A study
of the current economic situation will inevitably include the opinion of
economists who dogmatically offer their expertise in predicting the future,
forecasting either growth in a robust bull market economy or a recessionary
bust where the bears win the ultimate economic battle. The result of such
forecasting, of which approximately half the economists will be wrong, is to
negate the purpose of prophetic, often pitiful, pandering by the so-called
experts in the field. This does not, however, slow down the predictions nor
should it, for to predict the future is to own it and then to make preparations
for what will come. Erroneous though economists may sometimes be, there is
wisdom and gain in analyzing, evaluating, synthesizing, and in making
conclusions regarding the future of the economy. Yet, in spite of all
scientific efforts, it is very difficult to predict human behavior and human
responses to economic situations. Such is true of technology.
When we
think we have reached our technological potential, along comes 3-D printing,
LEAP Motion, implanted human computers, germ identification through
smartphones, thought manipulation, cloning, genetic engineering and
modifications, nanotechnologies, and many others that seem to show up nearly
every day. In the area of social media, email is old news; Facebook is current
but ironically questioned; phone calls are disappearing; texting and voice
texts are current; books, journals, and newspapers are antiquated; libraries
have become coffee shops, cafes, and mass communication centers. Computers are
smaller, more efficient, and more intuitive to human needs than any previous
time, and the cloud is providing most of the storage of information without the
old burden of hard drives, discs, or physical storage.
According
to Bill Joy the technological advances in genetic engineering, nanotechnology,
and robotics are just a few steps away from eradicating the need for humans in
the world. He fears that we have advanced so far that technology now owns us
and threatens our very existence.[1]
Other writers such as Emmanuel Mesthene see a greater purpose for technology as
serving human existence and improving upon it provided we are able to adjust to
the changing world.[2]
The classic piece by Robert L.
Heilbroner called Do Machines Make
History takes a historical and socially active approach to technology by
pointing out how society and technology work together in history through
sequential advances.[3]
Some see technology as the greatest element for saving the world while others
see it as a permanent detriment to all that is right and good. The truth, like
most truth, probably lies in the middle of such extreme views.
When the printing press first came into use
in approximately 1450, there was likely great fear of the dramatic change and
such is true for all new inventions and often new ideas. Despite the human
desire to progress and to innovate, we are also programmed to fear change and
to prefer the same old system. We love and respect the heritage and traditions
of the past but we also recognize the benefits of dreams, of innovation, of
putting into reality those imaginations that sparkle from human creativity. Technology
is both liberating and constricting. It provides us with great freedom by
minimizing distances and providing open access to knowledge, and it improves
the quality of life by providing greater safety in transportation, improved
medical diagnoses and treatments, improved efficiency in record keeping,
protection of information, and sources of entertainment. Brown and Duguid see
technology as complementary of human culture, not replacing it.[4]
There is no area of our modern life that is
not touched by technology in a number of ways. Our clothes, food, homes,
churches, families, and our professions have all been either directly or
indirectly created using some kind of technological advancement. But in all
matters inherently good, there is potential for evil due to mankind’s ability
to corrupt that which is good. While it is not within the scope of this essay
to discuss our fallen world and the problems of how a lack of moral fiber may
be slowly eroding our culture (a debatable concept when seen through the lens
of time and history), it is wise to be aware of the potential issues
surrounding irresponsible use of technology.
When we begin talking about technology’s
function in society and subsequently mention the need for increased responsibility,
we are addressing not simply how technology is used but also its higher
purpose. Most definitions of technology see it as “scientific knowledge for
practical purposes”[5] or some sort of variation
of this idea, making technology a tool or an idea to be used for a practical
purpose. The implied antithesis of this idea is that technology is an end in
and of itself, serving no purpose whatsoever other than to exist in its own
framework. Since a tool made by a human ought to serve a practical purpose, it
makes logical sense that technology serves society rather than society serving
technology. Comfortable with this idea and certainly recognizing technology’s
role in the world, I also see it as serving an additional purpose beyond that
of a functioning tool. Perhaps there is a role for technology in serving the
emotional and artistic needs.
Artisans have had an uphill battle for
respect going all the way back to Plato who although loved art also saw it as a
little dangerous to objective thinking. He did not include artists in his
“city” due to being suspicious of the emotions that art tends to cause in
people. Not wanting to discard emotions completely, he nevertheless reasoned
that emotions should have a lower place in the ideal social makeup. We continue
to struggle with this today as we try to understand the functional role of art
in our practical world. If indeed art serves no purpose other than some kind of
aesthetic, emotional need, then by syllogism relationship, technology has no
connection to art or emotions. If technology is scientific knowledge for
practical purposes and art has no practical purpose, then it stands to reason
that technology and art are polar opposites in their makeup, design, and
intent. One serves society and the other may hurt it!
Yet further examination of art versus
technology begins to unravel the idea that technology only serves a functional
purpose, particularly in light of the ubiquity of technology in our society.
The vast emotional experiences of technology further support the idea that
technology serves society’s need for emotional stability, subjectivism, and
aesthetic understanding. This lifts technology to a greater role in culture,
nearly ascribing it character traits beyond that of merely being a tool, and, subsequently,
making us a little nervous. The more we empower technology, particularly as it
relates to our emotional well-being in society, the more we resist the impulse
to allow it to determine our own emotional responses. We then exist in a
healthy and responsible tension of using technology to our advantage in a
multitude of ways that improves virtually every area of life but not allowing
it to govern all aspects. In spite of technology’s pervasiveness in our lives,
we will always withhold a little humanness, or to put it another way, we will
use those qualities that make us human in ways that require technology to serve
our needs.
