WS 3371 Fall 2007

While I was reading I couldn't help but think of the movie "The Matrix" and how machines are the more dominant 'specie.' Could the world possibly be heading in the same direction?

As much as I like technological advancements, some of these advancements seem to actually regress society. For example, I believe the reading mentioned Hiroshima. Shouldn't technological advancements help everyone rather than destroying some? This could also be used when looking at how many workers have been replaced by machines. Those machines might get the job done quicker with the least amount of energy/money but is it really whats beast for society?

I really liked some of the questions brought up by the “Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?” article. Generally, I’m all for technological advancement despite the potential for abuse or for things to go horribly wrong. However Marx does bring up some valid points regarding whether or not technology is actually going in the right direction instead of just going somewhere. In my mind, it’s very similar to the idea of evolution. Some people hold the belief that evolution and natural selection is refining species into better ones, basically a ladder going from not so great to perfect. I guess that would be equivalent to those who think technology is bringing us closer to a perfect existence, society, whatever. However most biologists agree that evolution isn’t making a perfect species, it’s just going somewhere. It selects for species that are best equipped for the time and place. And I think this is what technology and progress should do. Who cares if we’re going in the “right” direction, we should just go somewhere. Sure hindsight is 20/20 and you could argue that certain advancements maybe weren’t the best of ideas (i.e. the nuclear bomb) but circumstances change, we alter our technology and the way we live to compensate for those not so good ideas.

I also enjoyed the “Does improved technology mean progress?” article. I found myself comparing the article with a friend of mine who recently purchased an Apple iPhone. I was looking at all of the different features included in this small device and it is truly mind-boggling. Not only is this phone capable of taking picture with quality that rivals any digital camera, you can watch movies and television shows, connect to the actual email, get immediate stock and weather updates as well as talk on a regular phone. It is amazing to compare what the first cellular phones were like and how advanced this new phone is. It made me wonder, what is our obsession with always having to have the best and newest things? I do believe that improved technology means progress as long as it is used for the right reasons. If advances are made that ultimately eliminate a civilization then I do not believe that technology is being used in the right manner. However, if new developments mean advances in the treatment and possible cure of diseases such as cancer or diabetes then I am all for that. I think there is a fine line between progress and technology and we must remember to also be ethical when striving to develop the newest “thing” that will revolutionize the technology industry.

This article seems to be biased. It mentions that people have embraced technological advances as progress in society rather than autonomy from oppressive governments. I do not see anything wrong with having this kind of a mindset. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs comes to mind as a corollary analogy. Maslow postulated that the order of human needs follows in this order:
1.) Physiological
2.) Safety
3.) Belonging
4.) Esteem
5.) Self Actualization
I would argue that societal needs are an amalgamation of individual needs combined with group think mentality. I would not like to rank the hierarchy of societal needs; however, it appears as though autonomy and liberty from an oppressive government is the first strata of hierarchy in achieving what may be a non-oppressive government. Having a government that does not interdict peoples’ creativity and thought appears to be a better form of government than the oppressive one. With this in mind I do not believe that technology, arts, medicine, and other forms of studies have a chance in advancing with an oppressive government, therefore, it exists more so in the non-oppressive government. Somehow, I think we are better off now than considering autonomy from an oppressive government as progress.

This article is raises questions about many things, and makes many good points. I think it really interesting that China is striving to grow agriculture, science and technology, industry, and military. With the growth of China becoming a large world power, because of their growth, they have also become one of the largest polluting countries. This can be attributed to their fast industrialization, similar to the Industrial Revolution of the US. However, with the attitude of the world’s environment China needs to answer for its own environmental pollutants.
Which raises the point that once you have grown as a country, you need to grow with responsibility. As a country gains power, that country needs to take more responsibilities with its people, itself, and other worldly problems. The United States has become a world power, and it assumes responsibilities on many different levels. Taking more responsibility and maintain a certain integrity.

