Technology and Nature
Speculate on Kahn and Gershenfeld. Comment.
These articles remind me of the opposition of man vs. nature. In this case it is technology vs nature. In where
Gershenfeld is the technology and Kahn is the nature. I was finding myself thinking of this opposition as I read the
articles, it reminded me a lot of my own article I had wrote earlier. It is similar to Frank Lloyd Wright looking forward
to nature, as Kahn did; and how everyone else was looking forward to development and man made objects, as
Gershenfeld did.Technology Vs. Nature, who will win? I think that these two different lines of thinking can be able
to co-exist in the modern world. It is simply a matter of balance between the two extremes. One extreme is the
entire surface of the world is covered with unnatural and out of place man-made objects as far as the eye can
see. The entire world would just be one large city. The other extreme is that there is minimal man-made objects,
and the ones that are there are designed for their environment and "belong" there in a way. It is not really possible
to live in either of these ways, there must be some balence, but is seems to be leaning in favor of technology.
Frank Lloyd Wright comes to mind again with his idea of the mile-high tower he proposed. To construct such a
massive project there must be tons of technology involved in order to construct it and keep it standing. Not to
mention the technology needed for the elevators or facilities for the entire structure including: water, power,
waste, staff and transportation. In addition to this technology, however, FLW wanted the rest of the landscape to
be mostly devoted to nature and its original state. This, I believe, is an appropriate balance between technology
and nature. Neither of them take over the other, they are separate but equal, so to speak. But in this case they are
actually equal. An example of it being unequal would be urban sprawl. In this case, technology allows the
manufacturing and building of houses very cheap and available to anyone. Technology allows people to use its
benefits for not so beneficial projects. Who decides if a project is beneficial? I'm not sure if it should be any one
person, but something of a democracy of people who are educated in the matters of technology and nature alike;
people who wish to benefit mankind and also keep the delicate balance in nature.