‘What Technology Wants’ Reflection

I overall really enjoyed Kelly’s What Technology Wants, especially how he structured his argument within the construct of the over-arching theme of the technium. At first, when you read the first two sections of the book, Origins and Imperatives, you get a large degree of insight into Kelly’s personality and overall view of technology as being intertwined and stemming from biological evolution. It is in these two sections that he lays down the foundation of his argument, barely even touching on the book title’s question. This all changes though in the last two parts of the book where Kelly really synthesizes his argument and attacks a lot of notions that I myself had previously believed as right.

One  of these notions is tackled by Kelly in the Choices section of What Technology Wants, which is outlined by the Precautionary Principle approach. After taking Environmental Science last year, I felt very strongly that the Precautionary Principle approach to new technologies was the most effective and ethical way about going about the introduction of new technology into society. For instance, in Environmental Science, we studied the entire DDT “disaster” as the event that birthed the modern environmental activism movement. The take away from the entire disaster was that the Precautionary Principle approach, which was implemented in part because of what happened, was the “right” and “safest” way to go about the introduction of technology. Kelly counters this belief though when he disputes that DDT’s positive effects out weight its negative effects by stating the following:

“They were relying on the precautionary principle: DDT was probably bad; better safe than sorry. In fact DDT had never been shown to hurt humans, and the environmental harm from the miniscule amounts of DDT applied in homes had not been measured. (Kelly 321).

This except really woke me up to Kelly’s proposed idea that in order to make an accurate risk assessment one must investigate thoroughly both the positive and negative effects in order to come to a proper conclusion.

One point that I did not fully agree with of Kelly’s was his assessment of technology as being more of a creation of God that say a being that is biological in nature. This view of Kelly’s is reflected best when he states,

“For the latter, every species can be read as a four-billion-year-long encounter with God. Yet we can see more of God in a cell phone than in a tree frog. The phone extends the frog’s four billion years of learning and adds the open-ended investigations of six billion human minds. Someday we may believe the most convivial technology we can make is not a testament to human ingenuity but a testimony of the holy.”(Kelly 460)

I think that the statement that “the most convivial technology we can make is not a testament of human ingenuity” is a extremely bold claim that downplays the importance and power of “human ingenuity”. I think that technology is  a prime example of “human ingenuity” and not as Kelly puts it “a testimony of the holy” because I don’t believe that technology can ever be a product of the divine even if you argue its transitive connection to it as Kelly does throughout the book. I’m not very religious, but I still believe that if anything is divine it is life because at the end of the day you can’t breath life or a true conscience into technology no matter how hard humans try. The final result will always be artificial.

With that said, my question for the class is as follows: Do you think that it is possible for technology, or a machine for that matter,  to be considered divine or holy?

Kelly, Kevin. What Technology Wants. New York: Viking, 2010. Print.

 

4 thoughts on “‘What Technology Wants’ Reflection”

  1. I do not believe any part of the technium could ever be considered divine or holy. To be divine is to be a product of something greater than human understanding, larger than life, outside the realm of human influence. Technology is never any of these things because it is all created by humans. Aspects of the technium may seem or feel divine to a majority of people at times, especially when it is very new. However, this instance would only occur to the majority that do not understand the creation or application of the product. Every piece of technology was created by someone, with some specific process and intent. Technology never falls out of the sky, magically landing in the hands of humanity. It develops over time based on previous technologies. For this reason technology is never holy or divine, it is always an understandable human creation.

  2. I do not think that any sort of technology can actually be considered holy. I understand that sometimes we feel like technology is holy because of how much easier it can make everyday life, but to actually be holy is beyond what we as humans can grasp. All technology is created by humans that have a specific goal to create something, therefore it is understood by humans and cannot be considered holy.

  3. I do not believe that technology can ever be considered holy. Technology is a product of the human mind, not something that was granted to us from a higher being. Such a belief would negate centuries of human efforts. However, this does not mean religion has not had an effect on technology. Historically, religion has shaped technological progress. It was Christians who switched from the scroll to the codex; the book form.
    Christians moved from the scroll to the codex or book form. Books lasted longer, were easier to carry, and contained page references that made it easier to consult. Had figures such as Martin Luther not have their tracts mass-distributed, we would have no advances in information technology. Therefore, technology is not holy, but the faith in the holy certainly influenced technology.

  4. I think it’s ridiculous to even consider that any part of technology could be considered divine or holy. The entire meaning behind religion and the divine is based on the idea of faith, believing in something that we have no evidence for. This is essentially the opposite of technology, technology defines itself by being explainable, coding shows us the mystery behind websites, circuit boards show us the truth behind electronic tools. The idea that ‘the most convivial technology we can make is not a testament of human ingenuity’ is simply ridiculous, we can literally trace almost every piece of technology back to a human who had an idea and turned that idea into something tangible. The definition of human ingenuity. I think this is an example of Kelly taking a well thought through and well evidenced point just one step too far to a place where it is no longer justifiable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *