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.

In Kevin Kelly’s book What Technology Wants, Kelly raises the interesting point of the power balance we face between technologies. This is something that I had never thought about, the “enormity and cleverness of our creation [to overwhelm our] ability to control or guide [the technium]” (239). From his descriptions of this potential future world, as humans we are capable of creating a technology that will then takes its own course posing the question if “the human mind [will be able to] master what the human mind has made?” (239). This idea that technology can take a mind of itself bares a very strong resemblance to the world that was described in E.M Forester’s The Machine Stops. Interestingly, technology will take on its own course regardless of human interaction especially “in [our] deeply connected world, [with] the accelerated pace of technological succession” (243). Due to this quicker pace of technological advancement, Kelly’s question of whether or not humans will be able to comprehend what technology will turn into is almost impossible to answer as “projecting what harm may come from technology before it ‘is’ is almost impossible” (244). The idea of creating a piece of technology, giving it to the public and watching it advance and develop into a piece more advanced than ever imagined is frightening but also holds many excitements for the future. These advancements in technology may not always be for the worst and just as technology evolves, humans evolve slowly as well. A problematic point I found with Kelly’s writings was his inclusion of The Precautionary Principle. I was questioning his choice of elaborating on this principle as it seemed counter to his previous points and it did not seem to be the most reliable principle. The principle states that “a technology must be shown to do no harm before it is embraced” however with Kelly’s theories on inevitability and his previous description of how technology is advancing at a rapid pace this seems to be an impossible feat (246). In addition, Kelly adds that “the predictivity of most things, [technology], is exceedingly low” therefor making it even more difficult to prove a piece of technology can do no harm before it is embraced. Kelly explains how many inventions were created without the intention of what its primary use would be today, such as the inventor of gunpowder not predicting the gun or its presence in our society today (245). This principle seems to contradict all of Kelly’s latter theories and explanations of technology and its life force.

My question for discussion is, to what extent can inventors of a product foresee its use in the future and how would an inventor foresee what the future use of his/her product will be?

According to Kevin Kelly, the most important feature of technology and the technium as a whole is its ability to create new choices and opportunities. While we may be a bit disconcerted by the notion of an unstoppable driving force causing certain technological concepts to be inevitable, Kelly reminds and reassures us that a large part of the process is malleable and very influenced by us, Sapiens. Through analysis and constant regulation, we can learn to harness these technologies and appropriate them to more useful tasks if they seem ineffective or wrong in their current use. Kelly strays into some murky waters when he begins to analyze the Unabomber’s anti-civilization manifesto and agrees with portions of the logic. However, he ultimately uses the Unabomber’s and the Amish’s somewhat hypocritical beliefs to further prove his point about the necessity of new technology. Rather than living off the land, the Unabomber’s shack in the woods was chock-full of products purchased from Wal-Mart and other department stores. The Amish, similarly, wouldn’t be able to maintain their lifestyle of selective technological use were it not for the modern civilization right outside their towns. Kelly describes how increased technology in mega-cities like NYC, Shanghai, Mumbai, etc., attracts millions of people yearly from the countryside. Increased technology and civilization offers a plethora of choices and opportunities not present outside of it. The well-researched example of Amish life, though, gives the reader some useful insight; the idea that technology can be selected carefully and methodically on the individual level so that we aren’t overwhelmed. Kelly doesn’t want to decrease technological progress, though, claiming that, “To maximize our own contentment, we seek the minimum amount of technology in our lives. Yet to maximize the contentment of others, we must maximize the amount of technology in the world. Indeed, we can only find our own minimal tools if others have created a sufficient maximum pool of options we can choose from.” (238) In our search for conviviality with the technology we create, and our correlated investigation into the possible harms deriving from it, Kelly believes that it’s near impossible to calculate these harms, but that this shouldn’t stop us from still creating and implementing them. He believes that the best method for testing a technology is by rendering it ubiquitous; by suggesting this he also rejects the Precautionary Principle (which I was taught in AP Enviro. and didn’t question until this book). Another key tool that we have in affecting technology is deciding which direction it’ll go in in terms of transparency and decentralization. While it’s true that technology decreases privacy, we can structure it so that it increases government and corporate transparency. We can hold active roles in the modification of the new tech because of how it is structured, therefore decentralizing the power that one owner/director/company might have.  Kelly believes that an innate search for complexity, diversity, specialization, ubiquity, freedom, mutualism, beauty, sentience, structure and evolvability details the path that technology will take in the coming years. Ultimately, Kelly asserts that technology “brings to us individually of finding out who we are, and more important, who we might be.” (349) We are the curators of the art which is technology. We (NYU kids specifically) are the “haves” that can perfect, reduce the cost of and share the technology needed to expand the lives of the “have-laters.” We have the opportunity to play the infinite game where we play with boundaries rather than play within them. (353) While the negative consequences of our industrialization and construction of ridiculous amount of technology are very apparent, we must not forget that we are lucky to live in this era of choice and opportunity, and that there is the possibility to do all of this on a much cleaner/greener platform.

My provocation question is: What do you think about Kelly’s eventual reflection on religion? He almost gives the possibility that these scientific laws we’ve discovered, which drive evolution and technology, are made by a God. Or that this increasing complexity is God organizing and building himself. Or that we must be modeled after a great creator because we have created this child which is technology. This book was a mind trip but I loved it and I’m looking forward to hearing all of your insights in the next class discussion.

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.

Throughout Kelly’s What Technology Wants, he takes the reader on a roundabout journey through the human past and attempts to explain the similarities between the developement of organic life and the simultaneuous creation of technologies that eventually gathered into the collective he names the technium. For me, the parrallels Kelly drew between the evolution of the human race and technology were the most interesting part of the book so far and appeared mostly within the Origins section. I found the weakest piece of the work wasn’t a specific point exactly, but rather that Kelly would spend almost too much time going through the historical narrative of things in our world without establishing the links to his main points about the technium until the very end, and in doing so making some of the factual information unnecessary and inconvenient.

Kelly made multiple interesting distinctions about the evolution of humans, but the most enlightening in my opinion was that about the domestication of the world. He argues that “technology has domesticated us. As fast as we remake our tools, we remake ourselves… We have rapidly and significantly altered ourselves and at the same time altered the world” (Kelly 37). I’d personally never explicitly thought of technology in this way, and it was beautiful to imagine that just as humans had the ability to change the environment through craft, craft has had the same ability to change us all along and it truly shows. My question thus becomes: if technology truly wants and seeks something just as humans do, and has been shown to change us over time, will these desires ever outrule our own and in what ways do they already overtake us?

In most cases, Kelly backed up his points with examples and detailed historical accounts, but it seemed to me that at times there was a disconnect between his evidence and statements (which I felt would become a bit tangential). Though this was mainly a problem in Origins with the broad summations of the Earth’s past. I also thought it odd that religion was completely left out of the scope of ‘technology’ when literally everything else humans have created was included in the technium. Although I’m not at all religious, faith and the belief in a higher power has been around in civilization for quite a long time and I feel it would make sense to include this in the technium. I find it interesting too that the way Kelly describes the technium as an entity constantly evolving alongside the human race resembles E.M. Forster’s The Machine very closely. Was it wise for Kelly to argue using only empirical and scientific historical facts, along with including all sorts of cultural phenomena in the technium, yet avoid the discussion of religion?