I enjoyed the article "Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?", and think it brings up some interesting ideas to contemplate. First, Marx talks about the gaining of knowledge to improve life and have power over nature. I almost see this as progress towards having ourselves believe that we are God-like, ever-ruling creatures. In which case, I think that if we see ourselves as such, we are in for quite a surprise.

Another couple of interesting points that Marx makes is that of questioning the importance, or purpose, of some technologies in our lives. I think back to when my grandfather would tell us stories about working on a plant, making candies and other sorts of items. He then would go on and say that the plant was taken over by machines that produced more and accomplished the tasks faster. In this way, a technological advance would make the production easier and more cost-efficient, however, thousands of people lost their jobs and had to supplement with longer work days and usually lower wages. In this way, how can one say it is progress, if it stops progress in some way?

Technology is a wonderful thing, which has helped society evolve from a hunting and gathering like lifestyle. However, at the same time it is a very power thing which society sometimes overlooks.
I will admit many of the technologies that exist today are something that I would not want to be without. For example, the internet, machinery, the list goes on and on. But, if you take the time to think about it, these technological advances have in many ways made more complexed problems for society to deal with. The internet for example has brought on the increase in identity theft. Machines have brought the rise of air pollution and global warming. As discussed in the reading, society just learns to accept these technologies without truly considering the costs.
So, my question is, at what point do we as society draw the line with technology? Why does society continue to feel like we need more control over things around us?

My sentiments are aligned with Lewis Mumford in The Technological Imperative. It seems as though we as a a society get consumed with the latest technology without assessing its true value. So many people buy gadgets right off the shelf without considering how the value of the gadget will decrease in six months. In addition to that, there is so much money being spent on new technology, but is it really worth it? I recall having my first cell phone for three years -- it was the traditional phone with the green screen, black text. I never had any issues with it. I currently have had a Treo for a year and I've already had to replace it because of technical issues. Now, the Treo was much more expensive than my traditional old school cell phone. But I'm having more issues with my "upgraded" Treo. I have to ask myself if I'm wasting money on new technology since I'll have to keep buying and replacing it?

In Marx' article, a valid point was raised. To me, improved technology does not mean progress. We can see that with the natural distasters that have occurred over these past few years. Yes, they benefit at times, but in the times of despair, can we truly rely on technology? This article definitely allowed me to reflect on that.

In the passage written by Marx there is a quotation from a speech given by Thus Webster. Webster, an orator of the time, marveled at how the advances in technology have brought us to where we are today. Even in 1847 it was hard to believe all of the advances they had made. No one knew what advances were yet to be discovered, but Webster iterated that what was yet to come would be beyond present day human belief. I see a lot of our society in what Webster said. Many times it is hard to believe the advances that are made, and there is no way any of us could imagine some of the technological advances we will have at our fingertips just 20 years from now. I find it fascinating that such language can be so old, yet so timeless.

In addition, I found the quote by Henry Thoreau to be quite striking. Thoreau labels new inventions as "improved means to an unimproved end." I like this quote because it relates to some of the comments that have been shared in class. As I recall, a few people specifically said that technology has "made us lazy." In other words, although technology has helped make things more efficient in some regards, it has also drawn dependence from us and made us less independent in the tasks and communications we choose to engage in.

Towards the end of Marx's essay, he puts the term "improved technology" into perspective when he relates the improved technology to the question of what are we, as a society, trying to accomplish by advancing technology? Marx sees technological advances as a potentially good advancement, but cautions that only by "questioning the assumption that innovation represents progress can we begin to judge its (technology's) worth. I like how this quote puts the need for technological advances in perspective, as many technologies we have today make life better mainly for those who can afford them, and not for the masses of society. Therefore, exactly how valuable are the advances that we keep creating? Are the advances being driven by the human need, or are they being driven by competition between competing businesses to earn the satisfaction, and money, of society?

