When most people think of cyborgs, they think of popular movies like "The Terminator" or "Star Trek". That's why I usually get a laugh of disbelief when I tell people about my subject. When you think about it, your first connection is probably Arnold Schwarzenegger's famous "Asta la vista, baby" and the thought of an actual cyborg is somewhat ridiculous. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a cyborg as, "A person whose physical tolerances or capabilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by a machine or other external agency that modifies the body's functioning; an integrated man-machine system." Now when technologies like nanobots are right around the corner, I think its an appropriate time to start thinking about it. Were now using human ingenuity to surpass the what is now considered "normal" living conditions in a way that goes beyond medical or organic. I believe were on the edge of human evolution; man is merging with his greatest creation, machine. Now I'm not big into sci-fi and I don't spend my nights reading the forums but I am incredibly interested in human beings. The beginning of a potential evolution is something I believe everyone should get into, no matter how ridiculous Hollywood has made it.
As a stakeholder I see myself as that regular person who will make a decision in the future to modify and stay with the pack or fall behind with the others who want to die as they are. Not that they're is anything wrong with that, a decision like that isn't something to take lightly and its not like were getting picked off by lions anymore. This will be the most morally derided decision we will have to deal with globally because it changes so many social normals on every level. Do you want to live for possibly +150 years? Do you want to look and age normally? Peoples beliefs and morals will be rocked to their very foundations. When it comes to my decision regarding metal legs that can fly or tiny robots that can make me live forever I just can't tell you what I'd do. I guess it all depends on how cool the legs look.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
One-sided Argument
Legitimate arguments require the arguer to consider all angles. In Technology Matters David Nye writes about the relationships between technology and society. Nye is good at finding arguments that support his argument, the problem is that’s all he finds. Not only that, but he finds sources that are old and to me, disconnected from the average American. In chapter eight he quotes from Mulford Q. Silbey's, Utopian Thought and Technology from the American Journal of Political Science vol. 7 No. 2 and Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone. Both sources, though intelligent and well thought discussions seem to only hurt Nye’s arguments instead of help them.
In Sibley’s Utopian Thought and Technology he writes on technology and Utopian society. Nye uses his comments on “market driven” technology to back up his argument on elections for new technology, “technology is so vital a part of life, and collective life particularly, that we cannot afford to leave the fate of man to the hazards of the “market” or accident.” (Silbey, p. 278) This is a valid point but it does raise the question, hasn’t it always been the nature of man to discover the major breakthroughs of technology by “accident”? When man discovered fire did he know that friction of sticks would bring about fire? No, it was just a random caveman who had the unfortunate pleasure of being outside when lightning struck a random object. In 1776, due to an accidental conversation with a milkmaid contaminated with the harmless cowpox disease, Edward Jenner had discovered the soon to be vaccine for smallpox. I do agree that the people should have a say in what companies are producing, but it seems that companies invest in popular products. It seems that it’s not the product that really angers people, it’s the effect that its waste or production has on our environment. Capitalism is all about competition and that creates a very fast paced market for technology. Maybe it’s not such a bad thing that some technology is “market driven” or accidently discovered. They’re just investing in something the public wants. Maybe the public does elect our technology, but instead of ballots, dollars and cents declare the victor.
In Putnam’s Bowling Alone, Nye uses the chapter where Putnam discusses the generation’s love of TV resulting in a lack of participation in social groups and politics, “the political scientist Robert Putnam made a similar argument in Bowling Alone, concluding that intensive use of the media undermines civic life” (Nye, p. 153). Bob Dylan once wrote:
“Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'” (Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-Changin')
Life is completely different from the post WW2 America of the 50’s and 60’s. People don’t join these old social groups and setting because they don’t have any connection to them. Though groups like college fraternities still exist and prosper, they don’t hold much similarity to the days when they were originally founded. As times change people change with it. Things like the internet and cell phones have made the weekly gatherings of groups obsolete because people can contact anyone they want to at any time of day. Like Dylan says, “Your old road is rapidly agin’. Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand.” (Dylan) This is another example of Nye using old sources or ideas that don’t relate to today’s society. It is sad that these social groups are fading away, but that’s a fact of life. It’s just that bowling isn’t doing it for the kids these days and sadly, it’s time for them to move on.
Nye does make good points in his book, he addresses real problems like pollution and his comments about technology in relation to cultural evolution are very interesting. I do wish that he used sources that opposed his view because I think he loses originality by only using sources he agrees with. It feels like he’s simply regurgitating other people’s ideas instead of forming his own.
