In  the chapter entitled, From Philosophy to Technology, Carl Mitcham talks about how The pathway from Engineering to Philosophy helps  to differentiate the significance of technology to humanities. In the beginning of the chapter, Carl Mitcham states that “ (it is) simply not possible to have the humanities without technology…Inventiveness was the indispensable condition for the survival of the human species.” With that stated, I feel that without technology we would not go very far in life. In other words, we are essentially nothing without technology. In addition, I believe that most of the various objects and products out there are directly or indirectly related to the subject of engineering. Some aspects of our life greatly depend on the modern technologies we have today. For instance, the invention of the telephone gives us the ability to communicate with other people no matter how far the distance is. Consequently, it is evident that some of the many blessings we have today trace back to technological processes (thinking) and engineering of these objects.

Later in the chapter, Carl Mitcham talks about the various uses of the term technology. Like Carl Mitcham, I believe that the different views of technology are based on the way different people use it. For example, engineers view technology as something that is more concrete and straight to the point where as philosophers view technology in broad terms based on their mode of thinking. To add, I believe that technology is conceived is many ways such as the use to advance society.

If we want to survive and coincide with nature, we need to understand the best method for engineering. Thus, we should use technology for better indulgence of our surrounding environment. Being partners with technology, it allows us to be able to gain info about the environment, thus, helping us coincide with nature.

In this chapter, Carl Mitcham talks about the multiple personalities of technology. For instance, technology is evident in material objects such as the computer or the television. In additions, technology is present in the processes of innovation such as inventing, designing, and manufacturing. Personally, I feel that these technological processes are just as important as technology as objects. One of the main points that struck me was that these technological processes were so essential in the driving force of technology. Without these technological processes much of technology in our technologically advanced world would not even exist today. For instance, if inventors did not take time to think and solve the problem of ways of faster transportation, we would probably be stuck in a slow – paced world. Within the fine line of process and object, it makes things clear on how these processes are categorized as technological.

To expand on this central idea, I want to talk about the care and maintenance of an aircraft. In the aircraft in general, there are many different gears acquired to help propel the jet engine and make the plane fly. To help propel the plain, the burning of gasoline is required to provide power for the plane. Transmission fluid is required to help push the many pistons used to power the jet engine. In addition, the wings of the aircraft are used to help steer the plane and provides stability, allowing the plane to not flip over during flight. Without these counterparts, the plane probably would not be able to function and these different fluids in the plane would go to waste. Thus, it is evident that these subjects provide support for each other. Without one of these components, the advancement of technology would not exist.

In this chapter, Carl Mitcham talks about technology in our current society. No matter where we go, or what we do, technology is there to stare us in the face whether it is the bed we sleep in, the hair dryer we use to dry our hair, or the alarm clock that wakes us up in the morning, technology is always there. Literally speaking, it is safe to say that our society has a strong bond with technology, because it is everywhere. I personally wonder what it would be like to not know what technology is so I can see how technology affects our society. In addition, I would like to see how technology would affect the environment. As stated in a previous blog, I am an environmental freak. Thus, I believe that the concept of technological determinism is not in alignment with Mother Nature and her natural processes. In other words, it seems like the technological advances are conflicting with our natural world. Like me, Carl Mitcham states that technology does not fit well with the environment it was placed in.

One example of how the concept of technology does not fit well with the environment is the generation of electric power through coal-fired power plants. In a coal-fired power plant, coal is burnt and energy is generated. However, this is in direct conflict with the environment as it unleashes harmful gases and chemicals into the air. This type of technology goes against nature because it does not use the process of nature to create electricity. On the other hand, a windmill used to generate electricity would be considered to be in alignment with nature because it uses natural forces to generate power. The power of the wind is used to churn the big metal blades, which then generates the electricity.

Overall, no matter how complicated humanity can view technology, to accurately see how things really function we need to have a third – person point of view to see all our conflicts with the flow of nature.

Throughout time, many people has perceived engineering as a type of science in which engineers develop new types of technologies to further the development of technology. However, I believe that people neglect the fact that the new innovations engineers put out everyday have a bigger and greater purpose than the new ‘technology’ they create. Moreover, they have a great influence on society and by their creations, have the ability to alter what a person believes. In this chapter, Carl Mitcham delves into the subject of how engineering can change and influence a society.

To expand on this subject, I feel that engineering tries to make everyday processes quicker, and more efficient. For instance, within the past century, canned goods have been a common commodity. Before, there was really no means in mass food production. By this, I mean there was not really any technology for that at the time. As a result, this was a question that engineers had to solve; create masses of food in minimal time, with minimum labor. This question probably inspired engineers to develop new processes and machinery for the advancement of mass food productions. This industry directly influenced society because more people have access to many types of foods that you can probably only obtain if you planted it yourself. In addition, this industry also has to pay for the transportation of these goods to various stores and distributors. Thus, engineering of new technologies is in a way influencing the food industry.

If you look into more detail, this may raise another issue. The transportation of goods causes an environmental issue as it brings pollution into the atmosphere. As an environmental freak myself, I feel that sometimes engineering has its downfalls because we need to realize whether our interactions with technology and the world are morally correct. Overall, engineering has a large influence on many aspects of life and we need to be aware of its consequences.

In this chapter, Carl Mitcham describes how our society views technology.  Some people believe that technology is for our welfare or for the use of entertainment (a mere object). For instance, some people refer to technology as the products of modern engineering. However, technology doesn’t have to be something that entertains us. I believe that mechanisms that assist us in the development of clothing or other commodities are just as important when considering the term ‘technology’. It just seems that today’s society gets caught up in the modern world and forgets about these things.

In the beginning of the chapter, Carl Mitcham says that technology includes all humanly fabricated material artifacts (i.e. all the fancy gizmos).  If you were to take a random person, they would most likely have some type of modern technology with them. For example, most people now of days carry their cellular phones wherever they go. It is almost unheard of for someone to walk without their cell phone with them. Part of the reason why this phenomenon exists is on account of the need for communication, just in case of emergencies.

To add, I feel that the true concept of technology as can simply be put as something that assists us with our everyday needs. On the other hand, it seems like technology has taken a whole new level. That technology is something that pertains to our social status in life. Currently, our society views technology as new, fancy, hi-tech gizmos. As a result, I feel that we as a society should change our views about technology. We should look past the fanciness of advanced technology and delve into the fact that technology plays a much bigger role in our lives. We need to realize that technology is the forte of our future and we need not to take that for granite. Technology for our pleasure is not essential to our survival.

I personally believe that the new type of documentation of history seems to reach out to more people because of the style of writing it contains. In addition, I believe that this style of documentation is easier and more entertaining to read. Not only is the text easier to read, I feel that more people will be able to learn and understand from it. In developing the rest of his main idea, John Staudenmaier talks about validity of the content of the old form of documentation.

Overall, the argument for which form is more plausible can is arguable for both sides. The new method probably affects more people who probably would not be interested in this kind of subject. It usually a simplified version of what is trying to be said which makes it easier to read. The question that we have to ask ourselves is that “Is it better to inform more people, or should we give the whole background of the history?” Furthermore, I feel that a person must utilize both types of documentation to best understand and decipher the relationship of technology and history because there are two different views and each do not focus on a grand level. Thus to understand the concept as a whole, I believe that you need to understand both of the separate views.

In this essay, Philip Scranton declares that a nation’s political views and policies shape technology and how technology shapes them in return. Scranton discusses how governments that pursue Marxist views usually set a social norm whereas more other nations allow their people to have more freedom with their individual self. In some countries, the individual beliefs of people are limited. Personally, I believe that this type of culture is morally wrong because citizens of that country are trapped. In other words, they aren’t able to express themselves. People are not able to experience and expand on account of the restrictions held by the government. Thus, the ideas of great thinkers do not follow through because they probably lack the desire to create something new. On another viewpoint, in a country where government allows people to think freely and express their ideals, there is always people trying to solve the problem on how to better the community. As a result, this type of society allows people to think and express their ideas to better technology. Like I stated before, American culture identifies themselves to the technologies it has acquired throughout its history. On an economic standpoint, this is probably why the American nation has prospered over time. Overall, reading this text helped me realize that the future of technology really depends on the wants, needs, and desire of a person on an individual level. Reading this essay also helped me realize that if the country has the same ideals of Marx, then the progression of technology will probably be retarded on account of the brainwashing type of government. In addition, I felt good to know that I am currently living under a society where I can speak my mind and try to better my society with the technological goals I have in mind.

