Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Blog assignment #8
I first became interested in investigating inventions that were made to help us, that ended up harming us worse when I was writing my paper comparing two sources that I found in Nye. The statement that caught my eye was by Jacquelle. She was talking about our endless need to fix something that really does not need fixing, and how sometimes we end up making it even worse. This lead me to thinking about specific examples of time where we invented something to help, and did not understand the total effects of the new product. I thought of a few examples and the one that stuck out in my mind as the biggest problem was pesticides. I do not know alot about pesticides. Therefore, to further engage my paper, I want to research the initial reason for inventing pesticides, who invented them, what they thought the outcome would be, and how the perception of pesticides changed. I also want to find out what they did to help fix this problem and the effects it is still having today. I really am interested in this topic because I think one of human beings greatest flaws is our need to always want bigger and better things. We are so consumed by the idea of being the best, that we often dont look at all the pros and cons of our inventions.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Blog Assignment 7
I began preparing for my essay by finding quotes that connected the two sources to Nye. I picked out the quotes that caught my attention and found where they were discussed in Nye's book. I tried to find a connection or common theme between all three books and find the key points that all three authors shared an opinion on. Some critical questions I used when reading were questions from Nye's beginning chapters where he asks if technology is making us safer, or hurting us. Is it affecting our culure? How is it impacting our lives for better or for worse. I tried to engage these questions by thinking of real life examples of how technology was created to help us, but ended up creating more problems. I also though of examples of how technology has changed the average every day Americans life.
Once again I really enjoyed peer editing this time around. Its very helpful to see the different approaches and ways which other students chose to approach this essay. It was also great to get feed back so quickly.
I found that it is very important to quote all your sources in a research paper. By accurately quoting your sources, the reader can resort to these sources if they want a better understanding of what you were trying to say. In a research essay it is very important that you dont misquote anything, because it discredits your paper if you quote something wrong and your reader then goes to your source and finds that you are not a very reliable source and writer. I think the hardest part in a research paper is being able to incorporate other authors views, while still having your own voice. It is easy to get caught up in what they say, and lose track of what your initial thought was. You want to make sure your research paper is different and takes a different view of the topic rather than just rewording someone elses book. My main difficulty in composing my paper was refraining the quotes and putting it into my own words. It is hard to reword something when it is already so well written and clearly stated. I also found it hard tying all three sources together because they took several different approaches to different topics.
Once again I really enjoyed peer editing this time around. Its very helpful to see the different approaches and ways which other students chose to approach this essay. It was also great to get feed back so quickly.
I found that it is very important to quote all your sources in a research paper. By accurately quoting your sources, the reader can resort to these sources if they want a better understanding of what you were trying to say. In a research essay it is very important that you dont misquote anything, because it discredits your paper if you quote something wrong and your reader then goes to your source and finds that you are not a very reliable source and writer. I think the hardest part in a research paper is being able to incorporate other authors views, while still having your own voice. It is easy to get caught up in what they say, and lose track of what your initial thought was. You want to make sure your research paper is different and takes a different view of the topic rather than just rewording someone elses book. My main difficulty in composing my paper was refraining the quotes and putting it into my own words. It is hard to reword something when it is already so well written and clearly stated. I also found it hard tying all three sources together because they took several different approaches to different topics.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Assignment 5
Technology Matters by David Nye engages in questions regarding our society and technology. He debates the true definition of technology and whether technology shapes us, or we it. Is technology creating social uniformity or diversity, destroying jobs or creating jobs? Are advanced technologies making us more insecure, or secure? Is technology expanding our minds, or creating us to be dependant on a machine? Is it improving our lives, or limiting our very existence? Throughout the book Nye never directly gives an answer to these questions, but he uses many sources to help support his questions. He gives adequate facts and references to support why he has developed these questions and he helps the reader begin analyzing these questions as well as possible answers and solutions to this ongoing technological debate.
