Relationships between technology and cyborgs, technology and gender, and technology and nature have all been drawn throughout the material presented thus far. Though there are many convincing arguments to solidify such connections, I believe that the greatest relationship lies between technology and human nature, where technology is present physiologically, intellectually, and socially in the hardwiring of humans.
On the most basic level, technology can be thought of as an integrated part of not only human physiology, but of the biological functioning of any form of life. As Lyotard states, “…technology wasn’t invented by us humans. Rather the other way around…even the simplest life forms…are already technical devices” (Lyotard 12). Such technological devices begin as microscopic cells, capable of self-maintenance while performing complicated functions. These cells combine in great numbers to create larger, more complex systems that are not only adapted for survival, but can also process, regulate, and store vital information. Lyotard argues the following: “Any material system is technological if it filters information useful to its survival, if it memorizes and processes that information and makes inferences based on the regulating effect of behaviour” (Lyotard 12). As millions of years have passed, humans have evolved into such data processing creatures, arguably becoming increasingly intelligent and complex. In this sense, evolution can be correlated to technological advancements: as the technical devices that compose the human body are refined, human nature also becomes more developed and advanced.
Based on the belief that the human body is, in itself, a technological device, it can also be speculated that the desire for humans to seek technological advancement is an innate aspect of human nature. Because we are made up of tiny complex machines that are capable of processing all types of information, perhaps our body as a whole is programmed to function as a technological machine. Or, in other words, the ability to interpret information from the outside world and to apply the resulting knowledge toward technological advancements may be a natural human process. In regards to the ability of humans to interpret such information Lyotard states, “[It] is possible only because the material ensemble called ‘man’ is endowed with very sophisticated software” (Lyotard 13). As scientific and technological knowledge is expanded through the use of our complex data processing systems (humans’ “software”), a type of snowball effect occurs, resulting in the exponential and continuous development of technology.
Because it is arguably within human nature to seek such technological advancements, technology also becomes a part of the social aspect of human nature. The technological aspect of the human mind provides infinite possibilities for technological advancements in society. Bill Joy focuses on such rapidly developing technologies, and on the countless scientific and technologic innovations that are likely to appear in the future. Most of these possibilities, Joy believes, will be detrimental to human nature, as the following sums up his concerns: “Our most powerful 21st century technologies….are threatening to make humans an endangered species”. Joy recognizes the continuous presence of technology in society, and is concerned with the human ability to develop such technologies to amazing yet terrifying degrees. In contrast to Joy’s fears, I believe that though technologies created by humans are powerful and often essential parts of today’s society, human nature and human intelligence remain to be the basis of such creations. The physiological technologies that combine to make the human form are the most complex and natural forms of technology; therefore, outside technological advancements will not likely surpass the ability of the human mind without the ultimate assistance from the human creators. Ultimately, though technological advancements can potentially pose a threat to human nature, the fact that humans are the basis of such advancements leads one to believe that humans can also end such advancements, should a simple threat become an actual problem.
Referring back to Lyotard, he concludes that, “[A human] can grasp itself as a medium (as in medicine) or as an organ (as in goal-directed activity) or as an object (as in thought—I mean aesthetic as well as speculative thought)” (Lyotard 12). This supports the belief that the hardwiring of humans to become complex technological machines results in the ability for humans to perform many different functions, including pioneering technological advancements both inside and outside of the human body. Because of this physiological makeup, human nature is virtually technologically wired to pursue scientific and technological fields. As a result, technology always has been, and will continue to be, an integral part of human nature in all possible aspects of life.
3 comments:
In your introductory paragraph, you are presenting an *area* of inquiry but not an argument. Just pointing that out - we'll probably return to that.
Your recitation and extension of Lyotard's thoughts on technology is interesting, but I'm left slightly unclear. Why, for instance, do you agree with him? Why is his thought important or useful to you? With a clearer introduction, we'd know what you were up to here.