In the chapter entitled, “The Idea of ‘Technology’ and Postmodern Pessimism” Leo Marx talks about the present day society’s beliefs and feelings about technology. Leo Marx claims that the majority of the population has or is beginning to have a more negative view of technology. However, technology is supposed to be good because it is used to make our lives easier. In a more condensed form, Leo Marx claims that the pessimistic outlook of American’s toward technology from the national traumas (i.e. Vietnam War) and the switch from the “mechanical art” to technology depreciated value towards of progress in technology in addition to the loss of faith in technological determinism.

Leo Marx expands on the main idea of technological pessimism and the invention of technology by using historical reference of national disasters and traumatic events.

On another note, I believe with the new technologies that are arising day by day, our world is drastically changing, which may scare some to lose faith in the concept of technological determinism. In the era where transportation from place to place with the use of vehicles first started, people were on board with the whole idea of advancing of technology. However, the development of a new means of transportation caused pollution in the air resulting in the warming of the earth. Thus, certain natural disasters (i.e. hurricanes) and destroyed society, possibly causing them to lose faith in technology. In another case, as the United States of America tried to advance to the use of nuclear power, there was a nuclear explosion which caused people to question the advancements in technology.

From reading this essay, I came to understand why people grew a negative conation towards technological determinism. However, I firmly believe that technology can be used for the good and is not always bad.

According to the book, Rosalind Williams argues with the fact that technology is developed for the “economic agendas and rational motives” of a society with the mere fact that this statement makes the further development of technology seem to be suited for the use of control and domination.

In addition, Rosalind Williams talks about the inconsistencies of technological determinism and a feminist understanding of history.

The central idea is developed as Rosalind Williams draws from the writings of a scholar named Lewis Mumford. As stated above, Rosalind Williams disagrees with the fact that technology is developed for the “economic agendas and rational motives” of a society. However, I strongly believe that every one of us should understand the real and true meaning of technological determinism.  Like Rosalind Williams and other scholars in this text, I believe that the development of technology should be for the betterment of the society.

Later in the text, Rosalind Williams quote Lewis Mumford’s assumption on the dissonance between technological determinism and a female understanding of history. As I was reading this passage, the fact that the progression of history through technology has a more masculine connotation associated with it. If you look back to the time of the industrial revolution, most of the inventions and innovations were created by the male gender. Part of the reason why this happens is because of the male dominance in society until about the middle of the 20^th century. Women would stay home and shape the “democratic biotechnics”, which is the small scale method of production (i.e. cooking, cleaning, house skills). However, “authoritarian technics” recently came into play, as technological advancements were created for the intention of power. With that stated, I believe that our society has lost sight in what technological determinism is really about.

Reading this piece made me feel skeptical on the actual purpose of technological determinism. At first, I did not even realize the aspect that technological determinism tied in with the subject of power and control. But after reading this essay, I have a more “democratic biotechnic” view of technological determinism rather than an “authoritarian” viewpoint.

]]> http://pdancel.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/the-political-and-feminist-dimensions-of-technological-determinism/feed/ 0 pdancel http://pdancel.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/determinism-and-pre-%e2%80%93-industrial-technology/ http://pdancel.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/determinism-and-pre-%e2%80%93-industrial-technology/#comments Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:45:51 +0000 pdancel http://pdancel.wordpress.com/?p=23 ]]> Determinism and Pre – Industrial Technology

Scholars like Robert Heilbroner would agree that the advancement of society by means of technology in the pre – industrial can be explained by the economic behavior. In his essay, Richard W. Bulliet agrees with the total opposite for he believes that the concept of technological determinism in the pre-industrial era cannot be explained fully by the outcome of economy. With that said, I believe that Richard W. Bulliet puts emphasis on the time period of pre-industrial technology because in the end we may only be capable of explaining the technological innovations in today’s society by understanding all of our past.

Richard W. Bulliet develops the main idea by introducing the many outside forces that possible effect the outcome of technological determinism as he points out cultures that have not adapted new types of technologies. Furthermore, there are quite a few examples of Middle Eastern technological innovations to show us that economic behavior is not a major component of technological change. On account of the social filters in the Middle East, economically productive and efficient innovations did not have a big effect on the society. For instance, block printing existed in the Middle Eastern area for about five centuries but then vanished because people did not really need it. However, it was later rediscovered and more of an impact than the first time. This example clearly shows that economics did really come into play in technological determinism during the time block printing was first founded.

After reading more into the chapter, I noticed how Bulliet compared different societies and conclude by noting the fact that the difference in the way you live, your social status, and ethnicity has a great effect on technological determinism. In addition, I felt that Bulliet’s main purpose in this essay is for scholars to focus more the pre-industrial technology.