Technology is human nature; the two ideas have been intertwined since the beginning of history. Taking theoretical history from anthropology, the use of stone tools and fire not only opened our minds to the realm of theory and scientific pursuits, but also secured our success and dominion over nature on earth (possibly the universe). Technology is as much a part of our nature as communication, which is also vitally important to our success and abilities which are being profoundly altered and expanded with modern communication technologies. Our “invention or use” of technology is what sets us apart from the entirety of living organisms, as far as we have data and evidence to prove. It was our utilization of powers greater than ourselves, tools beyond what our body provides naturally; that is human nature, that is technology. Humanity is in a world apart from that of “nature”, being the perceivable world beyond ourselves. A world were-in the nature can be perceived and manipulated by the use of tools/enhancements: technology. Humanity has an intimate relationship with technology.
We are an aspect of technology as much as technology is an aspect of humanity. People are directly and indirectly unavoidably influenced by technology. Technologies will always have an effect on people; it is a construct of humanity, a necessity. As much so as people are a necessity to humanity, for without human beings there can be no human technologies, and, until we find alien technologies, there is no reason to assume there is anything but human technologies. Technology is a human invention it is mealy a term and word to describe the human utilization of enhancements. Technology is an aid, a supplement, a tool with an inherent quality, to further secure human domination and well-being over nature, or each other. Naturally technology alters human nature, it is in human nature to change to adapt. It is logical to assume everything alters human nature, we are impressionable and adapt and learn naturally. Of course technologies impact humanity, that’s the point.
One grave question remains; does technology threaten humanity? This question raises another which must be addressed before the initial question attempt to be answered. That question being; does humanity threaten humanity. The evidence points to yes. We constantly invent new technologies that have the ability to destroy us. We recklessly consume earth’s natural resources at a rate far in excess of demand, or necessity rather. We consciously pollute our water food and oxygen supplies and continue to destroy that which nature attempts to regulate. We live under the threat of nuclear war. True, our technologies expedite these threats, but the source of the threat has and will remain ourselves. Furthering m point that the ideas of humanity and technology are essentially the same, we are technological creatures who both govern and are governed by technology.
3 comments:
Your writing is characterized both by lots of ideas, and by tenuous connections among those ideas. I see that in the first paragraph - you make a number of claims about the identity of technology with human nature, but there's really nothing in the way of evidence - just a series of arguably connected ideas or theories.
The second paragraph brings a whole new series of ideas and theories, which are fairly distinct from the ideas of the first paragraph. There are many individual sentences which, by themselves, would be a good premise for an essay - but simply presenting a long sequence of worthwhile ideas does not, itself, create an essay.
Although all of these same criticisms apply to the third paragraph as well, I liked it best. Your ideas are coming to together a little more; your transformation of the question "does technology threaten humanity" into "humanity threatens humanity" is clever. I like this: "Furthering m point that the ideas of humanity and technology are essentially the same, we are technological creatures who both govern and are governed by technology." This is too broad and too vague, but it's also your best attempt so far to bring together all of your ideas.
What next?
1) Pick an idea here. ONE idea that you're prepared to write about at length.
2) Focus not on providing related, interesting ideas which are purely abstract or theoretical. Focus on proving/demonstrating/arguing that theory.
3) Assume a skeptical audience. Your work is fun to read, but it's not likely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. That is your goal.
What leads us to distinguish nature from humanity [humanity from nature] as the prompt would suggest? Why is “human nature” apart from that of the universe, or the rest of nature? I see no distinction between nature and humanity, our nature is fundamentally the same as everything else's nature (nature being existence, reality, “mother earth, the universe, etc…), though I recognize that many people would distinguish people from the rest of nature. But, realistically, we are nothing more than a unique part of nature. Nothing sets us apart from nature except for ourselves; we make the distinction, but why? Technology is the answer. Technology must be the unifying difference apparent to all; it must be the cause for the distinction. Technology (as far as I know) is unique to humanity, but what is technology and what makes it and, consequently, us unique?
Humanity sees itself in a world apart from that of “nature,” in our minds we are capable of making the distinction. We can contemplate things beyond our ability to conceive an answer, and we can perceive a world beyond ourselves. This would all be impossible without records, without technology. Without communicable thoughts, a world wherein nature can be perceived and manipulated by the use of tools/enhancements would be impossible. Humanity has an intimate relationship with technology.
The ability to communicate thoughts and ideas through time is essential to forming a collective consciousness, which in turn leads to sentience. It is our technology of media and language that I see as the basis for our distinction. Without a sense of the past we could not make predictions and look to the future, so we would be bound by the present. It is our consciousness that leads us to believe we are different, but I see more. We are not the only beings with consciousness. Other life forms are aware of themselves and others like them and exhibit a “knowledge/intelligence” to the extent that they can recognize others like them. But people are more than that.
It is our use of technology, through written or communicable expression of ideas, that allows people to live/think/exist with an understanding of time and the ability to “know” the past and predict the future through large trends in information expressed unbounded by time. This might be sentience, but without the technology of language or various other forms of written expression we would not have come to set ourselves apart from other life forms. If it was simply a question of our individual consciousness we must accept all forms of life with a central nervous system as sentient, for (from memory) they can draw from the past and look to the future; sentience is more than consciousness. The implicit difference is that humanity has the technology that enables us to communicate ideas to each other across time and space. It is our technology which leads us to understand our humanity as a community of conscious life.
