was introduced and drilled into the minds of the people, ever since humans began to make predictions of our dear future. Fortunately for us, the past “doomsdays” proved to be nothing more than a hoax, idea without scientific explanations to back itself up. However, what if there was actually a core foundation of datas that would support the near future extinction of the planet? Would there be hope and enough time left for turning around the ill-fate of ours? As profound intellectuals David E. Nye, Caroline Merchant, and Rachel Carson make bets on the future 2064 from The Lunar Sands Casino, they each support their own analysis with reputable logic. David E. Nye, while gazing at the slowly rising earth, he sees an optimistic future of Earth that depends on the advancements in technology. Caroline Merchant on the other hand, forecasts a far more drastic future where, unless the human population drops their individualistic and capitalistic ways of living, the world would die out eventually. Rachel Carson predicts the future where the Earth would only survive if we change our negative uses on our technology. I bet on Rachel Carson’s theory that the year 2064 will support life in such conditions that people work together to reduce technological problems and find alternative plans that would reduce pollutions.

Being a technological liberal himself, Davie E. Nye believed in the idea of humanity’s ability to advance in technology. “Although social classes persist, they argue, the life of the average person continues to improve,” stated Nye. (Nye, 88) According to Nye, it would be almost impossible to avoid every little problem only with the improvement in technology. However, technology’s positive outcome eventually overshadows those problems. “…Advances in technology bring greater efficiency and prosperity for all in the form of higher wages, less expensive goods, better transportation, and shorter working hours.” (Nye, 88) This statement proves to be to some extent true as innovative machines made work production faster and more efficient. Factory manufactured items were listed in the markets for more affordable prices than ever before, and this made it possible for the lives of middle classes to improve. Different forms of communication have emerged as the world connected itself through internet and media. Technology at this point may seem as the world’s savior from catastrophic events such as mass starvation and inability to preventing various diseases. Recently however, people began to realize that it was only too good to be true as our uses of technology backfired against us. Nye stated on page 89 in his Technology Matters, “Technologies also affect the air, which carries traces of smoke, microscopic particles, pollen, carbon monoxide, and the dust raised by travel.” This is where the problems for our future kick in. Artificially creating products have increased the levels of pollution which the world at this point could not withstand any further. Some believe that there is a carrying capacity to which our earth can support, and once people go over that capacity, disaster awaits us. Nye nonetheless stays positive in his idea that advancements in technology can withstand any kind of negative circumstances.

Caroline Merchant in contrast, believes that technological advancements has been and will be backfiring against us, as it would be too late for the Earth to recover from detrimental effects from technology. The world would reach a point where knowledge cannot help recover the original status of the planet. “Although many changes leading to a healthier, sustainable biosphere seem to be occurring, the forces that encourage the current patterns of global resource depletion and pollution are very strong,” stated Merchant in her Ecological Revolutions. (Merchant, 270) According to Merchant, technology may only briefly fix conditions such as reducing the world starvation by providing food at a very affordable cost. By preventing the decrease in the population and disturbing the natural balance of survival, crisis such as overpopulation will occur. By conserving natural resources and producing goods naturally, ecological calamities can be prevented. As problems such as global warming threaten the near future of the planet, Caroline Merchant advocates for cutting down less trees and restoring the status as it was many centuries ago. “By studying and mimicking natural patterns, the wisdom inherent in evolution can be re-created. Rather than taking nature apart and simplifying ecosystems, as the past three centuries of mechanistic science have taught us to do supremely well, restorationists are actively putting it back together,” asserted Merchant. (Merchant, 268) The future of the planet remains uncertain to Merchant unless people share a common goal to save the environment and reduce their personal gratification in today’s world of capitalism and growing technology.

The world of capitalism and growing technology will affect the landscapes of the Earth. Nye stated on page 89 of his Technology Matters, “Landscapes are part of the infrastructure of existence, and they are inseparable from the technologies that people have used to shape land and to shape their vision.” (Nye, 89) Building of dams, cutting down trees, and making roads are examples of changes in the landscapes. The roads that we built however, according to the renowned environmentalist, Rachel Carson, lead to two very contradicting futures. Rachel Carson stated, “The road we have long been traveling is deceptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed, but at its end lies disaster. The other fork of the road – the one less traveled by – offers our last, our only chance to reach a destination that assures the preservation of our earth.” (Carson, 277) For now at least, Carson has a firm belief that the Earth is leaning toward a gloomier fate than a brighter one. Pollution is without a doubt has been taking place at a very rapid rate for the past three centuries, but she has hope in the human population as she stated that the choice of which road to take, in spite of everything, was in our hands. (Carson, 277) Rachel Carson understands the importance and the inseparableness of technology in our society. She believes that the world could become a better place with correct uses of technology, but people will have to take actions rather quickly in order to save the Earth. "The advantages of such control over chemicals are obvious: it is relatively inexpensive, it is permanent, it leaves no poisonous residues. Yet biological control has suffered from lack of support." (Carson, 292) And since we are already too accustomed to such commodities and lack of care for the Earth, chemicals such as DDT are still used in today’s world. Like Caroline Merchant, Carson brings up how actions we take against the state of nature can strike us back. "As crude a weapon as the cave man's club, the chemical barrage has been hurled against the fabric of life - a fabric on the one hand delicate and destructible, on the other miraculously tough and resilient, and capable of striking back in unexpected ways," wrote Carson in her novel, Silent Spring. (Carson, 297) According to her, we will need to use technology in order to change the situation around, but an effectively clean and environmentally sounding ways are to be utilized.

While fixing my eyes on the Earth as it slowly rises to my view from The Lunar Sands Casino, I make my bet against perhaps the three most eminent thinkers of the area. Unlike Nye, I do not believe that just by means of technology, our future can continue to exist. In my opinion, the world has become already too liberal and capitalistic for people to work together. The population has grown so rapidly throughout the last centuries that, changing the ways of lives of billions of individuals seems almost impractical. As to Caroline Merchant’s point of view, I disagree with the fanatical idea that restoration to the ancient ways will brighten our future, since I do not believe that people are ready for such a change when the world already became to technological and complicated for human population to just give up everything. I agree with Rachel Carson’s view to some extent that future lies in the hands of the people and life always provides hope. I also concur with her ideology that technology is necessary for our survival, but only environmental-friendly can save our dear future. However, I believe that it would be inevitable to use harmful technologies at some instances in order to reach some of our goals. Unlike Carson, I believe that using only the most “friendly” technological advancements would not be as effective. The world is not predictable, as never in history was a person able to envisage the future. I may lose the bet against David E. Nye, Caroline Merchant, and Rachel Carson fifty years from now. Nonetheless, whatever the result may be, I aspire for a better future that would still promise an optimistic outlook in the upcoming human population.

E-Portfolio for Alyssa Santo

Alyssa Santo
WR 100 FH
Essay 4 Rough Draft

The future of earth and all the life it contains us unknown as of now. Humans have polluted it to an extreme, causing a range of problems from global warming to mass extinctions. Now the fate of life on earth is in our hands. Naturally, some people are pessimistic in their predictions for the future, while others hold more optimism. Authors Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, David E. Nye, and Caroline Merchant all possess different opinions regarding the future on earth. If they all were asked to make a prediction for fifty five years from present, they would all have different answers. Nordhaus and Shellenberger might predict a world that is hot but liveable, Nye might predict a world that is driven by technology, and Merchant might predict a world that is disastrous. I think the outcome that is a safe bet for the world in 2064 is that earth will not have changed as dramatically as some propose, but humans will depend more on technology and alternative resources.

In their book Break Through. Nordhaus and Shellenberger describe the death of environmentalism and the rise of political and economic power. They argue that environmentalists focus on the wrong ideas, and do so in a negative way. "Think of the verbs associated with environmentalism and conservation: 'stop,' 'restrict,' 'reverse,' 'prevent,' 'regulate,' and 'constrain.' All of them direct our thinking to stopping the bad, not creating the good" (p. 7). The issues of concern for most environmental groups, such as water pollution, deforestation, etc., are not being dealt with in a way that promotes progress. Often they take on a problem that was created by humans in the first place and focus on reversing it. What Nordhaus and Shellenberger are arguing is that these issues are being dealt with in the wrong way. They say that there is no need for environmental categories because "the challenge of climate change is so massive, so global, and so complex that it can be overcome only if we look beyond the issue categories of the past and embrace a grand new vision for the future." They are in no way saying that these groups are pointless or failures, but rather implying that the issues we face now are too global to be dealt with so lightly and singally.













Alyssa Santo
WR 100 FH
Essay 3 Rough Draft

There are some things in the world that can never be fully understood or calculated by the human mind. Despite what mathematical or scientific way these things are attempted to be proven, they will always remain incomprehensible. One of these things is the carrying capacity of the world. Can there be 100 billion people on earth? Even 800 billion? According to David E. Nye, the population that earth can sustain is entirely a socially constructed number. In his essay “Sustainable Abundance or Ecological Crisis?” Nye evaluates the idea of a socially constructed carrying capacity and relates it to human being’s standards of living and how ecological crises across the globe influence it. He writes “ultimately, the world’s carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social construction.” This statement is validated through Nye’s examples and arguments presented in his essay. The needs and wants of different cultures ultimately affect the sustainability of the world’s population.

Nye’s statement that the world’s carrying capacity is a social construction carries a lot of weight. What he means by this is that the capacity of humans on earth is not determined by some sort of equation or science itself, but rather it is determined by the standards of living in societies across the globe. The example he gives to back his statement up is, “if people want to eat meat everyday and wear natural fibers, the world can support fewer people than it can support if people are vegetarians and buy synthetic clothing.” In other words, the population can only be supported by the abundance of material it uses. There can only be so many animals in a population that are used for meat in order to sustain the population of humans; if the human population highly exceeds the animal population, there will never be enough meat to go around. The same idea applies to crops that produce fibers and are used for making clothes. The soil can only handle a certain number of crops growing per season, and even so, the soil may not have enough nutrients to grow the same amount of crops during the season right after. So if people are willing to have lower standards of living, then the world’s carrying capacity will increase.

Nye also evaluates the abundance of natural energy resources that humans use daily. He references the energy crisis of the 1970’s and says, “suddenly it seemed self-evident that oil, gas, and coal were limited resources that would run out within a few generations” (p. 104). This plays into the world’s carrying capacity because people began to realize that they need to turn to alternative energy sources if they want to maintain the standard of living they currently have. If people rely only on sources such as gasoline and oil, they will have very little or no other resources to rely on for energy once those run out. The energy issue leaves some countries in a rut, while others prosper. As Nye states, “Europeans have long been accustomed to smaller automobiles and higher taxes on gasoline, which encourage alternative forms of transport. Many rely primarily on mass transit and bicycles and live in compact cities with many row houses and apartments. Such countries have a standard of living as high as the United States, but use only half as much energy per capita” (p. 105). This is a perfect example of how resources impact human behavior and standard of living. European countries do not depend heavily on unlimited energy resources, yet they have a similar standard of living to Americans. The difference is that Europeans sacrifice the luxury of large machines such as bulky automobiles and use methods of transportation that use up very little energy. If people all around the world were willing to make such sacrifices, perhaps the world could sustain a larger human population. The way people are living now is damaging the environment and atmosphere of earth, putting human life into danger. If the world’s population were to increase drastically, and people still depended on such resources, not only would the resources run out much quicker but also the amount of chlorofluoro carbons, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and other pollutants would also drastically increase and cause unknown consequences to earth. This same idea applies to all resources, as mentioned before. A larger population can be sustained only if people are willing to give up or rely less on natural resources.

I personally agree with Nye because I think it is a very logical explanation. After reading some of his essays, I myself wonder how much of science is actually a social construction. Things such as the world’s carrying capacity can never be determined mathematically or scientifically as a pure fact. Some people believe the human population can be sustained at numbers as high as 100 billion, while others believe it can never go over 10 billion. I think it all depends on how the society wants to live. For example, China has the largest population in the world. Their main cities are always very crowded, and people live extremely close to one another. It is much different compared to a town where someone’s closest neighbor lives a mile away. However, if people in China choose to live that way, then they can have a higher population, and they do. Other countries have much space available that can support a larger population, but they choose not to live that way. It depends on the country’s wealth and resources. Generally, wealthier countries can support a large population because they can obtain more resources and have a better living situation than poor countries. However, I believe that each country has a population limit it can’t exceed. Not because it isn’t possible, but because it is just not reasonable to have an overwhelming population. People want to have high standards of living, and I don’t believe they will give it up to test the population theory.

The earth is only so large, and there can only be so many living organisms that occupy it. How many organisms can occupy it is incalculable. It is something we choose based on our standards of living, and the resources available to us. Overpopulating the earth might result in dire environmental and atmospheric consequences. It can put hundreds of other species extinct, while also polluting the environment to an extreme. According to Nye, the extent of human population is a social construction that is completely under our control. What we choose to do and how we choose to live determines the fate not only of humans and other animals, but also the world itself.










Ford's creation of the assembly line undoubtedly increased efficiency in production and revolutionized the way industry was run. While it definitely increased production and profit, it impacted workers in a negative way. Their new jobs that waited months for were simply to stand there and work with the pace of the machine, not vice versa, the way it used to be. They were held there under strict rules for long hours, barely able to move a few steps. The Ford industry is definitely an example of how we can sometimes let technology control us, and how technology has taken a toll on the work force.










Alyssa Santo
WR 100 H7
14 September 2009
Assignment One

Humans have a long, complicated, and partially unknown history that dates back to tens of thousands of years ago. Even though the origins of humans are still unclear, one thing is certain: technology, even in its simplest form, has been a crucial part of human society and development since the very beginning. There is no doubt that technology has evolved over time and become integrated in societies around the globe. In modern times especially, technology plays a huge role in peoples’ everyday lives, nearly consuming them. Ages ago when people started becoming dependent on technology it sparked a new debate of whether human beings control their technological creations, or whether technological creations control humans. There is quite a handful of literature discussing and analyzing this issue, with two notable contributors being Ralph Waldo Emerson with his poem “Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing,” and David E. Nye with his book Technology Matters. One of Emerson’s most famous quotes, “Things are in the saddle, And ride mankind,” is taken from that very poem. As powerful as this quote is, Nye happens to contradict it with overwhelming examples and evidence in his essay titled “Does Technology Control Us?” While Emerson argues in his poem that technology is beyond human control, Nye provides historical evidence for why humans actually have more control over their creations than they think.

Emerson’s poem interprets a 19th century society which has become somewhat dependent on and interested in advancing technology. He compares humans to cattle with the lines “’Tis the day of the chattel, Web to weave, and corn to grind” (Emerson). Traditionally, cattle are raised on farms for the production of milk and beef and they are under the complete control of humans. With these two lines, Emerson suggests that humans are actually the ones under control. He uses the word “chattel” to refer to human slavery, and the line after that to depict the kind of work humans slave over. The sentence “web to weave” insinuates more than just the literal definition of weaving; he can also be referring to the web of technology that exists in society, such as railroads, mining, and telegraphs, all of which are web-like in their layouts. The last two lines of this stanza, and his most famous lines, “Things are in the saddle, And ride mankind,” reinforce his previous suggestion that humans have become slaves (Emerson). But in these lines he makes it clear what humans have become the slaves of, which in this case is technology. He uses the word “things” to include all sorts of technology- ‘things’ people have created- and places them in the saddle, where in reality a human would be sitting. This, again, goes with the theme of humans being subdued by technology. Even though people create technology, in Emerson’s mind technology tends to control them instead of vice versa. He elaborates more on this in the next stanza from the excerpt by describing the “two laws discrete…law for man, and law for thing; The last builds town and fleet, But it runs wild, And doth the man unking” (Emerson). These lines make it clear that Emerson views technology as the ruler, or king, over humans. Even though it builds stable things such as “town and fleet,” it ultimately is uncontrollable in the hands of humans.

