Technology's Downfall

I have taken many viewpoints in my search for technology, and progressed to a reasonably working definition. However, I have not yet analyzed technology’s influence on how humans exist in the world. Technology may appear to be a wonderful thing. The potential is literally limitless. While we would hope that technology would take us to only a greater quality of life, there is also a chance that technology would destroy life as we know it. Philosopher Jaques Ellul claimed in his The Technological Society that technology could allow us to lose our humanity. He wrote, “Enclosed within his artificial creation, man finds that there is ‘no exit’; that he cannot pierce the shell of technology to find again the ancient milieu to which he was adapted for hundreds of thousands of years.” This phrase scares me to some degree because it is so true. If it weren’t for the technology we have today, most people could not survive. Medicine, water purification, and food preparation are just a few examples of technology that people need to have for survival. Through our advances, we have lost the skills to be self-sufficient.

Another change needs to be made to my definition. I need to add that technology holds a state with the society that uses it. Civilization uses technology so often that we rely on it. As opposed to saying “change quality of life”, I think “dictate quality of life” is more appropriate. Technology has had such a large impact on our world that it is essentially controlling how we live. Going against technology seriously hinders one’s prospects for survival. I think people today need and rely on technology. My new definition for technology is a human-made, understandable, adaptable, and present product of thought that intends to dictate quality of life for a specific group of people.

I can't believe its not human

We are at the dawn of a new age of innovation. Technology makes our day-to-day tasks quicker, more efficient, and easier than we could ever do on our own. For instance, machines build our cars, make our food and grade our tests. Our innovations are becoming so advanced, it sometimes seems as if they are humanness out of life. In fact, many innovators hope to unveil a working Artificial Intelligence model, meaning machines may begin to think and create on their own. An online article for the magazine, Wired, tells of how Jeff Hawkins is developing new technology that may be able to do just that. The article reports, “Hawkins believes that his program…will also be able to solve massively complex problems by treating them just as an infant’s brain treats the world…” Since technology may soon no longer just be the product of human thought, I think it would be important to clarify who can create technology and who it can use it. According to my definition, technology may only impact people. Is it still technology if machines create it to impacts machines?

I think what makes technology is the fact that it is human progression. Machines do not live as we do, and therefore cannot create as we do. The moment technology changes its course from benefitting people to benefitting other machines is when it is no longer technology. To meet this standard, I will add to my definition. Technology is an human-made, understandable, adaptable, and present product of thought that intended to change quality of life for a specific group of people.

Technology For the Worse

From my trials thus far, I think that technology has granted civilization a greater quality of life in several areas. However, just an optimistic view of technology cannot be the comprehensive one. Therefore, it would only be right to consult an opposite viewpoint. Philip Atkinson argues just that in his appropriately named online book, A Study of Our Decline. He claims, “Technology is the artificial enhancement of human power. It should make us stronger and smarter, however our demented community is discovering that it now has the opposite effect. …The improved cleverness and flexibility of our machines have caused social chaos and economic stagnation.” While I have been developing my definition otherwise, Atkinson’s opinion makes me a little skeptical of my progress. I think his points are valid, but they do not coincide with mine. I need to merge our ideas for conclusiveness.

So since now, my definition has been an understandable, adaptable, and present product of thought that improves the quality of life for a specific group of people. To integrate Atkinson’s ideas, I think I will have to modify whether technology improves quality of life or not. According to Atkinson, technology has stunted civilization, possibly with that intention. Implicitly, technology’s creators only hoped for change, regardless of whether the outcome would be good or bad. Altering my definition, technology is now an understandable, adaptable, and present product of thought that intended to change quality of life for a specific group of people. I think this new modification adequately encompasses all intentions of technology’s creators.

Another opinion

To broaden my definition, I thought it would be important to get a universal and concise definition of technology. To do this, I had to have other perspectives on the matter. In a blog entry by Kelsey Ruger, who maintains a popular computer website, I did indeed find another perspective. Ruger states that to him, technology must adhere to several “beliefs”: It must be simple, or in other words, without “extraneous elements” that would hinder its use. Technology must be useful to whoever is using it. Technology must integrate into our lives and be ubiquitous; available at all times. Finally, technology must be useful in the current context to whoever is using it.

In my opinion, much of Ruger’s input strengthens my existing definition, but also add more dimension to it. To compare, I’m going to analyze both of our opinions. For Ruger, technology must be simple to its user, ubiquitous, useful, integrate into our lives and also be a utility. To me, technology is an understandable and present product of thought that improves the quality of life for a specific group of people. Although somewhat similar to mine, there are some things in Ruger’s definition that I would like to include, but also some details I would like to leave out.

I’m going to get things started with what I like about his definition, and justify so. Ruger is right in saying that technology must integrate into our lives. For technology to be beneficial, it must adapt to our way of living. For example, since most people like to wear clothes that are clean, humans have developed washing machines. So now, every week or so, to serve this need, people use washing machines to clean their clothes. Washing clothes is now a part of civilized living, and has perfectly adapted to our desire for clean clothes. In Ruger’s words, it has become “ubiquitous” to human life. In amendment, my definition will now be technology as an understandable, adaptable, and present product of thought that improves the quality of life for a specific group of people.

I would also like to point out why I did not include some of Ruger’s ideas into my new definition. For example, in his explanation of technology, he claims that there should be no “human intervention”. I absolutely disagree with this statement because to solve human problems you need human input. If human quality of life is the solution, we must be part of the problem as well.

Technology: A Big Picture

It is nearly impossible to do anything today that has not been influenced by technology. From the water we drink to the books we read, the development of good technologies assisted mankind into an easier and richer lifestyle. In parallel, thousands of years ago man used his intellect to ease living. Technology’s presence in human existence creates an enormous scope to its meaning, making the hunting spear just as revolutionary as the Internet. To truly understand the benefits and relationships of technology to human life, I think it is important to investigate its definition. To start, I assume that technology is the product of thought that improves the quality of life.

Upon a second viewing, I notice that there are unanswered questions with this definition. What is a product and is it only a technology when it becomes a product? What is an improvement to quality of life, and it is the same for everyone? Does a technology even have to have the goal of improvement of quality of life?

In an attempt to answer my questions, I do in fact think that a technology must be a product, but it must also hold some kind of permanence. In other words, a technology must have the quality of being able to be reused. For instance, it would be very difficult to prove that a cure to cancer, but that no one remembers, is a technology. Technologies must be understandable and present. Additionally, I think that technologies do not have to be physical. If even an idea is understandable and present, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, it is also a technology. Revising my definition, I now have technology as an understandable and present product of thought that improves the quality of life.

It would be wrong to say that what men consider an improvement to quality of life also holds true for women. Therefore, I guess a technology can only be so for the people that intend to use it. Men, at least most, have no use for push-up bras and lipstick, just as most women have no need for facial hair razors. Technologies only benefit the people who will use them. My definition is now technology as an understandable and present product of thought that improves the quality of life for a specific group of people.

In response to my last question of my first definition, I now think that technology must have the goal of improving human life. You could argue that while abortion and nuclear bombs (both which contain deeper personal issues that are outside the scope of this narrative) are technologies, they also do not improve life, but in fact, terminate it. However, all technologies are created with the purpose of solving a problem. Guns in war are effective tools at ending the life of a particular opponent, for example. Even though they do not improve the life of the opponent, the shooter could claim that his actions with the gun are justifiable because he is improving the lives of those he is defending. In this instance, no revision to my definition is needed. My definition as it stands has technology as an understandable and present product of thought that improves the quality of life for a specific group of people.

First post

This is a test