I would like to see technology transformed to promote greater liberty and freedom. Currently, crop engineering is making more sterile farm crops, which will make people, even farmers, dependent on the government for food. However, this technology has yet to eliminate starvation. Surveillence technology makes it so that honest citizens cannot secure privacy or move freely. However, this tecnology has not brought Bin Laden to justice or numerous other criminals.
Democracy has the connotation of control by the masses. Democracy has the definition of control by the majority. Unfortunately, the masses and the majority are not the same (think majoirty of wealth and power). Technological invention through democracy will hopefully lead to the technological invention of democracy. A democracy where government intrusion is minimized in the lives of individuals.
I would also like to see people move in a direction and guide technology in a direction that unifies people socially. More social cohesion and less government collusion. People must take the lead and technology can play a part.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Fascism . . . I mean . . .Technology as a 'form of life'
Langston Winner's discussion was powerful and even emotional!
Power is centralized!
The few talk and the many listen!
There are barriers between social classes!
The world is hierarchically structured!
The good things are distributed unequally!
Women and men have different kinds of competence!
One's life is open to continual inspection!
Winner is suggesting that contemporary technology is the spokesperson for the above principles. Incidentally, the above principles amount to fascism!
That sounds a bit paran . . .
1- On every block in my neighborhood there are street cameras.
2-The US government is allowed to spy on US citizens
3- The US government can deny US citizens constitutionally protected jurisprudence by simply labeling them "enemy combatants"
4- My phone has a GPS navigator that can pinpoint me anywhere in the world
5- Principles of capitalism state that its OK to replace people with machines because eventually those people will get better paying jobs doing something? else.
6- I know dozens of people that have found themselves in "Ms. Garret" type situations where they are forced to defend themselves against a machine.
7- George Bush stole an election, started a war, erased the surplus (that Clinton left) and created a huge deficit, and made his buddies at Haliburton, Northrop, and Lockheed (not to mention the oil companies) super rich(er)
8- As I discussed last week in the "new human habitat" discussion, technology is definitely creating conditions where humans will have to accept the world as technology crafts it. Utilizing Winner's suggestion of analyzing the relationship from the 'perspective of technology', the new human habitat becomes an overseer and human beings become prisoners.
YEAH, fascism, that sounds about right!
(This class is becoming scary. Tell me I am reading too much into this!)
Power is centralized!
The few talk and the many listen!
There are barriers between social classes!
The world is hierarchically structured!
The good things are distributed unequally!
Women and men have different kinds of competence!
One's life is open to continual inspection!
Winner is suggesting that contemporary technology is the spokesperson for the above principles. Incidentally, the above principles amount to fascism!
That sounds a bit paran . . .
1- On every block in my neighborhood there are street cameras.
2-The US government is allowed to spy on US citizens
3- The US government can deny US citizens constitutionally protected jurisprudence by simply labeling them "enemy combatants"
4- My phone has a GPS navigator that can pinpoint me anywhere in the world
5- Principles of capitalism state that its OK to replace people with machines because eventually those people will get better paying jobs doing something? else.
6- I know dozens of people that have found themselves in "Ms. Garret" type situations where they are forced to defend themselves against a machine.
7- George Bush stole an election, started a war, erased the surplus (that Clinton left) and created a huge deficit, and made his buddies at Haliburton, Northrop, and Lockheed (not to mention the oil companies) super rich(er)
8- As I discussed last week in the "new human habitat" discussion, technology is definitely creating conditions where humans will have to accept the world as technology crafts it. Utilizing Winner's suggestion of analyzing the relationship from the 'perspective of technology', the new human habitat becomes an overseer and human beings become prisoners.
YEAH, fascism, that sounds about right!
(This class is becoming scary. Tell me I am reading too much into this!)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The relationship between history and technology
This weeks reading revealed a conundrum between technology and history that I did not know existed. This weeks readings analyzes the relationship from a few perspectives.
Edgerton confronts the notion that technology shapes history. He also rebuffs the more dramatic notion that technology defines history. Edgerton explains that the relationship between history and technology is understood through the use of technology by people. This analysis by Edgerton is quite intuitive and elementary in retrospect. However, I understand the need for statement of the point when I dwell on my own education. I remember history classes where stoic teachers prepared students to provide unambiguous answers on exams using neat timelines that progressed human history inventions and inventors. Off the top of my head I think of Davinci's Renaissance and Henry Ford's Revolution. Edgerton knocks tech-savvy Americans like myself out of the monolithic technology-box by pointing out the persistence of dinosaurs like the sewing machine and manufacturing in around the world. OBVIOUSLY, people do not simply stop using old things because new things are made. The old and the new exist side by side. This is fully supported by the capitalistic model that prefaces change on tested efficiency of new designs. The lesson I took from Edgerton is not to get lost in the technological rhetoric (think: dot-com bubble).
Williams considers whether technology replaces history. I find that a bit of a trick question because in every generation present understanding defines the way people analyze history. She discusses the importance of reflexivity in the modern landscape as another way the line between history and technology is abrogated. However, I agree with Beck totally! Entreprenuers/Scientists are taking bold liberties with the health and safety of the world and justifying their actions with reflexivity. The risk that science takes with the idea that they can "fix it later" if it does not work out it the #1 ethical issue I have with modern science in almost every field.
Edgerton confronts the notion that technology shapes history. He also rebuffs the more dramatic notion that technology defines history. Edgerton explains that the relationship between history and technology is understood through the use of technology by people. This analysis by Edgerton is quite intuitive and elementary in retrospect. However, I understand the need for statement of the point when I dwell on my own education. I remember history classes where stoic teachers prepared students to provide unambiguous answers on exams using neat timelines that progressed human history inventions and inventors. Off the top of my head I think of Davinci's Renaissance and Henry Ford's Revolution. Edgerton knocks tech-savvy Americans like myself out of the monolithic technology-box by pointing out the persistence of dinosaurs like the sewing machine and manufacturing in around the world. OBVIOUSLY, people do not simply stop using old things because new things are made. The old and the new exist side by side. This is fully supported by the capitalistic model that prefaces change on tested efficiency of new designs. The lesson I took from Edgerton is not to get lost in the technological rhetoric (think: dot-com bubble).
Williams considers whether technology replaces history. I find that a bit of a trick question because in every generation present understanding defines the way people analyze history. She discusses the importance of reflexivity in the modern landscape as another way the line between history and technology is abrogated. However, I agree with Beck totally! Entreprenuers/Scientists are taking bold liberties with the health and safety of the world and justifying their actions with reflexivity. The risk that science takes with the idea that they can "fix it later" if it does not work out it the #1 ethical issue I have with modern science in almost every field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)