While Emerson views technology as an uncontrollable force, Nye seems to have a completely opposite take on it. In his essay “Does Technology Control Us?” he provides historical examples to show that, in fact, humans have complete control over technology and its fate in society. Perhaps one of his best examples is Japan in the 1500’s. At this time guns became widely popular around the world which was something different for a country like Japan where the samurais had used swords for ages. Initially, Japan adopted the use of guns and the art of making them, but over time they deserted these weapons and switched back to the original, and trusted, swords. Nye argues that Japan did this for cultural reasons, because the guns had no meaning or worthiness to the samurais. This proves to be a prime example of how people have the power to reject technology, even if that technology seems to “inevitably” spread worldwide (Nye, 17). Another example Nye gave was the ancient civilization of the Mayans, who rejected the technology of the wheel. The Mayans, apparently, knew about wheels and used them for toys and other small objects, but not for the typical use on construction apparatuses (Nye, 20). The point Nye is making by using these examples is that technology is not “deterministic” – people can pick and choose which technologies are more convenient for them, and they have the power to fully reject or fully adopt the technology into their society. A group of people that still exist today, called the Amish, is the perfect example of how societies choose their technology. The Amish are a society that prefers to live without modern technology, and instead create their own technology through hard work, such as horse carriages instead of cars (Nye, 18). If Emerson’s claim is really true that technology is a force above human control, then how are there still societies today that nearly completely reject the use of it? Nye proves, with examples, that technology really is just a tool; it is a tool used by society to grow culturally and intellectually, and whether or not the technology “runs wild” is the choice of the society itself.

In modern times it is quite difficult to escape the grip of technology, as it is all around us. People are constantly checking phones for text messages, chatting through IM, looking for friends on Facebook, or watching their favorite television shows. Any youth today would say that all the technology we have now was bound to arrive and take over as it has. But after reading Nye’s essay, I have to fully agree with his arguments that technology is not “inevitable.” We see on a daily basis how technology is either accepted or rejected – people go crazy over new HD televisions which become popular, while they ignore inventions seen in advertisements in magazines or on the internet which become forgotten. It isn’t the creators of technology who are responsible for its fate, but rather it is the people in society who are responsible. I think human beings are perfectly capable of controlling the technologies available to them, because after all it is up to them to determine what to do with it. For example, many people watch at least two hours of TV a night, but I personally choose to reject TV (for the most part) because it is something I have no interest in. Therefore, I am a human being who is in control of the technology I have in front of me.

Perhaps the reason people like to think technology is “inevitable” is because it is all they have ever known. From the time I was born through present day, I myself have witnessed tons of technological changes and advancements. I grew up waiting for the next, and better, GameBoy to come out, waiting for updated versions of the Sims, and even witnessed the change from hand-drawn animation to computerized animation. I was still so young as I observed all of these technological feats, and even today we constantly see improvements in technology. For this reason people assume that technology is getting out of hand and that it was destined to become what it has today, but in truth it is those very people that shaped this technological age into what it is. Humans do have control over their creations- it is only when they think their creations control them that they feel powerless and subdued.

Manmade creations have been around since the first humans to make actions easier and doable. Since then, technology has obviously advanced to what it is now and nearly engulfs society. People are afraid of what it has become or what it can become in the future. However, Nye assures us that there is no rational reason to be afraid of technology, as it is just a large part of society that can be controlled. Whether or not it is easy to control depends on the society and the decisions it makes. But most importantly, technology is ultimately in our hands, never vice versa. Emerson does offer good opinions, but what it comes down to is that ‘things’ are not in the saddle- we are.


-----------------------



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

e-portfolio for William anthony

Paper 3--very rough draft

Is it possible for the Earth’s population to exceed the food it can provide? Could the population expand so much that there would not be enough shelter, enough oxygen, or enough water? It would seem almost inevitable that as humans reproduce at an exponential rate, we would at some point reach a limit where the Earth could no longer provide essential items for life. This idea of carrying capacity is brought forth and evaluated by Nye within his essay “Sustainable Abundance, or Ecological Crisis?” Although Nye views that there are some limiting factors, he believes it is society’s decision as to how we use the Earth that will determine how many humans can survive on it.
Nye begins his essay by referencing David Defoe’s story of Robinson Crusoe in which a British castaway, by the name of Robinson Crusoe, is able to survive for 26 years on a deserted island. Due to both the knowledge and technology, from his shipwreck, gained from his society, Robinson is capable of surviving on the island. Had Robinson not had the knowledge or the technology that he did, it is likely that he would not have been able to survive. It is clearly seen that the carrying capacity of the island depended on how much access to the islands resources Robinson had. Had Robinson been unable to use his knowledge or technology to gather food, or to make shelter, or to get clean water, it is likely he would have died.
The idea of the world’s carrying capacity is quite similar to that of the island in Robinson Crusoe. That is, it is not a set number that never fluctuates. Instead, the carrying capacity of the world relies heavily on how mankind decides to use the resources of the world. Technological advances have greatly improved the efficiency of farming, housing, and even clothing. Due to items such as “gasoline motors, tractors, electrification, new fertilizers, and hybrid seeds” productivity in farming has greatly increased—in most crops 200 percent.
Technology is not the only item that affects the Earth’s carrying capacity. The carrying capacity is also greatly affected by society and culture. Based on how the society interacts with nature plays a great deal in how much the Earth can support. Take for example the gas crisis in 1970s. Nye references this as a time of change amongst the way the cultured viewed the world’s resources. Suddenly things became more rare and there was a change in the way the culture used resources. Renewable resources became more popular and more funding was put towards items that were fuel-efficient. This however did not last and we have found ourselves in the same problem recently.







The above video examines how Henry Ford and Frederick Taylor's ideas and how the revolutionized product assembly. It explains how standardized parts are the basis of a huge range of products, including some that you wouldn't normally thing about, such as fast food. It also states that product line assembly reduces the expertise required by the workers. No longer did workers have to have an understanding of how everything fit together, instead they only had to perform their own task.


ROUGH DRAFT OF PAPER ONE

In modern day society, it is nearly impossible to escape technology. From cell phones on street corners to thousands of books stored on a Kindle, society is completely immersed in technology, and life without it is completely unthinkable. With the proliferation of technology, it raises the question of whether or not we actually control it. David E. Nye argues that technology is not deterministic, but it has become a necessary choice. Ralph Waldo Emerson’s argument, though dated, demonstrates most closely society’s dependence on technological advances. While control still belongs to man, societal pressures have undeniably limited it.

