“Devices and machines are not out there that invade life. We are intimate with them from birth, as were our ancestors for hundreds of generations” (Nye, 2006, preface) is one of the first sentences quoted in the textbook, Technology Matter, written by David Nye that got my mind spinning with confusion and philosophies about life. Right from the start, I found myself asking, does technology shape us, or do we as a society shape technology? Nye argues that technology is not determinism, “The doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes” (Dictionary.com). Instead, Nye argues that technology is uncertain and cannot be predicted. I, on the other hand, found myself disagreeing and arguing more with Historians, which believe that technology is the development of “social forces, personal needs, technical limits, markets, and political considerations” (49). I think that in order to be successful, technology has to be predictable; that is the capitalism way (one needs to predict what will be successful in order to be successful). To further prove my point, my mind was trying to wrap and link technology to the economy and cultural influences. To help show my metacognition while I was reading, I will reflect on my internal thoughts and uses for this information on some of the ten questions.
First, the chapter “Does Technology Control Us?” is a philosophical question, almost like why do human beings exist. I never thought of technology as a controlling factor in my life, but then I started to think deep. I thought of my mom who cannot go five minutes without checking Facebook, text someone, or talk to someone on the phone. I thought of my students who cannot go seconds without texting. After reading this chapter, I honestly think that technology controls us and we control technology. First, technology controls us by creating obsessions. I honestly think that people become addicted to technology such as the internet, computers, cell phones, etc. My students cannot fight the urge to check their phones, text, or Facebook during class. I have had students tell me that they had to go to the doctor because their fingers and thumb hurt. The diagnosis: too much texting. Much like carpartunnel, students are starting to have medical problems in their fingers, hands, and thumbs because of technology. Nye believes that technology “push[es] society toward the future” (22). As I read this section, I found myself wondering if this future would be a bright future? Do we really need technology in the future? Our ancestors, hundreds of years ago, didn’t have an eighth of the technology that we have today; they lived. Maybe not has entertained with video games or social networking, but they still lived. One could argue, though, that they would have lived longer had they had advances in scientific technology, but then what is technology?: I found my brain trying to establish one possible definition for technology. To me, technology is “social evolution” (3). Technology should be used to bring the world together into one place. Technology links people together. Technology is a communication device. Technology is something new. Digging deeper into my thoughts, I found myself asking, what isn’t technology? At some point, an invention is new; thus, everything, at one time or another, is/was technology
On the other hand, I also think that we control technology. Technology is only as successful as the people who demand it, want it, and buy it. For example, compare DVDs to Divix. We, as the consumers, preferred the DVD format. The result, DVDs excelled while Divix flopped. It’s basic economics, which is supply and demand. If the market does not demand the technology, the technology will disappear as quickly as it was invented. My conclusion, Nye is right that “We are intimate with [technology] from birth.” I believe that machines, or technologies, do invade life but only because we as a society embrace it, crave it, and desire it from birth to death.
The next chapter that struck a chord with me was “Is Technology Predictable.” I would say, yes. We as teachers need to predict technology in order to produce productive citizens who can be competitive in the global market. Teachers need to forecast technology so we can teach students how to adapt, and use technology. We will teach the future inventors, engineers, entrepreneurs, and designers. Without forecasting, we are failing our students. We also need to predict the future in technology in order to survive economically. While reading The World is Flat, I realized that my job description as a teacher may change. I may have to market myself in order to continue to teach. I need to understand and predict that technology may allow me to teach from home or to different countries. Realizing that, I can get a head start on the competition by experiencing and experimenting with such technologies. The problem with predicting is that “forecasts and predictions are so hard to make is that consumers, not scientists, often discover what is ‘the next big thing’” (39). I have to try to predict what the consumers want with education. Meaning, I have to predict what my students, parents, and the government want in the future with education in order to be ahead. It’s scary, and technology makes the world scarier with so many different paths it can lead.
Lastly, the chapter entitled, “Work: More, or Less? Better, or Worse,” got my blood boiling. Yes, technology has many positive attributes such as a global connection; however, technology is not all sweet. One trend that technology brings is the elimination of jobs. I found myself wanting to incorporate this section of the book into my Speech Communication class. We discuss Interpersonal Communication skills and the role technology plays with communicating. I immediately thought of The World is Flat again. I remember reading a section that fast food restaurants have the technology to take an order in a different state from which the person is ordering the food. That eliminates jobs and face-to-face communication. This is a slippery slope that I want to teach my students. The goal of the lesson would be to be wary of technology. Yes, it is great for communication, but a person should not become dependent on it because it can hurt basic needs. For example, I found a young entrepreneur presenting her invention to a group of people on TED. She created a robot that not only makes jokes, but can be a person’s friend. Also, I found a YouTube video of a person in Japan marrying his video game character. We are losing interpersonal communication, and this makes me believe that the more technology we have, the worse it will get. Technology is replacing face-to-face communication and friends. Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs proves that humans have basic needs such as a sense of belonging, love, and touch. The result could be that technology could lead us onto a dangerous path of “culture of death” (70).
After reading the book, I think I have more a negative view on technology. It is great to use globally to communicate, but technology has the ability to go too far. I love how the text ends with a scare tactic of the future by comparing what the world may look like to novels such as 1984. Again, I found myself wanting to connect this idea to my LA 101 and LA 201 classes. I teach short stories set in the future such as “The Pedestrian,” and “Harrison Bergeron.” Both short stories provide a daunting glimpse of the future with the continuation of technology. Technology, on the other hand, has many good points. It does make the world of over six billion people seem small. I think that problem lies within society. After reading this text, people cannot let their “destructive technological drives” take over reality.
Thank you for your interesting reflection paper. Your mam and students' cases are good examples. I am wondering if how they consider the role of technology in their life. Why do they want to keep using the SNS tools all day long? It would be a meaningful question to educators, particularly regarding the instructional and motivational strategies in k-12 education
ReplyDeleteAfter mentioning in class that I didn’t remember this book well, reading your reflection makes it all come back to me. I agree with you about Nye’s case against technological determinism being flawed, not because I totally agree with you that capitalistic social forces ensure its predictability, but because I believe the answer is more nuanced. Technology, like the weather, is predictable to a point.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, we know that the trend in computers has been toward multi-core computing, from the first dual core processors to the 32 and 48-core processors Intel is now developing. We can easily predict that those many-core processors will come to market in the next decade, but it is difficult to predict where that will end. The law of diminishing returns and programmers’ current struggles help to predict that, at some point, more cores will not be beneficial. As these cores work in parallel, programmers have difficulties harnessing their power as the cores must travel further distances to communicate amongst themselves. We cannot predict with certainty how well programmers will adapt to this new paradigm or how additional cores will change software for the end users.
The other point you raise that struck a chord with me is the downside of technology in increasing unemployment. Technology has enabled the outsourcing that has taken place over the last decade. Business pays scientists and engineers to develop technology that will do the work of people, increasing their profit margins while putting humans out of work. You mention The World is Flat, and in that book, Friedman argues that in a flat world, workers are responsible for being lifelong learners and creating their own economic security. We need to do our best to prepare students to thrive in this world, but it is scary that the factory infrastructure of the past is gone. To provide for their families, people now need to be more than just workers.