February 7 - Technology vs. Society: Who is Hindering Who?

Previously discussed in an earlier blog was what kind of impact the development of the internet had on the way human beings think - in other words, how has technology affected society? In this entry, I'll be reversing that question and investigating how society has affected the development of technology. As Woodhouse puts it, "just because people have needs, and just because techno-scientists have the techniques to help meet those needs, does not mean that economic, political, cultural, and other barriers will not interfere". Perhaps its society's own lack of action and hesitance to initiate change that makes the world seem as if it's at a standstill.

In an article regarding the cover-up of the hybrid car, Brad Berman discusses Victor Wouk's struggle to convince the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to support his emission-reducing invention. Though Berman seems to pinpoint Stork as the 'bad guy' who put a halt to the Federal Clean Car Incentive Program, perhaps the mass commercialization of hybrid cars wasn't a realistic goal for the time to begin with. At 28 cents a gallon, one could hardly blame car companies for lacking significant interest in supporting the development of vehicles that ran on alternative sources. American car companies held tight to their powerful engines and unique body designs to maintain a specific image as the Europeans and Japanese decided to focus more on fuel efficiency.With the development of the Toyota Production System and the concept of lean manufacturing, it was clear that the Japanese were ahead of the game in terms of efficiently and effectively producing reliable and fuel efficient automobiles. At the time, it was much more cost effective to invest in imported cars from companies with an effective business model than develop new, unfamiliar, expensive, and currently unnecessary alternative fuel vehicles.

Although there existed the capability to fully develop and commercialize hybrid technologies within the United States in the 70s, the market and the need was not there to support it. Whatever seems to satisfy the most people most of the time is the standard that generally stays. Unless there's a significant catalyst to make a push for change, like the national average price of gas remaining around $2.60 (Berman), society and technology's inertia proves to be too large to overcome.

Works Cited

Berman, Brad. "Victor Wouk and The Great Hybrid Car Cover-up of 1974." HybridCars 28 March 2006. Web. 13 February 2014 <http://www.hybridcars.com/the-great-hybrid-car-cover-up-of-74/>

Woodhouse, Edward. The Future of Technological Civilization. University Readers, 2013. Print.

February 4 - The Unearned Advantage

In an affluent country such as America, it is almost too easy to take for granted comforts such as clean drinking water and safe sanitation. It's likely that the only exposure I have had to lacking these physiological needs would be camping for extended periods of time in isolated locations - although I could hardly consider myself without access to drinking water or safe sanitation, since many state and national parks make such comforts available to the public. What I'm trying to say is that it's easy to slip under the veil of ignorance and forget about those born into more challenging living conditions.

A few weeks ago, a student in my section discussion raised the question of how one can blame a person for believing in stereotypes when that person has only ever had negative experiences towards that specific class/race/gender/sexual preference which reinforce the stereotype. As a minority at RPI in both race and gender, I have frequently entered this discussion with other multicultural students on campus. My own personal conclusion and answer to this student on this issue would be to interact with as diverse a network of people as possible. Knowledge is a critical component to understanding - only through exposure to different styles of life and personalities can an individual learn about the different perceptions of the world and expand their points of view.

A personal memory of exhibiting such ignorance was from my childhood. Whenever I encountered large insects, my initial reaction was always to flinch and move away from it. My parents would often tease me and then proceed to tell gruesome stories of nights in the Philippines when they would wake up to find cockroaches crawling up the walls or over a siblings face. When I was a child, I didn't understand the point that they were trying to make, however as I've matured I see that they were trying to explain how they came from and grew up in a world significantly different from my own. In a third world country like the Philippines, there is such a severe gap in the standard of living between the rich and poor, which is evident just by walking down the streets of Manila. How is it fair that the affluent and less fortunate can live in such proximity to one another without any extension of help or support? How does the distribution of science and technology come into play in such environments?

In section discussion, it was relatively clear to me that there was a divide between those that choose to be cynical towards the idea of providing clean water and sanitation to less fortunate countries and those that remain optimistic. In my opinion, helping those in need isn't a question of whether or not it's feasible because those in poverty rarely need resources more complicated than potable water and a safe place to use the bathroom. These technologies are fully within the scientific capabilities of more affluent nations - the only thing that's stopping us is our own lack of interest.

Works Cited

Woodhouse, Edward. The Future of Technological Civilization. University Readers, 2013. Print.

January 31 - Consequences: Inadvertent, Accidental, Unplanned and Otherwise

The Future of Technological Civilization - Chapter 2: Unintended Consequences
"Is Google Making Us Stupid" by Nicholas Carr
"Response to Nicholas Carr's "Is Google Making Us Stupid" by Trent Batson
"The Critics Need a Reboot. The Internet Hasn't Led Us Into a New Dark Age" by David Wolman

The theme of the week seems be what "unintended consequences" have resulted from the development of technology. I am particularly intrigued by the ideas presented in Carr's article which suggests that with each new development in the methods human beings choose to transfer information, there is a resultant effect on the way we think and interpret information. In Carr's article, he presents testimonies of friends stating that they have been influenced by the precise, concise, high-paced, condensed nature of the resources available on the internet and that their constant exposure to such writing has thus hindered their ability to decipher long texts.

This is a topic I had pondered over winter break since I had the time and freedom to read books that I normally wouldn't look at during the semester. As a lover of literature and classic fiction, I primarily focus on works one would likely read in an English AP course. In my searches for other works to read, I stumbled upon Marcel Proust, the author of Remembrance of Things Past. This is a seven volume series, each novel ranging from 600-1000 pages. Upon discovering this colossal collection of text, I began to think to myself how a person in this day and time would ever come up with the time to successfully read all seven of these densely descriptive, prose-filled pages. If I were to try to estimate how many people actually do make it through these mammoths of books, based solely off of reviewers on Amazon (which I acknowledge is limiting), it would appear that the maximum amount of reviewers for one volume is 120. To make a relatively ignorant observation, this appears me to that about 120 reviewers successfully read Swann's Way since the creation of the Amazon website and cared enough to say something about it. Now let's switch to a more modern example of an illustrious and substantial text: Game of Thrones. These novels (so far six installments have been published), also range from 600-1000 pages however there are at least 2,000 reviewers per book! Clearly the public has not suffered from a diminishing attention span as some critics of the internet and modern technology like to comment. If that's the case, what is the fundamental reason for the criticisms on the influence of technology on our ability to comprehend long text? I would say the reason for the criticisms is due to the inability to interpret certain kinds of prose.

Take this excerpt from Game of Thrones: A Song of Fire and Ice (Book 1) 1996 
    "Until tonight. Something was different tonight. There was an edge to this darkness that made his hackles rise. Nine days they had been riding, north and northwest and then north again, farther and farther from the Wall, hard on the track of a band of wilding raiders".

Compare to this excerpt from Remembrance of Thing's Past: Swann's Way (Volume 1) 1913
     "When a man is asleep, he has in a circle round him the chain of the hours, the sequence of the years, the order of the heavenly bodies. Instinctively he consults them when he awakes, and in an instant reads off his own position on the earth's surface and the time that has elapsed during his slumbers; but this ordered procession is apt to grow confused, and to break its ranks".

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to compare books of similar genres, in which case I would choose J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, however we all know how dense that text is. In any case, Game of Thrones, in my opinion, seems to be an adequate estimate of the reading level that the majority of the literate population are capable of comprehending. I personally have to agree that something has significantly changed in the way that human beings these days interpret and recite information - the evidence is both in the things we chose to read as well as the way we chose to write. About a month ago, I watched an episode of Portlandia, a TV show that is meant to present Portland, Oregon in a satirical manner (but is actually quite accurate, from what I hear). The show emphasizes the liberal and trendy (otherwise known as "hipster") behaviors of the people living there. In this episode, there was a skit featuring the Portland Tribune, a local newspaper, and the companies push to appeal to the fast-paced style of the internet and create a webpage of links. In essence, the new owners of the paper explain that people only read every fifth word in a paragraph, therefore they don't need articles. As a result, all "articles" should be reduced to only the most important words. Now, the "Iceberg Theory" was introduced by Ernest Hemingway around the 1920s, which adopted a minimalistic approach to writing - cutting out superfluous and "flowery" writing. However, Carrie Brownstein and Fred Armisen (actors on the show) bring it to a whole new level when they celebrate accomplishment of the editor, who creates a link that sets the sites record for 70 million hits - "Charlize Theron NSFW". Embarrassed and ashamed, the editor retaliates at an old friend stating that this type of writing was the future.

While this is a rather exaggerated scenario (and one I severely hope isn't actually our future), it was the kind of humorous skit that hit home on another level as soon as I read Carr's article. Yes - the internet has allowed human kind to connect despite geographical location and has given us the ability to take advantage of innumerable resources. However, how much of the general public actually take advantage of these resources to learn and develop their intelligence? If they do, in what capacity? 

The landscape of performing research has certainly changed - like Carr stated, "Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes." In fact, to find this very quote, I spent approximately 1 minute flipping through my printed out copy of the article before I decided to switch to the website to utilize the "search" function. Personally, I'm so busy with my coursework and other responsibilities that any time I can shave off an assignment is put towards doing something else. Is that a product of my lack of time management, or have I just accumulated so many things to do that I don't physically have time to spare? Do other students have this problem? My friends frequently agree that they do experience this problem where time seems to disappear before their eyes. Is this because all of my friends equally like to overload themselves? If so, what has pushed us to do so? Societal expectations, Rensselaer Polytechnic, our professors, our peers, ourselves? Has the accelerated nature of the internet caused us to adopt equally concise, rapid, and compressed personalities? Will I ever have the time (or patience) to sit down and read Swann's Way? Only time will tell. 

