Difference between revisions of "325--2011--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Pursell, ''American Technology'') |
(→Pursell, ''American Technology'') |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Pursell claims, “It is not uncommon for the same events to be ‘good’ for some people and ‘bad’ for others at the same time” (8). He also mentions the development of the atomic bomb. It is a great advancement in science and technology, yet it is not necessarily always a good advancement. The United States used it in World War II as a means to catalyze the end of war; so it was beneficial to the Americans. However, the effects of the bomb on the victims were deadly and more than anyone could have predicted. It is a powerful weapon and if the wrong people use it (e.g. terrorists), there could be horrific consequences, e.g. nuclear war between countries. This is where the cultural side to technology plays a role. A society can choose whether or not to use certain forms of technology. The existence of a specific technology does not always require utilization.-Samantha W. | Pursell claims, “It is not uncommon for the same events to be ‘good’ for some people and ‘bad’ for others at the same time” (8). He also mentions the development of the atomic bomb. It is a great advancement in science and technology, yet it is not necessarily always a good advancement. The United States used it in World War II as a means to catalyze the end of war; so it was beneficial to the Americans. However, the effects of the bomb on the victims were deadly and more than anyone could have predicted. It is a powerful weapon and if the wrong people use it (e.g. terrorists), there could be horrific consequences, e.g. nuclear war between countries. This is where the cultural side to technology plays a role. A society can choose whether or not to use certain forms of technology. The existence of a specific technology does not always require utilization.-Samantha W. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Reading through Pursell's introduction was a pleasure. Its an easy read and successfully makes me not only think about about what she is saying, but also causes me to reflect on how her points are relevent in my life. Her three falacies on page 2 (new tech replaces old, new tech will be only change, new tech will only solve problems) reflect perfectly modern advertising techniques (almost every commercial contains at least 2 of those 3). Her focus on the context of the origins of older technologies, why they were made and how thier viewed by their creators, was fascinating. They builders of the pyramids didn't think to themselves, "Yeah, these are nice but just wait till next year when when get those new blocks of stone. We can totally renovate these things and really bring them up to date." Planned obsolescence has only really become a modern mode of thought. I feel like she really "gets" modern society. I really look forward to reading the rest of this book and the sections she included in her book. -- Scott | ||
