Technopolies and their transformation of society
Technologies have always been considered an import part of human culture. Many people say, it is one of the important things that defines as more than animals, the ability to create and continually evolve tools to better manipulate our environment. But how has technology changed our society? Have the tools we created simply done their intended purpose, or have they continued to evolve with use, and in effect cause transformations to our culture that no one would have believed in the beginning? This idea is discussed in the article â€śTechnopoly,â€? by Neil Postman. The word â€śtechnopolyâ€? describes his belief that technology, when introduced to a culture, will always be mastered by few before many. It is in this fact, that for a while only a few hold the ability to use this new technology, that a false sense of knowledge is bestowed upon them. People slowly begin to believe that this new technology or system, because it is different and novel, must be better than the current ways. The instant promises and advances of the new system blinds the possible downfalls of the technology later on in its life. A technology never is used just for the purpose it was intended for, people find new uses and ways to use of exploit it. So the question then becomes, when should technologies not be introduced? Just because we have invented it, does it mean that it should be used, now that we know that that technology will evolve into unpredictable uses?
Instead of speaking about a technology in the past and how its uses have evolved over time from its original purpose, such as the television, internet, or written word, I decided to explore a different aspect of the issue of technopoly. Stem cell research is brand new field of technology currently being developed. For being such a new development, it is remarkably well known about by the people in both America and the world. This is because people are worried about not only what the technology currently does, by what it can turn into to. From viewing the past, people are finally starting to catch on about the idea of â€śevolving:â€? technologies. So when a technology as fundamentally life changing as stem cell research is invented, instead of viewing it at face value, they turn to the future and imagine what it might become. So the question turns up again, should we allow the continued development of a technology that could save millions of lives, when in the future, it could possible lead to unwanted skills? For example, stem cells, because of their incredible regenerative properties, could lead to cures in diseases such as cancer and diabetes and also allow for the regeneration of damaged cells in stroke patients or people with Parkinsonâ€™s or Alzheimerâ€™s. But the negative connotations to the research, is what it might be used for in the future. The development of stem cell research has already lead to the technology of humans being able to clone humans. Although that new technology is still in its very primitive stages, it changes society whole concept of what is human life. People are fighting between the ways of the past and the ways of the â€śfuture,â€? but which is right? All of this plays directly into the questions asked by the article. So should we stop stem cell research, and all that it can do for us, because of what is happening and what may happen in the future, or do we try to control it for as long as possible and continue to push on for it current advantages?
Life will always change, so why shouldnâ€™t our tools, but when does new always mean better?