Blog Assignment #4

"Does Technology Control Us?"

Well, one of the stakeholders that Nye presents in his chapter 2 : "Does Technology Control Us?" is television industry because back then they could of lost a lot or gained a lot. "In the United States television is specular, not religious; private, not public; funded by advertising, not taxation; and a conduit primarily of entertainment, not education. These are cultural choices" (Nye 19). Without the interest of the American people, television would of never gone anywhere. It would of just been another example of today's XM radio, which has many drawbacks, no support, and NO interest by the American people. Without the support of the American people there is nothing you can do to further a technology.

What kinds of sources does he draw from? The sources that Nye draw from are Capitalism and Material Life by Fernand Baraudel. In this particular source Nye talks about how technology is only an instrument and that man does not necessarily need it to survive. However, some technologies, such as electricity, are so profoundly useful that it has been implemented into society. Furthermore, Nye also draws ideas from Edward Tenner's book, Why Things Bite Back. That part of the chapter explains how either technology breaks it or makes it for you company. His test was that he initially got rid of secrataries and replaced them with machines. The results, I thought, were astonishing! Reducing staff raised 43% of companies profits while 24% suffered loses in their newly implemented ideas. Moving on, Nye draws from another author, Alvin Toffler, who wrote Future Shock and The Third Wave, stating that technology has gone far beyong that in which a human can comprehend with. Initially, Nye uses lots of examples and has various articles that help determine both views on technology.


What are some of the tentative conclusions Nye makes in regards to the question he poses.
Some conclusions that Nye makes is that when he uses examples about the industrial revolution he is clearly stating that technology controls us because people are losing their jobs for something that man created to do a more efficient job, but in the process it makes us lose our jobs. Also he talks about the Japanese and how they firmly rejected the gun. This just goes to show that technology does not indeed control us, but we control it. The Japanese banned the gun for centuries, but finally implemented it. For the most part, from what the Japanese did, it's totally up to society to see what they want to do in terms of letting technology control them or vice versa.

Finally, given your own experience and perspective how would YOU answer the question Nye poses? Well, first off, I would definitely say that it is a line right down the center of the debate of "Does Technology Control Us?" because of the following. We as a society choose what we want to implement into our societies. We as consumers choose what we want to buy, in terms of technologies such as cameras, computers, etc. We have choice to technology, and most of use choose to buy these gadgets that make our live not necessarily easier but just more entertaining. Your camera isn't crucial to your survival but you still buy it because you strive for it, you just want it. On the other hand, there are technologies that control us, for example, the Internet. The Internet is a major part of our lives. Ofcourse we can live without, but most of us use it so much that we wouldn't know what to do if it were to suddenly disappear one day. Actually, now that I think about it. Technology does control us, and that's kind of sad, but technology can't do anything with a human's input. Still it controls us to no end, and will continue to do so as long as we have more technological advances.

Blog Assignment #3

Let's start off by saying that this, I chose to focus on the author's opinions vs my own in my paper because their opinions were much different from mine. I just wanted to get my point out there and show that according to me, they were skeptics about technology. Moving on, the things that I believed helped me out the most was of course the author's opinion which helped me to develop my own. Then we have the idea that technology is rather bad, which was the main points of these books. From there I just wrote an essay that had my opinion and the author's stated. I chose to construct my essay from the author's ideas and from that it really shaped my essay, but the one thing that I wish I would've done earlier was include some quotes in there to show some support.

The peer editing I really liked because it allowed people to add comments more easily and the comments people made were good, and it was an overall good experience. Another thing is that I really preferred this over the old peer editing sessions where everyone passes their papers around. There wasn't much to do to "leap" because online is much easier than going to class and having everyone switch papers. Initially, it was a success!

First Essay Rough Draft

Imagine a world without electricity, cars, and computers. Today’s world would be violently different from what it would be like if there was not something called technology that existed. Technological advancements have helped us humans work more efficiently and get to our destinations much faster. Without technology we would still be walking or riding a horse just to get to our workplace. Without technology we would be blind at night, we would not be able to explore the depths of the ocean, without technology we would be lost. According to Kurt Vonnegut and Kim Vicente technology and humans should not and do not get along very well at all. Vicente stated that technology is to be blamed for the deaths caused by the human factor every year. While Vonnegut argues that the human minds of the Hoenikker children are unable to maintain and keep something so simple and catastrophic as ice-nine under wraps. Thus their stupidity and carelessness means the end of the world.
From the grocery store cash register to the microchip imbedded in your cars computer system, technology is all around us. Along with it we evolve into more efficient and capable society, but there are flaws that come with along. Along with technology comes uncertainty and problems and that is what Kim Vicente and Kurt Vonnegut set out to argue. Kim Vicente’s The Human Factor talks about the issues that plague today’s world. From the problem that caused the power plant in Chernobyl to explode. This technology mixed with “the human factor” can cause a devastating outcome. The reason for the faulty reactor was that the people in charge were human rather than not being adequately trained. The reason, as said by Vicente, is that technology is moving at such a rapid pace that humans can’t keep up with it, thus “the human factor”. Kurt Vonnegut says something along the same lines as Kim Vicente too because of his book, Cat’s Cradle. Vonnegut essentially has people who are in charge of a potentially devastating weapon, and these people are rather not qualified to do this job. The Hoenikkers, the ones in charge of ice-nine, are rather dull and incapable. They may be smart and all but when it comes to responsibilities and decision making they are not the brightest. You can say that the similarities between Vonnegut and Vicente is that they both talk about “the human factor” because they both use aspects of it that cause trouble and demise in one way or another. Initially Vicente and Vonnegut are saying that technology is moving at too fast a pace for humans to keep up with and being able to adapt with thus causing all these problems that we have today.
Vonnegut and Vicente are bringing up questions that attack the reliability and integrity of our technology and those who are operating it. From nurses who mix medicines that are not suppose to be mixed to the pilot who crashed his plane because he didn’t get enough sleep. Some questions that they could potentially be raising are, is technology moving too fast for man to handle? This is a suitable question because it is true; the rate in which technology is moving at is far greater than that in which the average person can comprehend. Technology is moving at such an incredible rate that anyone who is going to even think about operating anything advanced is forced to go through extensive training that qualifies them for that particular job. Another question that is deemed to be asked is, is technology that we have today is really necessary? This question is also deemed true because of the simple fact that some of the technology created isn’t even needed for the advancement of mankind. For example, a calculator that can calculate formulas a few seconds faster than its competitors is not required because a regular calculator is just fine how it is. There is no need to create something that extreme that will just make life more difficult for us with no improvements in the quality of life.
Initially, the way in which I would respond to these authors is that they need to stop thinking so critically of technology. The reason why I say this is that everything has its mishaps because nothing is perfect. It is bound to have a defect with it and even if it doesn’t, there will still be the human factor because humans cannot quickly adapt to such technology and succeed in fully understanding everything. The authors need to keep their opinions more open minded because from what I’ve read, they are mostly saying negative things about technology. I believe they can still be technology dependant and still batter it left and right, but they just need to be more open minded. Of course there are going to be some plane crashes every here and now, but it is not oblivious to think that the people who engineered the machinery are not working day and night to make the airplane a much safer way for Americans to travel. I’m not going to say that there aren’t any careless people out there that not doing their jobs properly and in effect losing a life, but rather the authors shouldn’t bash technology. It’s mostly the people who are working at the power plants and the guy who accidentally gave too much medicine to a patient. They are the ones to blame, not necessarily the technology.
All in all, technology is a part of our lives, and with technology we can either further advancement or quickly disappear with it without the adequate training. The authors bashed technology and “the human factor” in their books, and most likely ask questions that are well suited for the situation, but the real problem is not technology moving too quick rather that people are not doing this without thinking about what they are doing. Technology can be our friend with the proper handling or our enemy in the wrong hand.

Blog Assignment #2

"There was a sound like that of the gentle closing of a portal as big as the sky, the great door of heaven being closed softly. It was a grand AH-WHOOM. I opened my eyes-and all the sea was ice-nine. The moist green earth was a blue-white pearl. The sky darkened. Borasisi, the sun, became a sickly yellow ball, tiny, and cruel. The sky was filled with worms. The worms were tornadoes."

The aftermath of the accidental mishandling of the ice-nine into the ocean has had a devastating tole on the Earth and Life. Vonnegut's purpose of showing the aftermath of the traumatic event is that there is a high level of stupidity in this world and lots of it too. Also, I think I think he is trying to say that if you mix stupidity along with such an advanced level of technology in the hands of amateurs like the Hoenikker children, there is a high chance of death. Thus causing the world to be covered in ice and man eating tornadoes to ravage the world around! Well, if it were up to me, and I happened to have a piece of this ice-nine. I'd honestly be much much more careful with it instead of having it in a capsule around my neck. Just imagine all the catastrophes that could happen. If I accidentally dropped it into any water source that would mean eternal doom for everyone because all water sources are connected one way or another even if it's underground.

I believe that what Vonnegut has to say true to a point because if something this sensitive is put out like this, it will most likely pose a huge problem for mankind. Not to offend anyone, but there are people who are not capable to handle this type of technology especially the Hoenikker children. Plus Felix was irresponsible in the first place to leave something such as this to his children and not cleaning up his mess before he died. He maybe the creator of the atom bomb and ice-nine but what is the purpose if his creation isn't put to proper use. When you create something you have to make sure that it's purpose is the same as what you intended it for when you first thought of that invention. Again, we all know that Felix was indeed a very intellectual man, but he had no emotions, no sense from right and wrong in a way, and almost zombie like with one purpose in mind: to mess around with things, thus creating the atom bomb and ice-nine.

Personally I only to a certain extent with what Vonnegut has to say. I agree with the idea that unqualified people with certain technologies are bad, but Vonnegut throws this idea out there that technology is BAD! Humans + Technology usually ends up in catastrophe. For the most part after reading his book that is what I believe he is trying to get at and that is his opinion. I believe that technology does have its drawbacks when it's in the wrong hands, but we can't say that technology is always bad because if it was we'd be in a huge mess right now. I mean, technology is what helped us get through everyday life more conveniently and comfortably. Without it we'd still be cavemen with flint rocks and wood. Therefore, I only agree with the stupidity part of what Vonnegut is saying but disagree with the whole technology is bad because technology is indeed good for us.

Blog Assignment #1

First and foremost, Kim Vicente's "human factor" is heavily referenced in The Human Factor because she explains a lot about how being human in a technologically advanced world is, in a sense, a flaw. This is so because we're only human, and so prone to errors. For example, if there were a perfect piece of machinery out there, which doesn't exist, and humans were the operators, it wouldn't be so perfect anymore. You'd have to take into consideration the human factor which is the idea that we're only humans and again so prone to errors. From what I've read, Vicente's verdicts are mostly arguing that technology overall is bad. Rarely does she use light words of appreciation for the technology that we have today. I'm guessing that she does so because she firmly believes that technology is in a way to blame for the faults that we have today. From the, 98,000 Americans who die annually due to preventable medical errors to the hundreds that lost their lives to the Chernobyl explosion, I believe that these errors only human based. I understand that Vicente is trying to say that technology is convenient for everyday life but humans are just not perfectly assimilated with technology to be fool proof. Now when I talk about the relationship between "the human factor" and Cat's Cradle, there is an immense similarity between the two.

Cat's Cradle focuses enough on the atomic bomb to use it as an aspect of "the human factor" because the atomic bomb was a miracle weapon that could bring peace to the world or havoc to everything that we've known to this day. Once again, "the human factor" played a part in the creation and dropping of the atomic bomb because at this time period the world was not ready for such an advanced weapon. Furthermore, like Vicente stated, the technology of the atom bomb was more than a human can handle, thus "the human factor". Not does Vonnegut explore only the atom bomb, but he also explores ice-nine. Again, another technology that the world is not ready for because it is just too advanced for humans to keep up with. Not only is this ice-nine too advanced, but it's also too mysterious to know the potential that it has. This piece of ice-nine is potentially a miniature atom bomb because it could accidentally fall into the world's water supply and that will be the end for the Earth and all the life forms that currently exist on it.

The criticism that both of these authors have towards technology is a relatively negative one. Vicente pretty much says that technology is bad. While just totally disagrees with any type of technology that dehumanizes life. Overall I'd say that both authors are very similar in their views about technology because they both don't believe in technology that minutely limits human life in any shape or form.