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.