In Sibley’s Utopian Thought and Technology he writes on technology and Utopian society. Nye uses his comments on “market driven” technology to back up his argument on elections for new technology, “technology is so vital a part of life, and collective life particularly, that we cannot afford to leave the fate of man to the hazards of the “market” or accident.” (Silbey, p. 278) This is a valid point but it does raise the question, hasn’t it always been the nature of man to discover the major breakthroughs of technology by “accident”? When man discovered fire did he know that friction of sticks would bring about fire? No, it was just a random caveman who had the unfortunate pleasure of being outside when lightning struck a random object. In 1776, due to an accidental conversation with a milkmaid contaminated with the harmless cowpox disease, Edward Jenner had discovered the soon to be vaccine for smallpox. I do agree that the people should have a say in what companies are producing, but it seems that companies invest in popular products. It seems that it’s not the product that really angers people, it’s the effect that its waste or production has on our environment. Capitalism is all about competition and that creates a very fast paced market for technology. Maybe it’s not such a bad thing that some technology is “market driven” or accidently discovered. They’re just investing in something the public wants. Maybe the public does elect our technology, but instead of ballots, dollars and cents declare the victor.
In Putnam’s Bowling Alone, Nye uses the chapter where Putnam discusses the generation’s love of TV resulting in a lack of participation in social groups and politics, “the political scientist Robert Putnam made a similar argument in Bowling Alone, concluding that intensive use of the media undermines civic life” (Nye, p. 153). Bob Dylan once wrote:
“Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'” (Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-Changin')
Life is completely different from the post WW2 America of the 50’s and 60’s. People don’t join these old social groups and setting because they don’t have any connection to them. Though groups like college fraternities still exist and prosper, they don’t hold much similarity to the days when they were originally founded. As times change people change with it. Things like the internet and cell phones have made the weekly gatherings of groups obsolete because people can contact anyone they want to at any time of day. Like Dylan says, “Your old road is rapidly agin’. Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand.” (Dylan) This is another example of Nye using old sources or ideas that don’t relate to today’s society. It is sad that these social groups are fading away, but that’s a fact of life. It’s just that bowling isn’t doing it for the kids these days and sadly, it’s time for them to move on.
Nye does make good points in his book, he addresses real problems like pollution and his comments about technology in relation to cultural evolution are very interesting. I do wish that he used sources that opposed his view because I think he loses originality by only using sources he agrees with. It feels like he’s simply regurgitating other people’s ideas instead of forming his own.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Blog #6
For my source I picked Mulford Q. Silbey's, Utopian Thought and Technology from the American Journal of Political Science vol. 7 No. 2 (May, 1973, pp. 255-281. In it Silbey talks about the Utopian views and how they conflict with modern technology, "The very noise of the technological explosion during the past two centuries has often deafened us to the questions the utopist have asked: Why? To what ends? Within what priorities? Under what controls? With what consequences? With what effects on human beings? Why go faster and faster and faster?" (Silbey, p. 255) Much of Silbey's essay doesn't have much to do with technology driving the markets as David Nye writes in his book but it does deal with technology driving the social evolution. Silbey references a lot from the bible in his argument in a way that I believe would be very useful to Nye in his book about technology and society. Silbey relates technology and religion in a way I've never seen done, "Cain, representing the agricultural stage of development, kills Abel, thus becoming the first murderer. He is "cursed" for his deed but in his there still remains the urge to improve the world technologically. Hence the first murderer becomes the founder of the first city. One of his decedents, Turbal Cain, is described as the earliest worker in brass and possibly symbolizes the development of a more complex technology, which, while it reflects man's ingenuity, makes it probable also still greater misery, pain, and death" (Silbey, p. 257) The association of technology and Christianity is interesting because not only does that relate to modern society but hes connecting to entities that have never gone together: Science and religion. This I believe is a important aspect on technology and modern life because religion plays such a huge part in society. If Nye used anything else from Silbey in his book it should be that because it so directly relevant to his subject matter.
Silbey has the same overall opinion as Nye, in that they believe that technology should be regulated in some way. I noticed this was written in 1973, a literal dark age for technology. Overshadowed by Vietnam and an even larger cold war with Russia, nuclear weapons were the threat of the day. Today, even though its still a terrifying thing to think about, much more seems to be known and nukes and their technology. Back then, nuclear bombs were relatively new and kept away from the general public, paralyzing the country in blind fear. Should Nye use such an old reference to write a current observation on technology and society? Technologically speaking, the seventies look like the stone age compared to today's world and I wonder if a source that old is useful for commenting on technology driving today's market. Today the market seems much more commercially driven through technology than defense driven as in Silbey's time. I feel that as the market changes the rules and trends that govern the market change too.