One of Nye’s main focuses is the impact that technology is having on society and cultures. He often asks, does technology control us? He refers to the term “technocracy” to show how technology is beginning to become as powerful as our government. He also worries about the impacts that technology is having on our culture. Technology seems to be a driving force that is compelling society to change. Nye writes that “ The public has an appetite for proclamations that new technologies have beneficent “natural” effects with little government intervention or public planning. Externalist arguments attribute to a technology as a dominant place with society, without focusing much on invention or technical details” (27). Nye uses the source of Jacques Ellul to show a more severe and pessimistic view of technology. “ Jacques Ellul paid little attention to the origins of individual inventions, but argued instead that an abstract “Technique” had permeated all aspects of society and had become the new “milieu” that Western societies substituted for Nature. Readers of Ellul’s book The Technological Society were told that “Technique was an autonomous and unrelenting substitution of means for ends. Modern society’s vast ensemble of techniques had become self-endangering and had accelerated out of humanity’s control.” (28). When reading Ellul’s book you can take a close look at what she meant when she said “Technique”. “Standardization creates impersonality, in the sense that organization relies more on methods and instructions than on individuals. We thus have all the marks of a technique. What are the consequences? The first is that the problems created by mechanical technique will be heightened to a degree yet incalculable, as a result of the application of technique to administration and to all spheres of life. Toynbee believes that this organization which is succeeding technique is in some way a counterbalance to it, and a remedy (and that is a comforting view of history). But it seems to me that the exact opposite is true, that this development adds to the technical problems by offering a partial solution to old problems, itself based on the very methods that created the problems in the first place. This is the age-old procedure of digging a new hole to fill up the old one.”(12). think that Ellul is absolutely correct in this statement. The affects of new technology on our society and environment is incalculable. There is no way of knowing the affects that these new inventions will have on us over time. We create new technologies to fix problems, which in turn cause more problems. There are many scenarios which we do not take into consideration. For example, we create huge boats to transport goods such as oil, but do not think of the affects on the ocean and marine life when that huge boat tips over and spills its oil into the ocean. We learned how to use asbestos building materials to help prevent fires, which in turn ended up causing health problems. We also created pesticides to help with agriculture, however the pesticides got into our water and created many other problems. We did not consider the affect that cars, huge corporate buildings, or even aerosol cans would have on the o-zone layer. We also never considered how new technologies would impact society and our desire to be involved in our communities or politics.
In “Technology Matters” Nye talks about how technology is causing people to become less involved in society. After a long hard day of work, people would rather escape to a fantasy world through TV entertainment. “If most people find processes, images and sounds more diverting, more absorbing, than civic life and self-government, what becomes of the everyday life of parties, interest groups, and movements, the debates, demands and alliances that make democracy happen? The political scientist Robert Putnam made a similar argument in Bowling Alone, concluding that intensive use of the media undermines civic life. It seemed that the more people relied on television as the primary form of entertainment, the more they disengaged from political life.” (153). Putnam gives many statistics to support why he has come to this conclusion in his book.
“At the conclusion of the twentieth century, ordinary Americans shared this sense of civic malaise. We were reasonably content about our economic prospects, hardly a surprise after an expansion of unprecedented length, but we were not equally convinced that we were on the right track morally or culturally. Of baby boomers interviewed in 1987, 53 percent thought their parents' generation was better in terms of "being a concerned citizen, involved in helping others in the community," as compared with only 21 percent who thought their own generation was better. Fully 77 percent said the nation was worse off because of "less involvement in community activities." In 1992 three-quarters of the U.S. workforce said that "the breakdown of community" and "selfishness" were "serious" or "extremely serious" problems in America. In 1996 only 8 percent of all Americans said that "the honesty and integrity of the average American" were improving, as compared with 50 percent of us who thought we were becoming less trustworthy. Those of us who said that people had become less civil over the preceding ten years outnumbered those who thought people had become more civil, 80 percent to 12 percent. In several surveys in 1999 two-thirds of Americans said that America's civic life had weakened in recent years, that social and moral values were higher when they were growing up, and that our society was focused more on the individual than the community. More than 80 percent said there should be more emphasis on community, even if that put more demands on individuals. Americans' concern about weakening community bonds may be misplaced or exaggerated, but a decent respect for the opinion of our fellow citizens suggests that we should explore the issue more thoroughly.” (14). We all watch shows and movies about communities and families back in the day. These families seem perfect. They always eat dinner together at the kitchen table (never in front of the TV) and discuss important topics and events going on at the time. When the father came home from a long day at work, he would sit down in his chair and read the newspaper. Now, after a long hard day of work, we would rather come home and put on the TV or a movie. It is our way of relaxing and forgetting about our stressful or tiring day. We do not want to hear about the negative things on the news or in the paper.
After reading Nye and other resources I have raised some new questions. I wonder how technology has impacted the “everyday family”. Is it because of technology that it seems less common for a family to get together every night for a family dinner? I would also like to take a closer look at how technology is affecting communication. Parents often complain that they never can have a good conversation with their children because they are always on the internet, listening to their I-pod, or playing video games. However, we now have cell phones, text messaging, aim, live internet video chat, and countless other forms of communication that appear to make it easier than ever to communicate with each other. Does it really matter that we now send e-mails instead of writing letters? I think it would be very interesting to look at these new forms of communication and see if they are having a negative impact on society. I think it would be interesting to look at this through the eyes of an older and younger generation. Just because it’s not the traditional way of communication, is it wrong? The stakeholders I would look at is the middleclass American who has access to these technologies but is not a complete expert with these technologies. I would also look at middleclass American who did not grow up with these technologies and compare how it is shaping these generations lives. I think through taking a deeper look at these technologies, I will find new positive or negative examples of technologies we created to fix problems and improve future generations as well as their possible benefits or harms down the road.
One of Nye’s main focuses is the impact that technology is having on society and cultures. He often asks, does technology control us? He refers to the term “technocracy” to show how technology is beginning to become as powerful as our government. He also worries about the impacts that technology is having on our culture. Technology seems to be a driving force that is compelling society to change. Nye writes that “ The public has an appetite for proclamations that new technologies have beneficent “natural” effects with little government intervention or public planning. Externalist arguments attribute to a technology as a dominant place with society, without focusing much on invention or technical details” (27). Nye uses the source of Jacques Ellul to show a more severe and pessimistic view of technology. “ Jacques Ellul paid little attention to the origins of individual inventions, but argued instead that an abstract “Technique” had permeated all aspects of society and had become the new “milieu” that Western societies substituted for Nature. Readers of Ellul’s book The Technological Society were told that “Technique was an autonomous and unrelenting substitution of means for ends. Modern society’s vast ensemble of techniques had become self-endangering and had accelerated out of humanity’s control.” (28). When reading Ellul’s book you can take a close look at what she meant when she said “Technique”. “Standardization creates impersonality, in the sense that organization relies more on methods and instructions than on individuals. We thus have all the marks of a technique. What are the consequences? The first is that the problems created by mechanical technique will be heightened to a degree yet incalculable, as a result of the application of technique to administration and to all spheres of life. Toynbee believes that this organization which is succeeding technique is in some way a counterbalance to it, and a remedy (and that is a comforting view of history). But it seems to me that the exact opposite is true, that this development adds to the technical problems by offering a partial solution to old problems, itself based on the very methods that created the problems in the first place. This is the age-old procedure of digging a new hole to fill up the old one.”(12). think that Ellul is absolutely correct in this statement. The affects of new technology on our society and environment is incalculable. There is no way of knowing the affects that these new inventions will have on us over time. We create new technologies to fix problems, which in turn cause more problems. There are many scenarios which we do not take into consideration. For example, we create huge boats to transport goods such as oil, but do not think of the affects on the ocean and marine life when that huge boat tips over and spills its oil into the ocean. We learned how to use asbestos building materials to help prevent fires, which in turn ended up causing health problems. We also created pesticides to help with agriculture, however the pesticides got into our water and created many other problems. We did not consider the affect that cars, huge corporate buildings, or even aerosol cans would have on the o-zone layer. We also never considered how new technologies would impact society and our desire to be involved in our communities or politics.
In “Technology Matters” Nye talks about how technology is causing people to become less involved in society. After a long hard day of work, people would rather escape to a fantasy world through TV entertainment. “If most people find processes, images and sounds more diverting, more absorbing, than civic life and self-government, what becomes of the everyday life of parties, interest groups, and movements, the debates, demands and alliances that make democracy happen? The political scientist Robert Putnam made a similar argument in Bowling Alone, concluding that intensive use of the media undermines civic life. It seemed that the more people relied on television as the primary form of entertainment, the more they disengaged from political life.” (153). Putnam gives many statistics to support why he has come to this conclusion in his book.
“At the conclusion of the twentieth century, ordinary Americans shared this sense of civic malaise. We were reasonably content about our economic prospects, hardly a surprise after an expansion of unprecedented length, but we were not equally convinced that we were on the right track morally or culturally. Of baby boomers interviewed in 1987, 53 percent thought their parents' generation was better in terms of "being a concerned citizen, involved in helping others in the community," as compared with only 21 percent who thought their own generation was better. Fully 77 percent said the nation was worse off because of "less involvement in community activities." In 1992 three-quarters of the U.S. workforce said that "the breakdown of community" and "selfishness" were "serious" or "extremely serious" problems in America. In 1996 only 8 percent of all Americans said that "the honesty and integrity of the average American" were improving, as compared with 50 percent of us who thought we were becoming less trustworthy. Those of us who said that people had become less civil over the preceding ten years outnumbered those who thought people had become more civil, 80 percent to 12 percent. In several surveys in 1999 two-thirds of Americans said that America's civic life had weakened in recent years, that social and moral values were higher when they were growing up, and that our society was focused more on the individual than the community. More than 80 percent said there should be more emphasis on community, even if that put more demands on individuals. Americans' concern about weakening community bonds may be misplaced or exaggerated, but a decent respect for the opinion of our fellow citizens suggests that we should explore the issue more thoroughly.” (14). We all watch shows and movies about communities and families back in the day. These families seem perfect. They always eat dinner together at the kitchen table (never in front of the TV) and discuss important topics and events going on at the time. When the father came home from a long day at work, he would sit down in his chair and read the newspaper. Now, after a long hard day of work, we would rather come home and put on the TV or a movie. It is our way of relaxing and forgetting about our stressful or tiring day. We do not want to hear about the negative things on the news or in the paper.
