At the beginning of section two of What Technology Wants, Kevin Kelly talks about the excess of objects that the majority of people living in affluent (often described as ‘western’) civilisations are in possession of. He cites a study that photographer Peter Menzel organised where he photographed families in less affluent countries standing outside their houses surrounded by the entirety of the possessions that they owned. Menzel discovered that ‘The average number of objects owned by one of these families was 127’ (77) which is in stark contrast to the 10,000 that Kelly predicts his family has in their house. Kelly then talks about the popular statement that ‘more money does not bring more happiness’ (78) and how increasing evidence has found this to be untrue. He cites studies that have proved high income earners to be happier than people living in lower earning con tries and summarises his argument with this statement;
We don’t find happiness in more gadgets and experiences. We do find happiness in having some control of our time and work, a chance for real leisure, in the escape for the uncertainties of war, poverty and corruption, and in a chance to pursue individual freedoms – all of which come with increased affluence. (78).
I found this section of the book extremely interesting as it’s a line of thought I strongly agree with. It angers me a lot when people from high earning families who have lived their lives in affluent countries talk about how they wish their lives would be ‘simpler’ and that actually people who live in small houses without any technology are ‘happier’ and ‘enjoy life’ to a greater extent. I’m not denying that there are complications that come with increased technology but the simple idea that these complications would outweigh the benefits seems ridiculous to me. If you asked a family who’s children are dying of malaria if they would rather live somewhere where they could drive to a hospital to receive quick and efficient medical care, they would laugh at you for even considering it a question. And if you gave a girl who has been denied an education the opportunity to wikipedia anything in the entire world, it would seem like an act of god. Discussion Question: Do you agree with this or can you think of a scenario in which the disadvantages of technology are greater than the advantages?
Another part of section two that I found very interesting was in Chapter 9 when Kelly talks about the triad of factors pushing technology forward. He argues that the evolution of technology depends on three different factors. The structural/inevitable – ‘the basic laws of physics and emergent self-organisation (that) drive evolution toward certain forms’ (182). The historical/contingent – the ‘accidents and circumstantial opportunities (that) bend the course of evolution this way and that’ (182). And finally the functional/adaptive – ‘the relentless engine of optimisation and creative innovation that continually solves the problems of survival’ (182). Essentially he is saying that while humans do not have control over certain aspects of the evolution of technology they do have control over quite a large amount of it;
We can nudge the system to maximise equality or to favour excellence or to foster innovation. We can bias the invention of the industrial assembly line either toward optimisation of output or toward optimisation of worker skills; those two paths yield different cultures. (184).
The reason I brought up this point from the book is that it reminded me of an earlier post I wrote regarding The Machine Stops. In this post I argued that society would never end up the way that it was portrayed in The Machine Stops because humans would not let technology develop that way. Kevin Kelly’s statement certainly validates that my previous argument is technically possible but I guess the real question is: If humans do have a choice in the way that technology develops do you think they will use their ‘power’ for good or for evil or just to invent more devices on which we can look at pictures of cats?
Bibliography:
Kelly, Kevin. What Technology Wants. Penguin Books 2010. Print.
I too found the passage dealing with wealth and happiness to be particularly interesting. It seems as if almost every other week a new study comes out proclaiming a new ideal level of wealth. Because surely more money leads to more happiness, right? As the lyricist Christopher Wallace once wrote, “Mo’ money, mo’ problems”. However the general consensus does seem to agree that to a certain extent increased wealth does increase happiness. This makes sense for the reasons you put forth in your response, with wealth comes access to transportation, better health, and education, three necessary components of a satisfying style of life.
What I found even more interesting was how Kelly elaborated on this point, that wealth not only gives us access to more stuff, but that the real reason this makes us happier is the choice that accompanies that access. Everyone wants to be free, and being able to have our pick of several different mid-sized sedans at a dealership gives us that feeling of freedom and independence.
Hey Scarlett! I also found the notion that factors outside of our control were contributing to technological progress fascinating. While Kelly acknowledges that humans do play a large part in new technologies, notably in the precise execution and aesthetic properties, he insists that the broader concepts are inevitable. He proves this by showing many examples of simultaneous discovery throughout history. Since the explosion of communication has made it so that very few people in the world are isolated from others, now it’s harder to to claim that two individuals could create the same concept/technology without somehow knowing of the other or being influenced by one another. Kelly really solidifies his argument, though, when he shows how similar, if not almost identical, technologies sprang up on different continents in the ancient world before long-distance travel (and communication) was feasible. I think that if we follow his train of thought, then we, as humans, don’t have much control over which new types of technology will emerge. However, we will have much control over how they are constructed, marketed, shared (or not) and what industries will use them to further their own interests. Ultimately, and unfortunately, I don’t think our motives will be necessarily good or bad, but rather that we’ll take the route that is most profitable. This ties back in to your first point about material objects and wealth being a source of happiness; unless our society becomes structured around something other than income, the pursuit of profit will always be the main driver.
I think this is a really interesting question. To some degree, the conveniences created by modern technology have undeniably improved quality of life. Ignoring that is a result of having known nothing but a life affected by that technology. What those people see in the lives of those without feels like a grass is greener effect. Everyone sees the flaws in their own life, but it is harder to see the annoyances and small problems in the lives of others.
All that said, I think there might be something to the idea that a technology-less world has a few lifestyle perks. I’m definitely unsure as to whether those few pluses make up for the significant losses, but they are there and work acknowledging. For one, I think the pace of life argument is valid. The brain needs time to recuperate and modern technology has created the fear of missing out to a new extent. Technology has definitely created unique stressors, which I believe is the core of the argument, but given the amount of ease it has added to our lives, I struggle to say that stress isn’t worth it, for me, at least.