Every person is different through their formation of intersectionality through their culture, race, gender, class, etc. Not only that, but “as people move across roles and through life, their social position changes” (Hess 14). It is important to look through cultural and international lenses to understand that people are different from the shaping of their cultural images. We can use these lenses to look at technology and the different meanings that science and technologies can bring to different cultures and different people. I saw this on the first day of class; because of our different backgrounds in very different fields (Engineering students and Ethnic Studies students), we each had very different lenses and different focuses or importance that we brought up in class. I noticed that when we read the same articles, we pick up on different portions of them and formulate different questions about them. And even though the class is divided into two “cultures”, they are also divided into smaller subcultures which we form ourselves due to our personal identities. This is like different cultures viewing science and technology – other cultures may see different things that we don’t necessarily pick up on.
Before taking this class, I saw science and technology as same for everyone, a routine of creating things better through repetitions of trial and error. What I forgot to even question is the differences ways people would use them and, as Kranzberg stated, sometimes “its misuse and abuse” (236). But who are we to judge what is good to use or what is bad to use. Nowadays with the easy access of world news, we can be quick to judge other countries and their ways of using science and technologies. People in other countries value different things and may have different circumstances where technology we may seem as harmful could be a huge benefit to them. We saw this in Kranzberg’s example of the use of DDT in India as a problem solver and helped save thousands of lives. Also people may solve things differently or work at things in another manner than you may go about in a situation. I feel like this applies to all sorts of careers, not just those in science and engineer.
When Kranzberg explained life as constantly making tradeoffs (239), he mentions that “we trade one ‘good’ for another, or … choose the least of the evils besetting us” (239). He explains this as choosing the solution with the least amount of harmful effects. I sometimes question this idea since I see technology as a way of improving. So why not instead of just settling for the “less dangerous” solution, try to come up with a better product or model. Also, the question of what is considered “good” should be thought about. Is the concept of “good” only applied to being “good” for humans (what we would probably care about the most) or “good” for all living things or “good” for the planet?
It is interesting to me how different the brain develops depending on the way one was raised, their culture, their race, their gender, etc. I grew up in a small town and wasn't exposed to many different cultures during my early stages of life, so my perspective on how people think and the decisions they make was very narrow-minded. Ever since I started college and living with peers from a different culture and race, my perspective on life changed drastically. When reading how Kranzberg talked about misusing and abusing technology, I thought deeply about how technology is driven. Most of the time, devices are not always used in the way the original maker intended them to be used. When Martin Cooper invented the first mobile phone, his purpose wasn't for people to browse the internet when they're bored on the bus (in fact internet for the public wasn't invented yet), but instead to have a way for people to talk with another person regardless of their location. Not to say that internet on our phones was a bad idea, but sometimes when we think we are making a wise decision to solve a problem, other people can use that solution for better or for worse. So I don't think that there ever is an all-around "good" solution to anything and agree with Kranzberg when he says to settle with the "less dangerous" solution. A "good" solution exists merely in the mind which contemplates them, which is similar to what David Hume says in his essay, Moral and Political (1742), except he is talking about beauty.
ReplyDelete-Billy McVicker