Tag Archives: what technology wants

Uncategorized

Provocations about What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly – Karen Kandelman

2 Comments

Ultimately what I was thinking about when reading What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly was that he made sense because he drew from many different systems to make analogies and explain his argument. I enjoyed reading his book because of the structure of explanation he used. This structure was essentially Kelly stating a definition of his argument and then trying to prove it through concrete examples. That was effective because he went to the root of the issue and held my hand by explaining everything thoroughly. Although, he has statements he makes that don’t feel fully backed up and therefore, at least for me, lose its power when trying to convince me. That’s essentially how I decided upon the provocations I was going to write about. I will include one idea that he brought up that is interesting and I agreed with and an idea that was provoking but that I found flaws with that perhaps were legitimate yet were irreconcilable for me.

The most striking concept that Kelly brings up is the comparability of technology and biological systems especially in terms of reproduction. He explains that the “technium can really only be understood as a type of evolutionary life” (45) and goes on to determine technology as a seventh kingdom of life. What I really found appealing about this notion is that it makes parallels between organic systems and technological ones. I never considered thinking about technology in this way where “computer scientists [are] using the principles of evolution to breed computer software” (9)  in order for programs to duplicate or self-assemble without people having to interfere in the system.  The example of the robot PR2 made at Stanford that could it has the “ability to find a power outlet and plug itself in” (11), essentially what the scientists have created is a code that makes the robot do this but it can make robots become to be self-sufficient. Kelly states that before technology – computer programs – was “merely parroting what we told it, but now it is more like a very complex organism that often follows its own urges”(13).

Whereas, I don’t really believe or I am not fully convinced of Kelly’s argument that “the greatest difference between the evolution of the born and the evolution of the made is that the species of technology, unlike the species in biology, almost never go extinct” (51). Although, he tries to prove his hypothesis through his categorical investigation into what is still being produced from the century’s catalogue of inventions and is successful, I just don’t want to believe him.  The concept of obsolescence of technology is real, especially as new digital and mechanical technologies are invented. Having to throw away a charger because they have made a new one for the phone you just purchased, is a real complication of technology. I don’t agree with the fact that technologies like steam powered cars are useful and should be considered not extinct, even if they can still be produced. In my view, if it isn’t being used popularly or regularly and is just ineffective compared to other new technologies, it should be considered extinct. However, I great point is brought up by Kelly when he mentions that there is a “virtue in doing things without oil-fed machinery” (55). This brings me to a point that was brought up in the introduction, that technology can obviously be beneficial in connecting our society and making us collaborate but it can also be detrimental. Now, there are many movements to regress – to use less technology – in certain areas, in order to make the negative consequences diminish, which includes urban and organic farming.

My discussion question ultimately is: What does technology want? Why is the title of this book what it is, and does it lay out what technology wants?  I watched Kevin Kelly’s 2005 TedTalk and he tried to explain it by saying that “It’s a way to explore possibilities and opportunities and create more. And it’s actually a way of playing the game, of playing all the games. That’s what technology wants.” In the presentation, he refers to the infinite game and how technology helps us redefine ourselves and this questioning is constant and shouldn’t stop. Do you agree that what technology wants to create more opportunities or is there another definition for what technology is seeking? 

Here is the link to the TedTalk, enjoy:

https://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_kelly_on_how_technology_evolves/transcript?language=en

Reflections

Kelly Provocations – Scarlett Curtis

3 Comments

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.