MSTU 4020 Week 2 Blog Post
Assignment: Present
2 questions that have arisen for you from readings and/or discussions
in class so far, and reflect on why these may or may not be important to
both your personal and academic interests.
Question #1: Why are people so concerned about the way we as a society view technology?
Sometimes I feel like people who are dogmatic and judgmental about the way that others view technology is a) being narrow-minded and even unnecessarily provocative and b) making a big deal about nothing--after all, won't technology inexorably march forward and regularly create sea changes and disruptions?
However, when considering that the way that groups of stakeholders view technology can indeed have major effects--through policymaking, for example--on other large groups of stakeholders, it is understandable to me that a vigorous debate and exchange of ideas should take place.
I used to feel that no matter what our views are on technology, technology is a force that is so big and, in a way, implacable, that people can think what they want about technology (that it is harmful compared to the older ways of doing things, that it can be the savior of humanity, for example) but it really doesn't matter--abstract viewpoints won't change the way technology's effects reverberate through society. After the readings and videos, however, I am coming to understand that abstract viewpoints are extremely powerful, and can lead to concrete actions that can affect vast swaths of society. It's not just technology that is powerful, it is also those that have the power to act on it who are perhaps equally powerful.
Question #2: If technology is ultimately meant to bring more prosperity to humanity as a whole, is it working? Or is technology simply amplifying the same emotions and desires that we had prior to technology?
In other words, some people think that technology is a panacea that will lead us to "the promised land". But the information superhighway in terms of social media has certainly not! The echo-chambers of both the alt-right and white supremacists and the communications of gang members, for example, show that technology can improve communication, but not necessarily the heart.
This should not dissuade policymakers and legislators from doing their work, however; on the contrary, they must wisely police and inspire the new realms of technology just as they did the old. Personally, recognizing that technology is neither good nor bad, and that it is the content that is good or bad, frees me from the stress of worrying about what technology is negatively doing to me. The week 2 reading, "Technology as Social Practice", disagrees with what I just said, but I do feel that one can separate technology from social practice in one sphere (technology not being inherently good or bad) while acknowledging also that technology cannot be separated from social practice (I agree with the point of the Marshall McLuhan when he said, "The medium is the message".) Note that McLuhan did not mean this literally--of course the medium carries content, or a message, and thus cannot itself be the complete message. But the complete messaging includes the ramifications of the medium the content was encapsulated in, not just the content itself. Thus I hold to a more complex and nuanced viewpoint, I think.
Question #1: Why are people so concerned about the way we as a society view technology?
Sometimes I feel like people who are dogmatic and judgmental about the way that others view technology is a) being narrow-minded and even unnecessarily provocative and b) making a big deal about nothing--after all, won't technology inexorably march forward and regularly create sea changes and disruptions?
However, when considering that the way that groups of stakeholders view technology can indeed have major effects--through policymaking, for example--on other large groups of stakeholders, it is understandable to me that a vigorous debate and exchange of ideas should take place.
I used to feel that no matter what our views are on technology, technology is a force that is so big and, in a way, implacable, that people can think what they want about technology (that it is harmful compared to the older ways of doing things, that it can be the savior of humanity, for example) but it really doesn't matter--abstract viewpoints won't change the way technology's effects reverberate through society. After the readings and videos, however, I am coming to understand that abstract viewpoints are extremely powerful, and can lead to concrete actions that can affect vast swaths of society. It's not just technology that is powerful, it is also those that have the power to act on it who are perhaps equally powerful.
Question #2: If technology is ultimately meant to bring more prosperity to humanity as a whole, is it working? Or is technology simply amplifying the same emotions and desires that we had prior to technology?
In other words, some people think that technology is a panacea that will lead us to "the promised land". But the information superhighway in terms of social media has certainly not! The echo-chambers of both the alt-right and white supremacists and the communications of gang members, for example, show that technology can improve communication, but not necessarily the heart.
This should not dissuade policymakers and legislators from doing their work, however; on the contrary, they must wisely police and inspire the new realms of technology just as they did the old. Personally, recognizing that technology is neither good nor bad, and that it is the content that is good or bad, frees me from the stress of worrying about what technology is negatively doing to me. The week 2 reading, "Technology as Social Practice", disagrees with what I just said, but I do feel that one can separate technology from social practice in one sphere (technology not being inherently good or bad) while acknowledging also that technology cannot be separated from social practice (I agree with the point of the Marshall McLuhan when he said, "The medium is the message".) Note that McLuhan did not mean this literally--of course the medium carries content, or a message, and thus cannot itself be the complete message. But the complete messaging includes the ramifications of the medium the content was encapsulated in, not just the content itself. Thus I hold to a more complex and nuanced viewpoint, I think.
ReplyDeleteHello, Daniel.
In my viewpoint, the reason why people are concerned about the opinions towards technology is that it is related to the way we treat technology. As you state in the article, the utilization of technology will exert huge impacts on our daily life. In this case, the technology is not neutral after its birth to some extent. Technology is actually a force and we can view it as weapons as well. Useful weapons and potential benefits behind them attract benefit-seekers. That’s why there are so many restrictions on use of technologies such as cloning.
And in my sense, even the invention of technology itself is not neutral since new techniques always respond to society needs and economical factors. The incubation stage of a new technique requires large investment of human capitals and material resources. Like what Winston claims in article”How are media born”, the invention of sound filming is accompanied with Warner Brothers’ expansion intention in the mid-1920s. Similarly, AR technology is accelerating recently because of its broad commercial future although this technique is firstly developed in the 1990s. Thus, we should take social elements into consideration.