In the Marx's article I found substantial faults with the logic and reasoning used to argue against the advancments of technology. Technological progress may not purely be social progress but yet does directly benefit and catalyze societal advancement. From the very beginning of societey, technology has been the stepping stone of social change. Historicaly, radical forward thinkers have suffered criticism, persecution and intolerance due to ignorance. Scientists revered today for their contributions once were judged just as modern scientist who are pushing the envelope today with things such as stem cell research and cloning. I feel that no one can predict the future, thus to judge or fear the advancements of technology is pure ignorance. Just as ignorant as the practice of society using religion or mystical forces to explain the unkown. Science is not the only measure of progress but it is one none the less.

I also would like to ask if social progress can occur without advancements in technology?

As seen in the readings, it truly is amazing how fast our population is willing to adopt new and non-time tested technologies. It has been stated in class that humans are defined as and separated from animals by our use of tools and development of technology, however is our over-willingness to adopt any new items a double bladed axe which can leave our society damaged (as seen by pollution and other complications)? Or is it just a new form of Darwinism where now instead of living organisms we have technology taking over the battle for fitness and the ability to pass on its legacy/traits? It seems as though the newest trend to show a dominance in the technological aspect is being able to call something Eco-Friendly, but how long is this trait going to remain at the top? Will it drop away once we have developed a tried and true way to keep the environment and eco-system under control (not assuming that anyone ever will), or will we continue to value speed and luxury over maybe doing the right things and bring a sad end to the era of humans and maybe even technology itself?

While reading "Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?", I was reminded of a few thoughts and ideas that I've had over the years. One thing that I have noticed over the years is that whenever some important event occurs, the first thing out of our leaders mouth has something to do with how the economy will be effected.

There have been tragic events like Hurricane Katrina, scandals that involve high ranking government officials, new ideas in regards to alternative fuels, and as sure as anything somebody will jump up and say how this will hurt our economy.

Never mind that people are in danger or that there is a major problem that's on the horizon, it's always the economy.

It seems that the drive to invent new technologies and the casual assumption that the said technology will cure the problems of the world seem related to the crusade to constantly make the public worry about hurting the economy.

Are our priorities mixed up? After reading about the aspirations of Thomas Jefferson, I do feel that we may have distanced ourselves from the original intent of our founding fathers. Jefferson's declaration, "Let our work-shops remain in Europe," seems to be in dark contrast to the current philosophies that hail the free market economy.

I really think that most American people do not have a clear idea of the thoughts and wishes of the founding fathers. This includes me. I barely remember what little history I was taught in my elementary years. I have read a few different books on the topic and I still feel that I have barely scratched the surface.

I really enjoyed an early viewpoint given in Marx’s article, calling the “new sciences and technologies” as “instruments for carrying out a comprehensive transformation of society.” I believe that this can bring up many good discussion points. Does technology really mean progress, or just a different way of life?
Today we have access to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstien, and because of our new technology, I can read the first five chapters through a digital screen. This is a different way of life, due to technology. Sure 20 years ago I could have been assigned the same reading from the same book, but I would have acted differently, and gotten the material differently also. I did feel kind of lazy not going to the library and reading the soft cover book there, but instead I spent my time sitting in my room on a (Pl)eather Chair. Technology has obviously been noted to have made an affect this afternoon, but is that necessarily a positive progression towards the greater good? I say no, at least for my current situation. I have a different sense of reading when I can feel the physical paper in my hands, and when my eyes don’t ach because of the bright screen. I can close my book and not have to type in a password when I want to continue reading. Then again, the choice is there, and I guess that is a good thing. But today, I just felt kind of lazy.

I think the Mumford and Marx article make the same point… people are obsessed with technology. I can think of several instances where technological compulsiveness takes over. The Neumann quote really rings true. There are hundreds of products that are irresistible to man. One recent product is the iPhone. I think the media plays a huge part in advertising new technology. This summer before the iPhone came out, the Today show on NBC had daily features about this new product. I think it was absurd how some consumers were literally camping out the night before the release of the iPhone. Yet, at the same time, I understand why some people resist technological innovation and change.

