I thought it was really interesting how Kelly stated, even though he dissented later, that “we operate under some kind of spell,” “hypnotized by glitter,” (214). From his description is seems that we are all pawns to technology, mindlessly being controlled by a being that we created. The self-hypnotization is from an inability to be self-aware or self-critical, where humans become so “addicted” to technology that they just crave more instead of thinking about the consequences of their dependence (213). I see how this is a valid assumption about society, but it does not take into consideration humanity’s greatest gift: the ability to self-evaluate and think. Not merely “bewitched,” Kelly goes on to explain how we “chose to embrace [technology]” and “willingly choose technology, with its great defects and obvious detriments” because the benefits outweigh the downside (215). The idea of us as a society doing a “risk-benefit analysis” shows the inquisitive nature of humanity (217). However if we have existed for so many years without all these new technologies they aren’t essential to our survival and then if they aren’t essential couldn’t the costs outweigh the non-neccesary benefits? Humanity is trapped in a continuous cycle of needing more technology to illuminate the truth, such as “the downsides of technology,” while also wanting to minimize the detrimental effects of technology (216). While I agree with the point about the cyclical nature of technology that Kelly gets at, one point that Kelly does not get at is the importance of technology to our identity as a society. When something forms the core of our identity and makes up who we are, it is hard to question it. When you question someones fundamental being or beliefs, they can react negatively and revolt. Like Plato suggested, you have to lead the prisoners into the light, not force them out because otherwise they will mutiny. So this begs the question how do we break the technological cycle that we are complicit in? Is it even possible? Don’t we as humans have a say in the matter? 
Following my above questions, Kelly says that “technologies can be postponed, but not stopped,” (243). I agree with this point because a force as strong as technology is one that can last for centuries and maybe forever. The pliability of technology, in that it transforms from a first invention into society “steers the technology toward a marginal unexpected use,” also speaks to its long-lasting power in that it keeps transforming to fit society’s needs (244). With an ever-adapting power, technology will never be eliminated because it can always serve a function. One idea of Kelly’s that I disagree with is the idea that “projecting what harm may come from a technology before it ‘is’ is almost impossible,” (244). Or that it is hard to predict what a technology will become. I disagree because I think some inventors created certain technologies for specific needs such as the iPod for listening to music, the internet for searching and accessibility, and even the car for transportation. While Kelly states that “the automobile today” is a “different technology form the Ford Model T of 100 years ago,” the basic purpose of the technology is the same. I think that Kelly is getting bogged down in the details and specific technologies in the car, such as navigation systems. Whereas another way to look at technology is by examining the greater purpose, or the end goal. Technology is going to change that is a fact, so it is pointless to become overwhelmed by the unpredictability of technology in its minute details. The purposes of technology do not change as much as the smaller details. Transportation, whether by air, sea, or road, all has the same goal: to get people from point A to point B. While faster jets, more energy-efficient cars, and nicer boats are new technologies, they all accomplish the same goal of transporting people. As a society, we have to become okay with the inability to predict the future and what technologies will be created or do harm, not embrace the “Precautionary Principle,” that is so embedded into the anxiety-ridden America (247). We cannot have a crystal ball to tell us what technologies we should eradicate and what technologies we shouldn’t. Humanity as a whole likes to have all the answers, this again comes from dependence on technology to do so, and the idea of not knowing the power of technology makes us uncomfortable. Sometimes we need to revel in this discomfort and accept it.