It was our utilization of powers greater than our physical selves, tools beyond what our body provides naturally, that caused our unprecedented success. Humanity exhibits a drive for domination to insure survival, on both an individual and collective level (though more on an individual level). This is human nature. And what better way to dominate nature and/or humanity than through the skillful utilization of the most powerful and, importantly, the most exclusive technologies. Seeing as most people are, functionally, completely identical (humanity exhibits only about a 3% genetic variation), the only advantage is our individual, or collective, use and mastery of technology.
Technology is human nature (human nature being anything and everything involving people. We are a product of nature, thus we are natural and what we do and make is, consequently, natural); the two ideas have been intertwined since the beginning of history. Clothing, for example, is a technology that gave us protection and led to longer life, this technology led to our “humanity”, our designation as a being apart from nature. Taking theoretical history from anthropology, the use of stone tools and fire not only opened our minds to the realm of theory and scientific pursuits, but also secured our success and dominion over nature on earth (possibly the universe).
Technology is simply a tool, something supplemental to our person. It has been technological advancements that humanity strives for as qualitative affirmations of our progress. Whether or not advancements in technology are beneficial, technology has been the major driving force behind human change and evolution, and without it we would be in the dark (quite literally).
Language/communication is one of the most basic technologies that we use which sets us apart, and was also vitally important to our success and abilities in the past as it will be into the future. This archaic ability/technology is being profoundly altered and expanded with the modern communication technologies we have the privilege of experiencing (being essentially beta testers). The way in which we transmit ideas has been vitally important to humanity. The written language exponentially increased the human mind’s potential. With the use of books people can communicate ideas across space and time: history was invented, and for the first time people had access to knowledge, as it was in the past. This technology supplemented our minds with ideas and information, from or about, the past.
We are an aspect of technology as much as technology is an aspect of humanity. People are directly and indirectly, but unavoidably influenced by technology. Technologies will always have an effect on people; it is a construct of humanity, a necessity. It is a symbiotic relationship with the potential of being a parasitic relationship. Technology is humanity as much so as people are necessary for humanity, for without human beings there can be no human technologies, and, until we find alien technologies, there is no reason to assume there is anything but human technologies, which makes technology natural to humanity: human nature.
Technology is a human invention; it is merely a term, a word to describe the human utilization of enhancements. Technology is an aid, a supplement, a tool with an inherent quality, to further secure human domination and well-being over nature (or each other). Naturally, technology alters human nature, as it is in human nature to change to adapt. It is logical to assume everything alters human nature, we are impressionable and adapt and learn naturally. Of course technologies impact humanity, that’s the point.
One grave question remains: does technology threaten humanity? This question raises another which must be addressed before the initial question can be answered. That question being: does humanity threaten humanity? The evidence suggests yes.
We constantly invent new technologies that have the ability to destroy us. We recklessly consume earth’s natural resources at a rate far in excess of necessity or even demand. We consciously pollute our water, food, and oxygen supplies and continue to destroy that which nature has in place to attempt to regulate our negative influence. We live under the constant threat of nuclear fallout. People murder, rape, and exploit each other. So would it not be logical to assume the technologies we create are good, or at least neutral, and it is human implementation of that technology that threatens humanity? True, our technologies expedite these threats, but the source of the threat has been and will remain ourselves. Furthering my point that the ideas of humanity and technology are essentially the same, we are technological creatures who both govern and are governed by technology. We are natural thus our technology is natural, and since we are “sentient’, since we are conscious, we are responsible for any malevolence caused be technology because we created it and have dominion over it and if we are irresponsible enough to let things get out of control it is simply from our own recklessness and if things become dangerous and violent it is because of our own malevolence.
In short, technology will inherit and exhibit those traits inherent in human nature. Technology is a product of nature, just as we are a product of nature, and if indeed it is within our nature to destroy nature, then it follows that technology’s nature will be to destroy human nature to insure the continued existence of nature which would be beautifully just. The other option is incredibly egocentric, being, that we (humanity) are more powerful and intelligent than the entirety of the universe and will be responsible for destroying it. I don’t buy it.
Regardless, it is technology that created the consciousness of humanity and it will be technology that advances that consciousness into the future. Without technologies we would have been stagnating, waiting on the slow process of evolution (theoretically) for change and advancement. Instead we are capable of advancing ourselves mentally to the point now that we can quite possibly manipulate our genetics and “artificially” evolve (still natural though since we are natural, but distinctly different from “natural” or normal evolution). Technology makes us human.
Hmm. Here's a summary (I had to read the whole thing before being able to articulately respond to any of it): this is a good revision which nonetheless thoroughly preserves the faults of the original.
Your great strength is your ability to theorize, obviously. Your strength *in this version* is that you show, at least initially, your ability to theorize in a more focused way: for a while, I even thought you were going to stay clearly focused on language as the archetypal technology (which would have been a good idea, incidentally).
Your great weakness, also obviously, is your insistent on theorizing. Even the most abstruse European philosophers (say, Lyotard), sometimes gather evidence; moreover, partially just as a pedagogical reality, students are expected to provide more detailed, or at least more clearly cited, evidence than philosophers are. Or, to put it another way: while this version is more focused, you're not making the slightest gesture toward your audience, who may not believe that, e.g., the fact that we are natural makes all technology natural, let along understand the implications of that finding.
You make some clever moves - your underdeveloped attempt to articulate an interesting point about collectivity sure caught my attention - but you remain indifferent to developing evidence (let alone cited evidence!) to defend your interesting array of positions.
Post a Comment