After reading Nye and other resources I have raised some new questions. I wonder how technology has impacted the “everyday family”. Is it because of technology that it seems less common for a family to get together every night for a family dinner? I would also like to take a closer look at how technology is affecting communication. Parents often complain that they never can have a good conversation with their children because they are always on the internet, listening to their I-pod, or playing video games. However, we now have cell phones, text messaging, aim, live internet video chat, and countless other forms of communication that appear to make it easier than ever to communicate with each other. Does it really matter that we now send e-mails instead of writing letters? I think it would be very interesting to look at these new forms of communication and see if they are having a negative impact on society. I think it would be interesting to look at this through the eyes of an older and younger generation. Just because it’s not the traditional way of communication, is it wrong? The stakeholders I would look at is the middleclass American who has access to these technologies but is not a complete expert with these technologies. I would also look at middleclass American who did not grow up with these technologies and compare how it is shaping these generations lives. I think through taking a deeper look at these technologies, I will find new positive or negative examples of technologies we created to fix problems and improve future generations as well as their possible benefits or harms down the road.
Monday, March 2, 2009
In "The Human Factor" by Kim Vicente, she refers to the the problems that occur when technology is introduced into the work force and put in the hands of uneducated workers. It is shocking to find that in "Technology Matters" by David Nye that many employers are actually looking for inexperienced workers to use the machines because of lower pay wages. " As factory and white-collar jobs exit Wester economies, new low-wage jobs seem to increase. In the ever more rationalized meat-packing industry, a manager boasted "We've tried to take the skill out of every step." That made it easier to hire mostly unskilled immigrants. These unorganized workers earn one-third less than meat packers did in the 1960's, and they recieve no health benefits intil after six months and no vacation until after a year." (130). Although many argue that technology has helped create jobs, and reduce prices for consumers, it has also made many skilled and experienced workers lose their jobs so that someone less qualified can come to do it for cheaper. In "The Human Factor" when technology was placed into the hands of an uneducated and poorly trained worker, the outcome was catastrophic with a nuclear explosion that impacted much of the world. Is cheaper labor really worth the human error? Technology and factories are taking away the art of many productions. "Technology consists of both tools and skills. Cooking is an excellent example. Recipes provide outlines sufficient only for the experienced, and, as the popularity of cooking programs on TV attests, it helps to watch someone else" (110). It is important that we remember that as we advance our technology, we need to still be worried about skill and not just about who can produce the most of a product for the cheapest. There was a time where people enjoyed their jobs in production and saw it as an art. They put love and care into every item which they made. Now assembly lines have taken away the art and simply made it repetitive with every product being made identical to one another. "Although the assembly radically reduced the tim needed to make a car, workers found the repetitive labor mind numbing" (117). There was a time when we saw mass production as good, lower income families were able to finally buy a car and go on family vacations. Now, as our economoy is hitting a low point, we notice the affects of these mass production lines. Too many cars were produced, they sit on lots waiting to bought in a time where a new car is not on the top of the priority list for families. If we had put time and care into the assembly of products, would we be better of economically? Perhaps a huge surplus of a good is not always the best. Assembly lines have also hurt the economoy by taking away jobs. "One General Motors plant in New Jersey adopted elements of lean production in the late 1980's, and the changeover eliminated one-third of the production workers and 42 percent of the foreman and supervisors." (117). It is hard to tell if all these advances have had a positive or negative impact on the economy and lives of the average day person. Would we be in a recession if weavers still wove everything by hand, proffesional muscians still had employment in silent movie theatres, and we still had cars being made one at a time. How far will we go letting technology dictate the way which people perform their jobs? As Nye said, "If there is a limit to these continual processes of work distribrution and retraining, it is not yet in sight" (134). To me, that is a very scary thought.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
