Those critics who claim that technological advance is ruining our planet and bringing suffering
to humankind should take a closer look at the pragmatic realities. If modern technology is so harmful to both humans and nature, how can we account for the fact that the standard of living is higher in the industrialized portions of the world than in those where technology lags behind? Why are the citizens in the industrial nations better fed and longer-lived? Why is more being done to protect the environment in the technologically-advanced nations than in those still at a primitive technological level (Kranzberg,Elkana, & Tadmor, 1989)? Can this be ascribed to mere coincidence? (pg.238)
This piece is coming from a very elitist point of view. The whole voice and tone of this paragraph is very smug and self-righteous. As I mentioned in class, Kranzberg only acknowledges and analyzes affects of technology on 'industrialized' nations. To assume that your technology, because it benefits you and your country directly, is so very beneficial to humankind is ignorance at its finest. It goes back to the classic question, "Who decides what is best for who?"[What way of living, what social structure, etc.] And it always seems that the 'first world' nations take it upon themselves to answer this question for peoples and nations they see lesser than themselves. Why is it important to measure the standard of living and effects of technology for only the industrialized nations? Are they, we, the only nations that matter? Do only we deserve to be better fed and longer lived than others?!
I have taken a closer look at the 'pragmatic realities' and see them very clearly. What stands out to me is war, human beings killing their brothers and sisters for so called democracy with this wonderful technology. In my eyes, technology has, if not always, mostly been about building stronger, faster, more powerful contraptions that kill one another more effectively. Technology has been a race to gain and maintain power over others. To me, it has never been about the people, it has been about power and profits.
This all may seem pretty radical, and some may argue, what about the medical advances we have made and so forth. But, I raise the issue again, these medical advances are not made available to all people around the globe, not even all people in our nation of 'equality'. These advances have always been and remain for the priveleged. How can you measure success and progress for humankind when only a select few have reeped the benefits and all others don't matter? How can we say we progress when we leave others behind?
Furthermore, I can argue that technological advances have put a lot of strain on the earth and that industrialized nations aren't protecting the environment more than these so called 'technologically primitive' nations. First, I'd argue that because of many circumstances, these nations don't have the money nor the resources to do so because any resources that they do have must go toward their basic survival. Second, Kranzberg fails to acknowledge that indigenous communities have taken care of this earth for thousands of years, and this industrialized society has managed to ruin it within a few hundred. There is a prime example when the Shoshone got their land that they've inhabited for centuries taken away. They lived on that land and took care of it in Nevada, but the government said otherwise and said they mistreated the land because they let their lievestock graze on it. When the gov't. gained control, they dessimated the land drilling for nuclear resources. This is just one example that the complete opposite of what Kranzberg is trying to argue is true. (Google it!!)
I can go on for days with many examples on just this paragraph, but I fear of rambling and also of not being clear with the linkages I make, it would take an entire book almost. But, I would like to urge all to be socially and politically responsible and aware. Take it upon yoursleves to to stay informed and always remember there is ALWAYS 2 truths, two sides of the story, so when one thing is benefitting us, it's probably at the suffering of others. And although there may have been some technological advances for the good of humankind, my thoughts and feelings remain the same:
TECHNOLOGY AND SO CALLED "TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES" HAVE GIVEN HUMANS THE POWER THEY ARE NEITHER MATURE ENOUGH FOR, NOR RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH FOR.
Mexika Tiahui
Vanessa, I agree with you that first world countries decides what is considered “good” and tries to answer for others who might be lower to them on an economic level what is “good” for them as well. This all goes back to who has power, since obviously those who are in power have their voices heard and seem to always have a motive to help someone who is lesser than them, even though they might not even need or want the help at all. There are already so many other factors (i.e. race, gender, socio-economic class) mediating who has power and technology just creates another way to distinguish who has power and who doesn’t. Don’t get me wrong, technology has been extremely beneficial and has made most lives of people in countries with advanced technology easier, but I agree with Vanessa when she says that we need to look be more socially aware of how technology can negatively affect the world.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when you brought up how you think technology has not been about the people, it has been about power and profits, I do see your point. There are many people who do things for their own gains. I am interested in this concept though and would like to see how many people actually try to advance technology for helping out poorer nations or “bettering the world”. It is really interesting to think about but I think would be impossible to find out.