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.
I believe that as sentient beings, humanity cannot stop technological progress. At no point in human history has there ever been a form of technological regression. There are those who chose to repress it such as during the middle ages and the height of Christian power. There are also instances where tribes of people choose to ignore it like the Amish or indigenous aboriginals. However, at no point has technology ever gone backwards. This is because of our fascination with building on existing technology and our extensive ability to archive information. In order to effectively stop or push back the evolution of technology, one must utterly destroy archived information which is now virtually impossible. In addition to libraries we have computers and clouds. Humanity will keep making discoveries. Destroying information will throw humanity in a loop of discovering the same revelations we came across before. Because it is highly unlikely this could ever occur and that information can be accessed at any time, future progress can only be inevitable.
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?
I do not believe it is possible or even reasonable to attempt to break the technological cycle that we are a part of. To completely stop technological advancement would be to stop the advancement of humanity. The development of the technium is an extension of the development of the human brain. An attempt to stop that advancement is a move against evolution. However, we can curb the development of technology as it applies to our lives. We as humans absolutely have a say in the way the technium develops, because it exists to add to our lives. When humans needed to shelter themselves from the weather, they developed brick houses. When they wanted to travel across large land distances, they created horse-drawn carriages. When they wanted to connect on a personal level with a global community, they developed easily accessible instant communication through the internet. While the technium can often feel like it is growing far faster than we are comfortable with, its development is always in a direction relevant to the needs and wants of the people of its time. To attempt to break the cycle is not only impossible but is unreasonable.
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?
I agree with your point about Kelly slightly ignoring the human capability to think for ourselves and make our own decisions. All this time that he is talking about breaking the technological cycle I feel he has maybe ignored the fact that humans might not want to break the cycle. As individuals beings we always have the choice to shun technology if we want, however as a society as a whole I do not see the importance of asking this question. Technology is a huge part of making our world a better place and advancing us into the future. Kelly makes so much effort to show us how natural the evolution of technology is, but then questions how we are going to stop it. In the same way that we would never choose to revert back to primitive man or end the human evolution cycle, I do not think we need to question how we are going to end the technological cycle. I still believe that technology has led to overwhelmingly more positive developments than negative and I feel this line of thought is a futile one to even consider.