January 28 - The Future of Technological Civilization Chapter 1 and "Pinto Madness"

Reading Chapter 1 of The Future of Technological Civilization by Edward Woodhouse raised a number of bothersome ideas for me, such as why don't the "people and organizations most responsible for technological innovation conceivably...steer their efforts in ways that bring genuine progress"? When considering the comments on the number of impoverished people now and a century ago, or cognitive impairments due to lack of protein, or global warming, it is maddening to think of how frequently these issues get pushed to the back burner for more shallow and immediate satisfaction. "One must infer that something is missing in the transmission of, say, Vitamin A capsules to Africa and South Asia, where childhood blindness and malnutrition are worst". With the resources available these days, the only conclusion to be drawn as to the lack of progress on this matter is social. Consider: an aggravated American pushes to raise awareness of this issue through foundations and fundraisers and philanthropy, however if there is little reaction from the general public, the efforts of this individual go to nothing. This person could then either give up on this effort to help those less fortunate or pile all possible resources together to continue further. Should this individual be unsuccessful here, he/she could be left in severe debt with little support from past allies, in other words - the eccentric humanitarian that nobody wishes to pay attention to. Consider another scenario in which a different individual profits off of the exploitation of other people's misfortune - such as Greg Mortenson, who was recently revealed to have largely misrepresented the supposed "memoirs" described in "Three Cups of Tea", a novel that inspired many people through his alleged feats and accomplishments to build schools all over the Middle East.

I would consider reliable supplies of clean water for many more people as well as efforts to reduce greenhouse effects and detoxify the the planet as forms of progress. It has a utilitarian drive in that these efforts are important forms of progress because they benefit most, if not all, living organisms. Life as we know it would cease to exist without clean water or a healthy earth to live on. Articles like "Pinto Madness" don't surprise me, and perhaps that is more telling and discouraging than anything else. Cars of the particular model that Ford was selling were very high in demand - therefore I can understand why these explosives on wheels were kept on the market for about seven years before any changes to the design were made, however at what cost? I recall a friend from Denmark commenting on how when an American is wronged, he/she always wants to bring a lawyer or official representative to prove that he/she is correct. Well, when large corporations pull scenarios like this over our eyes, I can't say that I really blame them. Granted - the legal system is exploited far too often for individual gain, however if Ford were to manufacture cars with such poor factors of safety, the company would undoubtedly suffer financially for wronging its' consumers.

It would seem that the exploitation of consumers over technology have created an overbearing, overcomplicated legal system - however if companies continue to be as greedy and cutthroat then it's every person for themselves.

Works Cited
Dowie, Mark. "Pinto Madness." Mother Jones September/October 1977. Web. 28 January 2014 <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness>

Woodhouse, Edward. The Future of Technological Civilization. University Readers, 2013. Print.

January 24 - "Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?" and "March of the Robots"

"Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?" by Leo Marx
"March of the Robots"

The article by Leo Marx particularly interested me due to the depth at which he described the origin of the "skeptical, even negative, view of technological innovation as in index of social progress". I had never considered the suggestion that the shift from Jefferson and Franklin’s viewpoint of technology as a form of social and political liberation to the idea that technology is needed to fulfill society’s thirst for more as the cause for this skepticism. More often I had a more simple opinion similar to that of Thoreau’s belief that men were becoming “the tools of their tools” and that new inventions are “improved means to unimproved ends”. I was overwhelmed by the realization that, while some science and technology is further developed and sought after for the benefit of mankind as Jefferson would have liked, many individuals working in some form of research capacity perform this research for superficial reasons. I've dabbled in both research and industrial venues and have come across quite a few professors (personally and through the grape vine) that push their undergraduate and graduate students to write grants and publish papers only for the purpose of notoriety and money. These are by far the most frustrating professors to work for since they could care less about you, the individual, when the attainment of further awards and honors are at stake.

I recall a coworker that was able to turn around work at lightning speeds, and while his customers were always happy to receive their nice and neat package of processed data several days early, he became a notorious engineer in our department through the methods he decided to conduct his work. He’d use archaic and outdated machinery because they were never used and he could always get his hands on them. In the meantime, all the rest of us had to stay and wait in line to perform our work, but in the end I firmly believe that the technology we chose to rely on were more sophisticated and reliable. What it came down to was that he was exploiting technology so that he would never have to tell the customer “no”. However in an industry in which the data we present and the conclusions we arrive at have human lives and hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake, I think it considerably more wise to be patient in order to ensure that the customer is receiving completely reliable and well thought out information for the benefit of the company and the consumers.In any case, I do feel shocked that the push for further developing science and technology has never crossed my mind to have political benefits. Social, yes, in terms of cancer research and the investigation in alternative energy solutions, however even in these fields I’m sure there are overhanging mists of greed to fuel people to work harder.

With regard to the “March of the Robots” article, this fear of giving robots the capability to “make their own decisions” is not new. Within the few decades, the media has exploded with the concept of our creations turning against us like in “I, Robot”, Transformers, and The Matrix. Like what Marx mentioned in his article, the excuse for the development of technology is to protect its’ respective nation. Only by creating more powerful and destructive equipment can any country survive – NOT by peace treaties or agreements between nations. It’s a very discouraging reality with a bleak and potentially dangerous future.