Look at this line: "Based on the belief that the human body is, in itself, a technological device, it can also be speculated that the desire for humans to seek technological advancement is an innate aspect of human nature." You're writing here as if you're writing a lab report. Given your background, that's understandable, but you need to do things a little differently here. "It can also be speculated" is a passive voice construction, which is always problematic in an essay, because the very point of an essay is to convince us to adopt your point of view. Here, you are either masking your point of view or writing about something that you don't actually agree with. I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say about Lyotard, but I don't know what your real point of view is; I don't know what you're trying to show me.
Several versions of an actual argument emerge in the last couple paragraphs - which, in turn, helps clarify the introductory paragraph. You argue at one point that Joy is wrong - because we are the ultimate technological devices, our devices aren't likely to threaten us. Great line of thinking - but there's no evidence for it, and the paper would need to be restructured around it. Your more general, closing argument - that we are hard-wired to seek scientific advances - is also a great, if rather more general argument. But your evidence for this position is strictly abstract and philosophical: you instinctively agree with Lyotard, and disagree with Joy.
So one think I'd like to see is a greatly clarified introduction, and an elimination of those moments when you seem to be proposing an abstract idea rather than making your own argument.
The other thing I'd like to see is for this argument to draw on your own scientific background. You say that people are hardwired for science. Can you demonstrate something along those lines? How can you leverage your own knowledge of Biology (I think you're a Bio major, right?) to make this an argument which is both philosophical and empirical, which draws on Lyotard and contemporary biological thought? Make use of your background, and your strengths!
Relationships between technology and cyborgs, technology and gender, and technology and nature have all been drawn throughout the material presented thus far. Though there are many convincing arguments to solidify such connections, I believe that the most prominent and relevant relationship lies between technology and human nature. Humanity and technology will continue to coexist and develop without threat to human nature, because technology is present physiologically, intellectually, and socially in the hardwiring of humans.
On the most basic level, technology can be thought of as an integrated part of the biological functioning of any form of life, including human physiology. While technological and scientific systems are clearly key aspects of biological function, an age-old question can be further applied: “Which came first: the chicken or the egg?”, or, are humans the inventors of technology, or did technology invent humans? Lyotard states, “…technology wasn’t invented by us humans. Rather the other way around…even the simplest life forms…are already technical devices” (Lyotard 12). The most basic life forms are primitive microscopic cells, yet are capable of self-maintenance while performing complicated functions. These cells often combine in great numbers to create larger, more complex systems that are not only adapted for survival, but can also process, regulate, and store vital information. As I agree with Lyotard, I believe that there is no other explanation as to how these tiny organisms can function with such innate precision; they must be a creation of technology from the very beginning of their existence. These technical devices are the foundation and framework of natural life, cooperatively combining to invent the human form.
As countless years have passed, humans have evolved into data-processing beings, arguably becoming increasingly intelligent and complex. Lyotard also states the following: “Any material system is technological if it filters information useful to its survival, if it memorizes and processes that information and makes inferences based on the regulating effect of behaviour” (Lyotard 12). This further supports my belief that the biological units that compose our form are indeed technical units that are capable of not only survival, but abstract thinking, reasoning, and problem solving. As a result, the small devices that compose humans are essential for not only survival and existence, but also for the ability to develop thought and intellect. Therefore, understanding the basis of our existence (microscopic technical cells functioning together) and the functions of such (the ability for these cells to produce thoughts and ideas, in addition to basic survival) will allow humans to further comprehend and study how humanity functions as a whole. In this sense, the evolution of humanity can be correlated to technological advancements: as the technical devices that compose the human body are refined, human nature also becomes more developed and advanced.
This technological aspect of the human form, as a result, provides infinite possibilities for technological advancements in society. Bill Joy focuses on such rapidly developing technologies, and on the countless scientific and technologic innovations that are likely to appear in the future. Most of these possibilities, Joy believes, will be detrimental to human nature, as the following sums up his concerns: “Our most powerful 21st century technologies….are threatening to make humans an endangered species”. Joy recognizes the continuous presence of technology in society, and is concerned with the human ability to develop such technologies to amazing yet terrifying degrees.
