GPS, iPhone, Microwave, Airplanes, Laptop, Anti-Aging Sun Block, Flu Shots, Air Condition – the list of items that have been made possible thanks to technology seems never-ending and it is almost impossible to imagine life without most of them. However, while technology is often considered the extension of natural capabilities, as it helps for example elongating the human life span through medical machines, and thus overcome any issue or limitation that human beings are confronted with, I believe this assumption to be wrong.
So far the advantages produced by technology for developed and developing countries have outweighed the disadvantages, or at least been paid less attention, - nuclear energy powering the households of millions of people vs. two atom bombs some people far away from Western eyes (I hope the sarcastic tone reads through this line) – but I believe the human impact on the environment and the destruction that we have caused confronts us with the brutal reality: technology is NOT the silver bullet to everything. It can only address the symptoms of the environmental challenge we face today but the actual cause for it lies in the dominant ideology of unlimited, competitive consumerism, and moreover, it itself has become one of the driving forces in the destruction of the environment as one of the major tools of this mentality. Thus, only a fundamental change in the way human beings think of themselves in relationship to others and nature will solve the serious issue they face and, thus, will allow technology, a human creation, into true instruments for positive change.
In this sense, I very much agree with Ashley’s argument that “we claim it [technology] will ‘save’ us, failing to realize that it will not save us, for only we can. By assuming this, we are placing the responsibility of change on inanimate objects and abstract concepts.” I think she raises an extremely important point in her post, as human beings have come to consider technology autonomous. As we discussed in last week’s class, because technology has developed and advanced so quickly in the last decades, the constant “revolutions” that are introduced to the market seem to have a life on their own as they are extremely hard to grasp for regular people. Ashley supports this point with the just cited passage.
However, I believe that by reminding ourselves that technology is a product of the human mind and thus no powerful entity flying over our heads, the direction it takes stems also from people’s input. Thus, technology itself is and cannot be the solution to the environmental destruction, but neither is it the source of this evil. Instead, human beings have to assume responsibility for the impact they possess on their environment, be it human or natural, which will require a fundamental change in ideology; the currently dominant dogma of unlimited, competitive consumerism portrays the world as the playfield of competitors who can emerge as winner if they can consume more of the unlimited resources that exist in comparison to their opponents. However, neither are the resources limited nor does a consumption of more result in a victory nor do human beings naturally stand in competition to each other.
Bill Joy’s article “Why the future doesn’t need us” that we had to read for last week’s class really left a strong impression on me in regards to this issue, as he as a man heavily involved in the technological world of toady (he is the cofounder and Chief Scientist of Sun Microsystems) has come to a similar conclusion when considering the relationship between technology and the environment. He states: “our Western notion of happiness seems to come from the Greeks, who defined it as ‘the exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope (…) But I believe we must find alternative outlets for our creative forces, beyond the culture of perpetual economic growth; this growth has been a blessing for several hundred years, but it has not brought us unalloyed happiness, and we must now choose between the pursuit of unrestricted and undirected growth through science and technology and the clear accompanying dangers.”
The scientist clearly identifies technology as a tool created and used by human beings and acknowledges the importance it has carried for the development of humanity up to today. However, he does not close his eyes in front of the unpleasant reality that the negative aspects of it have emerged more recently. He thus suggests that human beings, who themselves are the drivers behind every technological advancement, change their perspective from an outdated ideology ancient Greeks once developed to a more appropriate one in regards to the current reality. This fundamental change in mentality will mean a alteration of life as we know it today, but Joy points out that the destructive processes that result from the current way of human life will not stop otherwise.
In this sense, his argument supports my point that technology is only a tool human beings utilize according to their perspective of the world. Technology has been present for centuries but both its destructive and its “healing” powers have truly been assumed as absolutes in the last two centuries. Thus, as the meaning and importance of technology has developed with human beings, it can neither be the cause of destruction of the environment nor the silver bullet to it. Consequently, only a change in the way human beings think of themselves in relationship to others and the environment will allow tackling the serious issue of environmental degradation, as it is the basic assumption driving every technological invention, and it will offer technology the chance to truly become an instrument for positive change.
No comments:
Post a Comment