Silbey has the same overall opinion as Nye, in that they believe that technology should be regulated in some way. I noticed this was written in 1973, a literal dark age for technology. Overshadowed by Vietnam and an even larger cold war with Russia, nuclear weapons were the threat of the day. Today, even though its still a terrifying thing to think about, much more seems to be known and nukes and their technology. Back then, nuclear bombs were relatively new and kept away from the general public, paralyzing the country in blind fear. Should Nye use such an old reference to write a current observation on technology and society? Technologically speaking, the seventies look like the stone age compared to today's world and I wonder if a source that old is useful for commenting on technology driving today's market. Today the market seems much more commercially driven through technology than defense driven as in Silbey's time. I feel that as the market changes the rules and trends that govern the market change too.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Blog #5
In chapter 8 in David Nye's Technology Matters while talking about market driven technological advancements and their negative effects he comments that, "Voters, not 'the market', should decide such issues" (147). Though Dr. Hoenikker doesn't represent "the market", he does represent the reckless endangerment that I believe the public should know about. I think they're are things that we as a nation and in the case of Cat's Cradle, the world should be aware of. Most times, I don't find public opinion very constructive. Most people don't think for themselves enough and let a "higher power" decide things for them. But in the case of "ice-nine" I think that the world would put aside its opinions and give a collective, pardon my language, "Are you fucking crazy?"
I put technology and the wonders it brings on a very high pedestal. Most times, if the negatives aren't to serious I try to give technology the benefit of the doubt and consider the side effects as collateral damage of our unique way of life. But they're are things about technology that do frighten me, enough where I wish they were non-existent. Weapons of mass destruction for instance, most notably: the atomic bomb. Here in America, we have been fortunate enough to never have had fought a war on our own ground. If god forbid, an atomic bomb went off anywhere in the United States I think that a vast majority of the American people would call for the end of the a-bomb, in American and around the world. I do agree with Nye that the public should be involved in the decision making advancing technology, weapons especially. I believe it should be an elected council, an elected council that on state budget goes to semi-annually and gives it thoughts on how new technology is effecting real people everyday. I think everyone should be represented, farmers, laborers, parents, even religion should have the right to share an opinion. If that were the case and the government could stick to its word I think maybe things could run a little smoother. Less toes too step on and even if they step, at least they have a report from a human being rather than a statistic on a piece of paper. If a council existed back in the day when the atomic bomb began, would they have halted its production and said no to its mass annihilation? I'm not so sure, but I think that today I could be a little more confident that American's would say no to it's destructiveness and asked our leaders to end the age of the a-bomb here in America, and especially throughout the world.
I do have confidence that if something like "Ice-nine" showed up at America's door step asking for buyers that America would respond with a no and blowtorch that sucker out of existence. Something like that has 100% risk with 0% benefit. Even the crazies can't say yes to that.
I put technology and the wonders it brings on a very high pedestal. Most times, if the negatives aren't to serious I try to give technology the benefit of the doubt and consider the side effects as collateral damage of our unique way of life. But they're are things about technology that do frighten me, enough where I wish they were non-existent. Weapons of mass destruction for instance, most notably: the atomic bomb. Here in America, we have been fortunate enough to never have had fought a war on our own ground. If god forbid, an atomic bomb went off anywhere in the United States I think that a vast majority of the American people would call for the end of the a-bomb, in American and around the world. I do agree with Nye that the public should be involved in the decision making advancing technology, weapons especially. I believe it should be an elected council, an elected council that on state budget goes to semi-annually and gives it thoughts on how new technology is effecting real people everyday. I think everyone should be represented, farmers, laborers, parents, even religion should have the right to share an opinion. If that were the case and the government could stick to its word I think maybe things could run a little smoother. Less toes too step on and even if they step, at least they have a report from a human being rather than a statistic on a piece of paper. If a council existed back in the day when the atomic bomb began, would they have halted its production and said no to its mass annihilation? I'm not so sure, but I think that today I could be a little more confident that American's would say no to it's destructiveness and asked our leaders to end the age of the a-bomb here in America, and especially throughout the world.
I do have confidence that if something like "Ice-nine" showed up at America's door step asking for buyers that America would respond with a no and blowtorch that sucker out of existence. Something like that has 100% risk with 0% benefit. Even the crazies can't say yes to that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)