Joy’s concern that developed technology will eventually overpower its creators uncovers another question: what causes a human’s relentless drive for advancing in the technological world? Based on the belief that the human body is, in itself, a technological device, I believe that the desire for humans to seek technological advancement is an innate aspect of human nature. Our body as a whole is programmed to function as a technological machine, because we are made up of tiny complex cells that are capable of processing all types of information. Or, in other words, the ability to interpret information from the outside world and to apply the resulting knowledge toward technological advancements is a natural human process. In regards to the ability of humans to interpret such information Lyotard states, “[It] is possible only because the material ensemble called ‘man’ is endowed with very sophisticated software” (Lyotard 13).
As scientific and technological knowledge is expanded through the use of our complex data processing systems (humans’ “software”), a type of snowball effect occurs, resulting in the exponential and continuous development of technology. Our bodies themselves act as technological machines, which ultimately drives humanity to explore the unknown. For example, in the present day we live with just about every imaginable commodity that surely make many aspects of life more convenient; however, the necessity of such innovations is certainly debatable. Yet scientific and technological research and development continues, constantly striving for better, as our technical minds know no other path. However, our hardwired “software”, while more commonly used towards the development of new technologies, can also be utilized in the abortion of such technologies, if deemed necessary. Though technologies created by humans are powerful and often essential parts of today’s society, human nature and human intelligence remain to be the basis of such creations. The physiological technologies that combine to make the human form are the most complex and natural forms of technology; therefore, outside technological advancements will not likely surpass the ability of the human mind without the ultimate assistance from the human creators. Ultimately, though technological advancements can potentially pose a threat to human nature, the fact that humans are the basis of such advancements leads one to believe that humans can also end such advancements, should a simple threat become an actual problem
Referring back to Lyotard, he concludes that, “[A human] can grasp itself as a medium (as in medicine) or as an organ (as in goal-directed activity) or as an object (as in thought—I mean aesthetic as well as speculative thought)” (Lyotard 12). This supports my belief that the hardwiring of humans as complex technological machines results in our ability to perform many different functions, including pioneering technological advancements both inside and outside of the human body. Because of this physiological makeup, human nature is virtually technologically wired to pursue scientific and technological fields. Humans’ generally high levels of intelligence and innovation, a result of such technical wiring, allows scientists to be more than capable of preventing and/or reversing any negative effects that developed technology may have on human nature. As a result, technology always has been, and will continue to be, without likely threat, an integral part of human nature in all possible aspects of life.
Your introductory material is clarified, although not quite transformed. I'd argue that you (like Lyotard) are defining technology a little eccentrically - unlike him, you don't define it, which leaves it a little unclear what you mean. You might possibly argue that I'm nitpicking, but you *seem* to agree with Lyotard that technology=data processing, and that life=date processing, and that therefore life=technology. That's fine, but I'd like it to be a little more explicit, and I'd like to see some biological knowledge applied to this purpose.
You shift to talking about "technological advancement." Does that mean more and better data processing, or something else. To clarify my point: I don't think you are being consistent in your implicit definition of technology.
Much of the rest of the paper really seems like a slightly rearranged version of the draft.
Overall: On the one hand, this is an interesting paper, an interesting response to Lyotard, and a considerable improvement over your second paper, which also was a considerable improvement over your first. On the other hand, you are seemingly inconsistent with your definitions, and your evidence for your positions is thin, especially as the paper goes on - why do you understand life and technology in these somewhat eccentric ways - and, perhaps most of all, why do you think that we would not be threatened by our own data-processing devices (if life is data processing, then evolution is shifts in how data is processed, and then, Joy-like, our technological developments *are* an accelerated form of evolution - why do you see it the way you do?)
Post a Comment