In “Does Technology Control Us?,” David E. Nye claims that technology is in fact not deterministic and can be avoided if wanted. In order to prove his point, Nye cites several societies that are prime examples of mankind’s ability to deny technology. Nye first starts out by discussing the Samurai’s of Japan who refused the technological advancement of the gun. Guns to the Japanese “had little symbolic value to the warriors” such as that that was associated with the sword.[i] It wasn’t until guns were absolutely necessary for the protection of Japan that the gun was accepted culturally. Nye then goes on to discuss the Amish community. The Nye points out that the Amish community’s rejection of technology “show[s] that communities can make self-conscious technological choices and can resist even very powerful technologies.”[ii]

Nye does not completely deny the fact that technology has some control over us. It is clearly understood by Nye that because of previous choices made in society, it may sometimes feel like we are “trapped” by technology.[iii] Evidence of this includes building code requirements, which force us to live with technological advancements such as plumbing, heating, and electricity. It is conveniences like this that cause man’s “free will” to choose technology.

Society, as a whole, favors convenience. It is built it the human nature of mankind. When Nye claims that man chooses technology freely, he is neglecting the simple fact that humans are driven by an innate desire to achieve something the quickest, easiest way. Technology in it’s broadest sense includes any tool that mankind has made to better himself off; A hammer is technology, flint and steel is technology, even shelter is a type of technology. In the earliest of times it wasn’t about whether or not to accept technology, it was about surviving, and those with the better technology would. It is impossible to imagine man’s survival without the use of technology. Man cannot withstand the elements without technology; he cannot gather substantial food without technology. By stating that man can survive without technology is limiting technology to modern advances such as cell phones and the Internet, and not technology in its complete sense.

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s expresses his views on technology very clearly in his poem, “Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing.” Within this poem Emerson boldly asserts, “Things are in the Saddle, / And ride mankind.”[iv] Emerson shows no doubt in his belief that technology has taken a superior position to mankind and, much like a rider of a horse, controls mankind. Emerson then goes on to state that, “The last [law for thing] builds town and fleet, / But it runs wild, / And doth the man unking.”[v] This statement only stresses his belief that mankind has become a slave to technology. Emerson is implying that man no longer is capable to control his own destiny. He know longer holds the thrown of power and instead technology, a rebellious force, makes decisions for man.

The problem with Emerson’s statements is that they were written during the time of the Industrial Revolution. The idea that technology enslaved mankind really did hold true because machines did not need man to work. Man was being replaced by something that did the same job as him, but faster and more consistent. In the modern era, this does not completely apply. It is true that tasks are still completed by machines, but no longer does man feel obsolete to machines. In the information age it is vital for a business to exceed based on diversity of people and unique ideas. These do not come from technology and machines. There is a human element that must be accounted for and that drives business more so than technology itself.

Although Emerson and Nye disagree on the role that technology plays in society, neither is right. When Nye claims that technology is a complete choice, he is not using the fullest description of technology. Even though Emerson disagrees with Nye, his view that mankind is enslaved to technology is too radical, and therefore also false. Man is capable of setting off into the wild and being able to survive without what many seem to be essential in the 21^st century such as cell phones and the Internet. Mankind’s natural instinct causes him to rely on technology and it’s advancements, however man still holds a small decision in whether or not to become a machine driven by technology.

Notes

---

[i] Nye, E. D. (2007). Does Technology Control Us? In Technology Matters (pp. 17). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press

[ii] Nye, 17.

[iii] Nye, 21.

[iv] Emerson, Ralph Waldo. ""Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing" (1846)." In Early Poems of Ralph Waldo Emerson. New York, Boston, Thomas Y. Crowell & Company: 1899.

[v] Emerson.

Bibliography

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. ""Ode, Inscribed to William H. Channing" (1846)." In Early Poems of Ralph Waldo Emerson. New York, Boston: Thomas Y. Crowell & Company, 1899.

Nye, E. David. "Does Technology Control Us?" In Technology Matters, 17-31. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2007.

e-portfolio for Joshua Kraskin

ROUGH DRAFT OF PAPER 4

Josh Kraskin
WR100 FH
Professor Deese

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

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

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

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

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





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


ROUGH DRAFT OF PAPER ONE

Josh Kraskin

Professor R. S. Deese

WR100

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

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

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

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

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

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

Work Cited

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

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

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

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