Marx’s questions at the end of his essay were also very interesting. Does improved technology mean progress? That is definitely a question that could be argued both ways. However, I found Marx’s second question even more interesting. What does technology bring progress towards? Is the progress in eliminating the human component of daily activity. Will there be robotic housekeepers, such as Rosie, like in the Jetsons in the future? Or is technology considered “progressing” if it just replaces an older version of a computer or cell phone?

I enjoyed the article “The Technological Imperative,” I thought that Mumford made a excellent point at the end of the article when he is talking about technological compulsiveness is a really good point; why do governments of the United States and Russia need to create nuclear, chemical, and bacterial technologies that could kill the human race? I think that those three technologies do not go along with the basic concept of technology, which is to make humans lives easier. I think Mumford is hinting at the fact humans have a tenancy to evolve technology just because they can not because there is a need to improve it. One technology that I thought of other than the ones Mumford pointed out in his article was the iphone people do not need all of those features in a phone but because they market it in a certain way people think that they need it.

When I started reading Marx's article "Does improved technology mean progress?" I started to understand Marx's argue point of "progress of what?" Like we have learned in previous class, we human are the dominate creature is not because of our physical strength but the ability to create and use tools to make our life easier. If thats so, then here I would say technology developments are the progress of making our life easier. However techonology is just like a double edge sword. The example in the article shows that by creating atomic bomb it can bring the peace to the world again for the moment. however we will have to deal with the chemical remainings in the area and people are afraid of such a destructive power that can actually kills our planet if all of them explode at same time. In that term, is this technology a progress of making our life better? or is it a progress of killing our planet. Like Marx's idea, what are the technology progressing for? we have to have a clear view of what tools we are creating. What if we give our tools too much power like the movie "Matrix" the machines turns their back on us? If we know what our technologies are creating for, it surely is a progress of making our life better. If not, like author says, progress of what?

Frankenstein had some interesting ideas. One in particular stood out when he talked about ‘the dangers of technology and that humans are happier when they don't know what is going on.’ We assume that if technology is making one process more efficient that it is all good. We don’t care how it works or if it destroys something else (ex. the environment) because it is making out lives simpler. This goes along with the article "Does improved technology mean progress?" Technology may lower labor costs but it in turn puts a lot of people out of work. It seemed like all three of these articles said technology is good to a point...until it is over used or used 'just because every one else is using it'.

Frankenstein was fairly interesting, although I have to admit that there were times that I didn't quite follow the what was happening due to the style and the use of "big words". One thing that appeared right away was that the focus of the book continuously changes in the first 3 chapters. The main character consistently insists on learning from authors that his father and his professors at school reject. The result of following these "alchemists" and "rubish crap" results in the invention/discovery of Frankenstein. This makes me wonder where would we be, as far as technological advances, if we did not compeletly disregard the old fashion science and technology? In other words, what would have happened if for example humans continued to use steam as a main source of energy? maybe we could have had airplanes that functioned on steam rather than oil.
In addition, I have to agree with Marx about the idea that new technology doesn't mean progress. What is progress? Is it convenience or safety? Does it make us lazy or do we truly use that spare time that the new technology allows us to do to achieve something more? These were the questions that I kept thinking while reading this article. I believe that some technologies have helped mankind to do great things at the same time resulted in unfortunate events e.q. cars and guns. Idealy technologies are there to help us, but I believe it's our reaction to these technologies that make the difference. In other words, how we use these technologies determine whether they mean progress or regress.

In "The Technological Imperative" article, the word irresistible continues to be mentioned when talking about man and technology. Are we really that inressistible to technology? I can't help but wonder how many people in the world would like to have the world start back over from scratch. Where technology plays only a minor role in our lives. We talked about how technology makes our lives easier but looking around me today, live is more complicated than ever before with the type of technology knowledge we must have in order to make it through the day.

