In the book Technology Matters, David Nye is attempting to answer key questions that technology has created. For Nye it is difficult to pin down the answers to some of the questions because there are so many examples and time is always unearthing different perspectives on the same issues. Some of the few topics that Nye had concrete answers for were determinism and control.
Nye discusses the fact that technology is not deterministic, and at the same time a person can name all the possible outcomes that might occur with any given technology. One of those outcomes will come to pass, but there are many factors that go into whether or not a technology will become popular or fail. One example that Nye discusses is the automobile and how the United States and Europe evolved differently because of the choices they made. After WWII the United States improved their network of roads and Americans moved out the cities into the suburbs; whereas, in Europe public transportation dominated the landscape. Popularity is difficult to predict and that is why Nye is adamant that technology is not deterministic.
The automobile helps to illustrate how unpredictable the outcome of a new technology can be. At the same time, it would appear that technology influences the way that society changes. If taken at face value it would look like the automobile has shaped the American landscape by influencing where people choose to live, but in reality Americans shaped the use of automobiles to fit with what they wanted. People choose the technology they want and discard the rest, so they are not controlled by technology.
People are not controlled by technology; Nye gives examples such as the Amish and the Japanese when discussing groups who have thrown off the chains of technology (Nye, 2007, P. 17, 18). The abundance of technology in American society may make it look like people are being controlled by all the devices around them, but most people can choose to put down the technology. Nye discusses how multi-tasking is both helpful and harmful to people (Nye, 2007, p. 187). Multi-tasking is helpful because people need to be able to handle distractions when working, but to many distraction and they will not be focusing on right task at the right time. People choose to use all the technology around them and they make a conscious decision to focus on one source over another and in the case of driving while using their cell phones people are making a dangerous decision (Nye, 2007, p. 186). Technology is not going to help people make good decision because that is a skill that must be applied to the use of technology.
In chapter nine, Nye discusses how skilled people are at making weapons in the name of security. The cold war is a perfect example of an escalating crisis in the name of protection. As the U.S. increased nuclear weapons and other military technology, the Soviet Union increased their weaponry to keep pace with the United States. It is not the technology itself that is dangerous, but the way in which people put it to use. Nuclear power is perfectly safe if used correctly, but if put in a bomb it can be extremely hazardous to people and the environment (Nye, 2007, p. 177).
At the same time the development of technology is not controlled by society. This idea may seem contradictory because people use technology the way they want to, that must mean they control what is being produced. In reality, there may be a practical need that is being fulfilled, but that is rarely the reason that a new technology is developed. Nye explains that the telegraph and the telephone were developed many years before either one actually became a popular method of communicating (Nye, 2007, p. 40). At different times in history both methods became extremely popular, but it was not society that decided that these new technologies should be invented.
Once technology is developed people will bend it to their will. The best example of this is the little boxes of Levittown. All the houses that were built in the development of Levittown were exactly the same and over time the owners have add variations to make their homes different than their neighbors (Nye, 2007, p. 71). Even Henry Ford was forced to change his beloved Model T to please the consumers (Nye, 2007, p. 72). Society looks a certain way because of how people have used technology and the innovations that have been forced due to consumer demand. When consumers are left to shape the innovation of technology will do not consider the ramifications of their decisions and due to that Nye argues that the government or an agency of some sort should step in and regulate (Nye, 2007, p. 136).
Technology is an elusive beast that develops autonomously to society. Society has been able to change based on the new options that technology creates, but at the same time it is not controlled by those technologies. Groups such as the Amish and the Japanese have shown people that if they choose to they can walk away from technology. The automobile, telephone, and telegraph demonstrate that technology is not deterministic and their creation is not dictated by society.
I agree that technology doesn't just foist itself off on us, but I think saying no to it can be very hard. For example, I have been saying no to cell phones for some years now, but pay phones are ever scarcer, and the expectation that I have a cell phone ever more common. Now people expect to be able to change plans on a dime, let you know at the last minute what's up, etc. -- and it's increasingly inconvenient to say, sorry, I don't have a cell. I say this not to complain -- I'm making my choices -- but only to point out that at some point, not having a cell phone will cease to be an realistic option if I am to continue traveling in the professional and social circles that I do. The price communities pay for refusing technology can also be isolation, or possibly irrelevance, or powerlessness. A few years ago I was at the capitol in Madison lobbying for library funding, and there was a large group of Amish who had come to lobby against legislation that would have put their midwives on the wrong side of the law. The existence of high tech birthing centers has persuaded some people (particularly OBs) that everyone should have that. The Amish can't just opt out of laws like that because they happen to prefer midwife-assisted home births. Similarly, we now have the technology to do various forms of prenatal testing, and I was highly (and unpleasantly) pressured to take advantage of it even though I would not have aborted for any of the conditions they could test for. Technologies have a way of bringing social imperatives in their wake, and resisters can be criticized, marginalized, shunned, or ultimately forced to adopt the technology. Saying no is not always an option for either an individual or a community.
ReplyDeleteTechnology can be so addictive making it nearly impossible sometimes to resist wanting it or feeling the need to have it. Peers or people we surround ourselves with are also huge influences on whether or not that new "toy" will creep into our lives. When we constantly hear others talk about thongs, we tend to want them even more.
ReplyDeleteThe whole debate of whether or not technology controls us is one that I find very interesting. I agree that people do choose which technology they want, and they leave the rest. However, it does seem as though there is a constant, invisible driving force that says to us (the consumers), "Try it. This product is better." It's almost as if we are forced to resist temptations constantly.
ReplyDelete