“But machines are not something apart from humanity. Instead all technical processes and products are result of human creative imagination and human skills, hands and mind working together. “ (Kranzenberg 236)
My disagreement with this statement is not without wary. I understand where Kranzenberg is coming from, however, I could not initially confide in his proposal fully. I thought that there must be a certain point at which the mechanical, the unhuman, overtakes the humanness of a product. This point is undefined, it cannot be found via complex formulaic manipulations of data. The threshold of humanness can only be felt, and as is often the case with feelings, a precise description can scarcely be constructed. Still, though, I felt that point must exist somewhere. Somewhere where the distance between the human and the machine is too vast. Humans created the computer that did the math to construct an image of an object that was sent electronically to a different machine that created it. The humanness of this product is a couple of steps away- the actual object was product of both mechanical imagination and production. Sure the human created the computer and the machine that eventually produced the product, but how far down the line can humans take credit?
In basketball and soccer, an assist goes to the person who directly passed the ball to his teammate who scored. One pass away. In hockey, an assist can be awarded to not only that player who made the final pass before the shot, but also the player who passed to the passer. Two passes away. In both cases, a player other than he who actually scored the goal was given partial credit for the goal. The puck/ball going into the net is what actually socres the point, but credit is given to the scorer because they caused the goal to happen. The goal is like the tool that the human created and thus gets credit for. An assist can be awarded to a human who created a machine that created another machine. A hockey assist can be given to a human who created a machine that created another machine that created another machine. At this point, the actual humanness is beginning to wane. The effect that the human has on the product compared to the effect that machines have on the product is proportionately decreasing. A player that is 5 passes removed from the goal scoring receives no credit in the statistician’s book because his pass is not deemed to have had enough impact on the actual goal scoring. An argument can be made that without his pass, the other passes would not have occurred and thus he should receive at least partial credit for the goal. Partial credit may be due, but the portion of credit due is so small that it doesn’t really count for much. Mathematically, the portion of credit for the player 5 passes away is so much closer to zero credit than full credit, that no credit is appropriately awarded. Now, back to the machines. If a human created the machine that created the machine that created the machine…. And so on… how many machines away can that human be and still justly receive credit for the final product. At some point the human influence has become less than that of the machines. That some point is where Kranzenberg’s argument is also diminished. Machines are indeed something apart from humanity.
Why does this matter? It is so abstract and theoretical that it doesn’t really apply to the subjects we are looking at in the course. The machines we come in contact with today are not often so far removed from humans and thus maintain a level of humanity worth crediting. I suppose my argument was in part for argument’s sake, but also I wanted to entertain the idea that perhaps we, as humans, give ourselves undue credit too often, which leads us to exploring problems we don’t need to be a part of. Our influence on the natural world is ever-increasing. In some ways this is good; but in many ways it isn’t. We research for knowledge’s sake; invent for creation’s sake; but at what point do knowledge and creation overtake living for life’s sake? When do we know too much? Can we know too much? At Disneyland, ignorance is the happiest bliss on Earth and when we learn how Cinderella and Jasmine actually ended up in the same place as Mickey Mouse, the mystique and enjoyment is gone.
This course is on the connection of society with science and technology. We have learned of the past and will conjecture about the future; well, here is my bleak conjecture about the future: The mechanical automation of daily occurrences will severely subtract from life itself. For those who have seen Wall-E, a vision of overweight, muscle-less, humans coasting around on hovercrafts that drive for them has appeared in my head.
Connect society with science and technology. We, especially as Americans (Westerners?) love inventions. We love new things. We love things to be easy. Our mindset is that research and gaining knowledge is the best thing we can do. When will society employ a different perspective on science and technology and their effect on our lives? How many machines away from the final product will we still give ourselves credit for?
“The history of technology, he tells us, shows how a return to ancient knowledge may be useful to the technologist.” (Kranzenberg 466)
The future of technology, I tell you, shows how a return to ancient knowledge may be useful to human beings.
I wonder if the inability of a computer to think on its own (like a human), without having a command given by a click or an enter, supports Kranzenburg’s idea that humanness is in everything. Of course computers do have that internal hardware (software?) that creates its abilities and functions that I have no control over, but these machines do exactly what they are programmed to do. They do not disobey their human controllers; Unless there is a malfunction, but not due to a mechanical tantrum, but rather a human error of sorts. This is not to disregard your argument, for you do make a strong point. The human hands are no longer the primary source.
ReplyDeleteBut what about the idea that invented that machine that invented that other piece of technology that made another machine. Surely that is all human, which may be the problem. “The mechanical automation of daily occurrences will severely subtract from life itself.” Agreed. So maybe it is not even about the actual engineering but the process its self, the motivations of creation. The ceaseless inventions and technological innovations that need to be addressed. Humanity is not present because the future of humanity, of the world and Earth, is not even considered. If humans do want to take that credit, it may end up being something no one will want to admit to have done in the future.