Technology and humanity

In the book, “Computer ethics,” Deborah Johnson shows readers the roles of nature and society on the development and adoption of technologies. It raises engineers' awareness of their influences on shaping the world. Depending on how their artifacts are designed or used or even abused, it can shape society in certain ways which can either promote social justice or “enforce social biases and privilege individual agendas” (Johnson, 2009, p. 17).

Johnson argues for Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) in which technologies are shaped by society, and at the same time, technologies can have their influence back on what creates/shapes them. She successfully disproved the major tenet of Technological Determinism, technology is seen as an isolated object developing independently from the society, by giving examples about the socially constructed bicycle (Johnson, 2005, p. 1793), and the production and distribution of nuclear power from Winner (1986). Johnson (2005) stated that “Scientists and engineers look at nature through lenses of human interests, theories, and concepts; engineers invent and build things that fit into particular social and cultural contexts” (p. 1792). Social factors can shape or thrust technological development in a certain direction. Studies of Anderson et al (2010) about engineering further confirms the intertwinement between society (e.g. economy, politics) and technology. He found out that in order for an engineer to invent or redesign certain technology, he has to communicate with his client or clients to understand what they want, cooperate with his team/company to see what resources are available, finish the job within the budget and time, and more importantly his product has to follow the engineering standards and government regulations. Therefore, technology is "social." Johnson (2009) suggested “[Users can] shape the technology by customizing settings, demanding changes from developers, and choosing between alternative products” (p. 15). An example for this social constructivism viewpoint is when users decide to buy/use a certain branch of cell phone (iPhone for example), the money gained from the business can be used to further develop the iPhone according to customers’ needs or Apple’s ambitions, but on the other hand, less popular types of cellphones quietly go out of business. Technological determinists, individuals believe that technologies develop by themselves, and new technologies evolves from older ones, have their invaluable points on this user-related situation. Ceruzzi (2005) pointed out that some people could deny buying computers, but the growing power of the computer chip was “unstoppable”. Especially, some technologies such as digital camera and Microsoft Word left users with no choice but to accept it (p. 586).

The living examples for the rampant influence of computing technologies are that each engineering student at the University of Virginia is “required” to have a laptop or tablet, and to have their research papers word processed. Again, SCOT comes into play in this situation. Depending on what kind of laptop or tablet they buy, they inadvertently push the development of the computer in a particular direction. What about the people who never buy or use a computer? Do they have any influence on computing technology? Business people are more likely to say “No” because there is no point in developing computer based on the interests of these people, who will not spend any money on computing products. It is not just in the computing industry that certain groups of people have no power in “shaping” technology, but also other fields of technology such as automobiles and housing. The poor and the homeless have little or no influence on these technologies because businesses or private companies always aim for the people with the money, not the penniless ones. They only design cars and houses to fit the needs of their customers. As engineers develop more advanced technologies, they have also “[enforced] social biases and privilege individual agendas” (Johnson, 2009, p. 17) because little voice of the “powerless” is taken into consideration. Reasoning about social biases, the powerful and the rich people, where did they get the money from? Jarmo (1999) offered a brilliant example on how people can get rich by harming the environment, and suppressing others’ opportunities to survive. For the negative effect of the economy (e.g. forest industry) on the environment Jarmo (1999) pointed out that “… the whole river smells of timber, waterlogged softwood.  It is unbelievable how many logs are in the water, floating along with the stream” (p. 238). Big companies built sawmills to make lots of money, and meanwhile they rapidly wiping away the water and food supplies of many other people. Jarmo (1999) further noted how the river was mistreated saying “[The river was] a means of disposing waste. The forest industry has utilized lake and river systems as sewers, and it has been the worst water polluter in Finland” (as cited in Tana & Lehtinen, 1996). Luckily, we do not see these scenes in Finland, today (Jarmo, 1999, p. 238). However, until the environmental regulations came into play, business people in forest industry had earned a large amount of money which they could use to earn even more money (e.g. creating more troubles, and social biases), while the poorer people, who lived on the river resources such as fish and games, were affected by the environmental change struggling to for a living. This poor, powerless group of people had no voice in determining how the powerful ones use technology to change or even “determine” their lives. In this case, Technological Determinism unmasks its authority.

However, there came the government regulations on these polluting companies to protect the environment. Technology (e.g. forest industry) is now shifted to the side of social construction (e.g. being shaped by politics), but what has been done to compensate for the harm to the environment, and the hard time of fishermen and their families, whose lives depended on the health of the river? “Nothing,” but somewhat, the “polluting villain” was restrained. The rich flee with their bags full of money. Where is justice? “Aren’t all men created equal?”

“Yes, they are,” but some men take advantage of the natural and social recourses faster, and more viciously than the others do. Their acts negatively disturb the latecomers’ development promoting social inequality. Is technology the root of all these troubling, social injustice? It is complicated, but for some instances technology does push society in certain ways which promote the social injustice. Winner (1986) gave an example about the tomato harvester which was developed by tax money, but it was used to benefit certain group of people while severely “punish” the others (p. 7), engineers get the jobs about the tomato harvesters while works for most former farmers silently disappear. Nye (2006) stated that internet was military funded (p. 10). However, who is benefiting from this technology? Is it Google or Yahoo or Amazon or everyone? “Everyone benefits from the internet,” of course not, but if it is even so, who gains the most?

 Winner (1986) pointed out the development of certain bridges on Long Island as a determinant for the social inequality:

Some two hundred or so low-hanging overpasses on Long Island were there for a reason [that]…poor people and blacks, who normally used public transit, were kept off the roads because the twelve-foot tall buses could not handle the over passes (p. 3-4).

  Furthermore, the design of roads in the United States in most places also determines how certain technology can be adopted, while also making it impractical for others. For example, most roads and especially highways do not have bicycle lanes. For this reason, people tend to use automobiles rather than bicycles as their transportation. For the young and poor people, they have no car, and also have no choice; they use car lanes for cycling and skateboarding; this inadvertently increases the likeliness of them getting killed. The outcomes of the tomato harvester, the internet, the Long Island bridges, and road design reveal to us that certain technologies can promote if not “determine” the social injustice. Are the Amish, Christians aiming for a humble life, protecting social justice by denying modern technologies?

Wetmore (2007) emphasized that, “[The Amish] believe change does not necessarily result in desirable ends” (p. 297). They prohibit whichever technology disrupts the harmony of their community. Amish people long for a united community with peace, love and equality (Wetmore, 2007).  Are these values, peace, love and equality, the ultimate answer for “progress to what?” in Marx’s (2000, p. 12) Does improved technology mean progress?, and the reason for “Benjamin Franklin’s refusal to exploit his inventions for private profit” (p. 6), and also the statement Thomas Jefferson craved to make in the Declaration of Independence? The answer is “Absolutely yes” because if it is “no,” what are we pursuing? Or we may further ask “Why are we here? What is the meaning of life?” The Amish have the answer from the beginning, peace, love and equality. So, at the end of the journey, are the Amish somehow more advanced (e.g. closer to the ultimate goals of life) than anyone else of the “human race.” Or are they? In the talk of Tarter (2009, personal communication) at TED Prize Wish, she mentioned about the possibility of another intelligent life on Earth if not somewhere million or billions lightyears away. It was the dolphins. Possibly, they are the ones who are more socially advanced than humans. Even though they don’t have powerful technologies or complicated laws for science, mathematics and politics, they are the ones living in joy, peace and equality. They look at us, and wonder why we had to bother with all the troubles for education, technologies, wars, politics… while they can do the same thing (e.g. living happily) or even better with less effort, and perhaps the Amish people also look at us with the same wonder. With this conception about life, we can somewhat pinpoint what we want from this world or technologies that when we do something (e.g. develop new technologies or even buying a water bottle) we will not get off the track to our desirable ends.

Future of humans' physical traits

Source: http://www.gorillatours.co.ug/tours/
uganda-chimpanzee-trekking-tours.html 

I was discussing with my roommate about the use of finger nails, and toenails that I found out that humans barely use toenails or even toes. If the evolution theory of Darwin is correct that we are pretty much come from the same family with chimpanzees, humans are still in the process of evolving. Comparing the ratio of the lengths of toes to the lengths of feet, we can see that this ratio is relatively small compare to the ratio of  the lengths of fingers to the lengths of hands. Are humans' toes are getting shorter? I strongly believe the answer is "yes". We are evolving by getting rid of what we don't need because it's a cost of energy for nothing. Chimpanzees have very long toes relative to human, and their toes are used for climbing. Our toenails are also somehow shorter than our fingernails. What's the point of having these "claws" anyway? What will happen in the next million years or even haft a million years? Will humans have toes, anymore? The answer for this question does have relation with the reason why we don't have tails or a lot of hair covering our body like chimpanzees. It all comes to one answer "if we don't need it, our bodies will try to get rid of it".

There's another trait that I want to point out that is it true that our noses are getting bigger because of the polluted air? Well, our noses are relatively bigger than chimpanzees for the fact, and with the increase of dust in the air, the human body definitely need a more sophisticated respiratory system to filter the pollutants. One of the solutions is a big nose with lots of hair. Eww!!! Yes, I know but that's the direction human is "racing" to.

Source: http://farm4.static.flickr.com
/3179/2921125964_7755e4a5a6.jpg

On a brighter side, technologies may improve our physical traits. For example: straighter teeth, smoother skin, bigger boobs.  A lot of artificial objects are being attached to our bodies to increase our vision, hearing, beauty, strength... Therefore, there's nothing unreasonable that one day human can run a hundred mph, fly like a bird, swim and breath like a mermaid. It's just a matter of time before our  scientists and engineers develop such attractive abilities for humans, and these traits become socially acceptable. Soldiers will have infrared vision, their brains connect to a computer system, radars... along with metallic skulls, stronger muscle, supersonic ears. Pilots will have pairs of fold-able wings near their shoulders, and compressed oxygen tablets attached to their lungs in case their planes crash into the ocean. Wall street banker will have a calculator attached to their brains or even a tiny supercomputer. There are zillions of other unimaginable abilities, technologies can bring to human bodies. As I said, it's just a matter of time that science and technology will bring about these possibilities, and perhaps it will even take longer for these possibilities to become socially acceptable. However, it can't be denied that we are heading to this direction, for example we are using contact lenses attached directly into our eyes, artificial blood in place of real blood, artificial kidney, ceramic teeth... We are going there, the only problem is how long we want to wait.

Dragon: a legendary creature or a evolutionary possibility

Have you ever been to a circuit to see magician breathing fire? Or at least saw those tricks on TV? Dragon or perhaps any kind of creature might have possess the ability to breathe fire with the same mechanism as magicians, except dragon didn't need external fuel for its trick. Just look at human body for instant, we can involuntarily produce methane (CH4), a highly flammable gas, through our digestive systems. Why not dragon? Ever saw AFV (American funniest video)? There was a fat man farted into a small flame, and got his gas ignited burning his friend. With fire-breathing ability, dragon could have use them for hunting, defending, or even warming. So there was a high chance that dragon might evolve just to do that. All dragon needed was a spark to ignite methane gas or any flammable gas they possibly produced. A biologist, may argue that how can animal make fire while ancient humans discovered fire not so long ago? As I previously stated, all dragon needed was a spark, it could be an electrical spark! Again, physicists may disapprove even more strongly than biologists because Maxwell united the electric force and magnetic force just more than a century ago, and the existence or use of electricity  didn't reach its technological momentum until 20th century. Have you ever heard of electric eels? Yeah. That's the answer! Some animals can produce electricity by themselves. Several years ago, I had the opportunity to see Christmas lights flashing different colors by the electrical energy produced by electric eel on TV. It was an idea originated from Japan, but I didn't have chance to do more research on this. So, what's the point? As we see, nature/animal can produce methane and electricity. The right combination of this two conditions with certainly create a fire breathing creature which we call dragon. Why dragon didn't get kill by its hot fire? The fire didn't come from the stomach of the dragon or any where inside its body, but the fuel which was methane was breathed out through the dragon's front doors (which was opposite to the fat man in AFV using his backdoor). Therefore, it's reasonable to deduce that the electric spark was ignited at the every end of these methane doors.

What's about the other things? Like flying, and poisonous part of dragon?

Flying can be seen in animals, birds for instance, but it doesn't stop there. The history of celestial monsters dates back to hundreds millions years ago, when dinosaurs still rampant the earth. Dragons might have been flying side by side with Pterosaurs and even hunting these poor dinosaurs with their fires. What's about the poison part of dragon? Most snakes have poisons, even some frogs, spiders… have poisons. So there's nothing unimaginable about poisonous dragon.

There's one more question from many specialists and laymen which is "where's the dragon?" I don't know. It may be extinct along with dinosaurs many millions years before early humans came to being. So where's the skeleton. Yeah, about that. Archaeologist may have found many of them, but they still want to call those "dinosaurs". With our current technology, we can't tell if dinosaur (or maybe dragon) have specific organs or systems to breath fire. Scientists can only tell the functions of specific bone structures (since bones were all left after millions years), but they can't pinpoint a stomach like chamber which kept the methane gas. That's because this chamber would have certainly decayed or transmuted into something totally different from its original form if the chamber had ever existed. So in the course of our technological development, we can hope that one day we can unravel the existence of dragons or may call them back to being thanks to our bio engineers. With the simple mechanism of methane gas and electrostatic spark, dragon is no more a legendary creature than an evolutionarily possible animal.