After reading "Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?" I realized that people have always been atleast a little afraid of the machines taking over. I think that currently we (the US) is feeling more apprehensive than eager about technology because of cloning and stem cell research, etc. Perhaps the science is advancing faster than the average person can accept. In "The Technological Imperative" we are generalized as implementing new technology as soon as it is available. I do not agree with this. There are always a few people who have to be the first to use the latest gadget, but the majority of people wait a while, and some people wait a very long time. Believe it or not, I know people who still don't own a computer and probably never will. As for "Frankenstein", I find it ironic that after all of Victor's higher education creates a monster who will bring Victor nothing but fear and sadness, Henry is so happy to be at the University so that he, too, can learn all of the things that his own father had called worthless.

In Frankenstein I thought it was interesting how the story not only brought in the use of ‘old world’ technology and theory. I think this is something we see quite a bit of now. There are always advertisements for the ‘back to nature cure’ or things of that sort. Frankenstein did a very good job of displaying what could happen when you bring both old and new technology together. It also exemplified the idea that someday technology will take over. Are we as a human race so involved in progressing and make new discoveries that we do not realize the repercussions of our actions anymore?

I really enjoyed reading “Does Improved Technology Mean Progress”. It made me wonder what is progress, and how can we define it? Do we even know it is progress until we are able to see what kind of effect it has had on our world. Take for instance the new IPhone, is this really progress, or will it somehow hinder our world in the future. Of course we will never really know until we have tried. I think that is what Marx was trying to get across to his readers. We continually take small steps towards progress, but perhaps these steps are ultimately taking us in the wrong direction.

When reading Frankenstein, I have to admit that I don’t have a large vocabulary and did not always understand the large words and descriptions of things. I did find it interesting that the father married his good friends’ daughter. The fact that after marriage, they both helped people in poverty situations was a good part of the story.

The boy found enjoyment out of reading philosophy and thought it was up-to-date and fascinating but ultimately found out it was quite outdated. When he went to college and mentioned the authors to the professor, he basically was laughed at for studying such out-dated material. This is what happens sometimes with technology—people find out something new to their bank of knowledge and think it is the latest information but really there is someone else out there a step-ahead already.

The article “The technological imperative” was quite interesting despite its length. “If man has the power to exterminate all life on earth, he will.” This I find true because technology has become so advanced that we have found ways to destroy even ourselves. For this reason I sometimes dislike technological advances.

I can't help but wonder if there is more behind curiosity driving Frankenstein. The warning behind the idea of curiosity fostered by education is an interesting one. The idea of worth surfaces and is disputed between father and son, it is interesting that Frankenstein indeed does create something that is worthy of notice, or has worth in the world and yet he is so afraid of it that he tries to dodge connection with it at every turn.

I enjoyed reading the "Does Improved Technology Mean Progress Article". It really made me think about technology in a different way. Without thinking too much I would have said improved technology definitely means progress. After talking in class and reading this article I would have to think about this question a lot more. Of course there is not simple answer and the answer could be different for different types of technology.

If you think about health care, of course improved technology means progress. That would mean saving more lives.

Think about the technology that goes into a fast food restaurant, sure you get in and out quick, but look at society now. The obesity percentage is higher than ever. So this is a type of technology society could go without.

In response to the technological imperative. I think that society has already accepted the absurd idea of accepting technological complusiveness. We discussed this in class last week, and I wanted to mention the first thing that came to my mind was the fact that our economy is based upon technological invention and advancement; the market runs off of competition. I agree with the 'irresistable incentive' for most technologys, but i do question whether that equation can be applied to the quality of living species. Of course, because of the technological compulsiveness of and the alluring devices, most people would be interested in obtaining the newst cell phone, car, computer etc. yet when these objects begin to control man rather than man controling the object, this is when patterns of life get disturbed. Cell phones direct ones day, text messages interrupt a pleasent afternoon, both of these can cause a car accident accidently killing an innocent person. When will man realize his predisposition for being vulnerable to attachment to technology? Death has been happening for so long as a result from technology. what will be the last straw? or will we all slowly turn into robotic frankensteins...

One more thought, connecting Neale's island story with the irrational addiction to technology. why is it that he was so detached from this idea of compulsive technology?