But before pontificating excessively about
technology, let us return to the idea of the role of the arts in our world. If
Plato were correct, then it is true that emotions are mostly necessary and art
has a valuable but limited role in society particularly when compared with
sciences or mathematics. This manifests in today’s university curriculum and
salary structures across the country. The idea of function is decidedly
different from aesthetics and emotions, and we seem to value function over
aesthetics in most situations. As I sit in this chair, it serves a functional
and necessary purpose. I am not interested in its aesthetic qualities and
although slightly joyful at sitting in a comfortable chair, I am not expending
great emotional energy studying my feelings regarding this functional item
below me. However, if I choose to display this chair on a wall thereby limiting
or even extinguishing its functional purpose as a chair, then I have created a
work of art. It may or may not be a quality aesthetic emotional experience for
the viewer but, nevertheless, since it no longer functions as a chair, it has become
a work of art. If the chair is now a work of art, then do I need to question
its existence as valuable? Or perhaps my creation of the work of art, primitive
though it may be, serves an aesthetic need not easily defined in functional
terms. Is it possible, then, that Plato was not entirely correct in his
assessment of the role of emotions in society? If, in fact, emotions do play a
more valuable role than previously thought, then it would be advantageous to
examine technology in broader terms than its functional goals.
Are there times when technology does not
serve a functional purpose for society? Or, to take it another step, can we use
technology to enhance our own need for great aesthetic purposes? Can technology
actually provide a high level of emotional release and, ultimately, stability
for us? The answers to all these questions are affirmative. While there is no
question that technology is “scientific knowledge for practical purpose” and that
its role is to be a functional tool that benefits both the individual and the
collective whole, I contend that technology also serves a dual purpose of
providing emotional stability and aesthetics in our culture. Music, art, drama,
literature, and all forms of entertainment continue to benefit and develop from
technology, and people continue to fill their need for aesthetics through
technology. While few natural joys are greater than hearing the birds in the
trees and feeling a gentle breeze in the calm peace of the outdoors, we also
find satisfaction in turning on a computer and listening to our favorite rock
song on Youtube or connecting with an old friend on Facebook or attending a
movie or playing a game on the computer, and the list of pleasurable
experiences through technology is vast.
Nearly every day we hear about a new
technology to enhance artistic experiences or a new machine to help us with an
emotional issue. When viewed collectively and globally, technology is
ultimately about emotional security, well-being and happiness. Its potential
for good and for evil is tremendous and those who use it to perpetrate violence
on other humans are to be scorned as anathema in a world where they do not
belong. Those uses of technology have no place in society and need to be
defenestrated as we seek a world that is violence-free and peaceful for all.
Using
technology to advance the human experience both artistically and functionally
is to take our creative imagination, our innovative spirit, our God-given
intelligence and amalgamate these attributes with technology and change the
world. It is the event of human beings interacting with technology through
congruent and complementary activities that gives technology its purpose. Human beings do not always clearly define an
action or a behavior but that does not negate the action itself. Technology may
be articulated by most people as “scientific knowledge for a practical purpose”
but the real truth lies in its application. If we give lip service to
technology’s role in serving a practical purpose but, in fact, use technology
for an aesthetic and emotional purpose as well, then it is time to redefine it.
The
Tucker definition of technology: Technology is scientific knowledge to advance
the human experience. This definition is a broadening of the role of technology
and gives a greater understanding of what it means to be human, replete with
practical and emotional needs. I believe that recent developments in technology
are expressions of the refinement of our culture not only in the United States
but throughout the world. Yes, there are bumps, obstacles, landmines, and,
sadly, nuclear weapons. Yes, there are those wanting to destroy the essence of
the human experience through genetic engineering and nanotechnology.
Antithetically, there are others who seek to reduce or destroy our
technological dependence by returning to the fundamental ideas of our heritage
and our culture. Unfortunately, neither of these views is productive and only contributes
to the suspicion of technology in today’s world. The preferred view is a
balanced one of using technology to advance the human experience.
Most
would say that presenting a Utopian and functionally absurd vision for the
technological future is to create intellectual and emotional rubbish. But I do
wish, regardless of the inevitable criticism, to state my vision. We may be a
few hundred years from this idea philosophically, but technologically we are
not far from connecting to every person in the world in an instant. I believe
that most people desire peace and desire to live their lives without fear of
violence. I dream of a time when the world’s population of nearly 7 billion
people look at each other across a virtual room and lay down all weapons
forever, and I dream of a world of peace, of absolute congruence, and a world
where everyone truly has an equal opportunity for life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. The day this happens, I propose the grandest party in
history. It will be a party of joy and a party of peace and an acknowledgement
that we used technology for good and to change the world forever.
[1]
Joy, Bill. Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,
2001.
[2]
Mesthene, Emmanuel. Some General
Implications of the Research of the Harvard University Program on Technology
and Society, 1967-68.
[3]
Heilbroner, Robert L. Do Machines Make
History, 1967.
[4]
Brown, John Seely and Paul Duguid. A Response to Bill Joy and the Doom-and-Gloom
Technofuturists, 2000.
[5]
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/technology,
accessed 3/13/2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment