Rough Draft

Technology, is it for the best or the worst? This is a question that many contemplate in today’s society and even back before our generation came along. Technology has always been around, it is just a matter of time of when it would be invented and put into use. Kim Vicente and Kurt Vonnegut put this question up to the test and give scenarios of what can happen with technology. It makes us think of what could happen in the near future and also forces us to look at the now and see what we have and if it is necessary to keep going.

When starting to look at Kim Vicente’s “The Human Factor” there is a lot that can be drawn out of the piece. We see the negative affects of technology and how a minute problem can end up with the death of many and harm to many more. However, as much as Vicente gives technology a bad reputation, he himself never fully criticizes what is the problem. We do not see his opinion. Sure you can guess what he might be thinking off of the writing, but it does not mean he is one against the advancements in the technology world.

Looking at “The Human Factor” we are shown several incidents where human technology has failed and led to casualties. Take for example the event at the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl. This was a horrible event that led to some dying and many more being wounded with radiation burns. It nearly wiped out the area for any type of plantations. But looking beyond the incident, can you really blame the reactor for failing. A reactor cannot act upon itself. Granted there are incidences where sometimes the machine just malfunctions without any human interference what so ever. However, you do get those times and most of the time where a person was operating it.

So are the events at Chernobyl really a “technological” fault? It is hard to answer. People are supposed to learn and operate machinery at a level, but putting someone who does not know everything about the equipment does not necessarily qualify them for the position. This is where the “Human Factor” comes into play. I believe that no robot or any other computer equipment can ever decide a moral decision that a human could. Could there be instances? Of course, there is always that chance that maybe one had made the better choice and did better. Human instinct though seems to be more logical than what a computer might have. Computers are programmed to what its “told” to do, but outside of that it wouldn’t know what to do.
Going over to Kurt Vonnegut’s “Cat’s Cradle” there is a lot to be compared to with “The Human Factor.” Much of this book seems to also bring down the views on technology. In this case we start off with the Atom Bomb and ending up with the Ice-Nice. Both are harmful to the world, one showed what could be done with and advanced upon while the other is basically a onetime deal, which in the end dealt with the Apocalypse.

What is interesting about this piece though is the time that it was written. Looking at the copyright date it is in 1963, the time of the Cold War. So it seems fair in a way to portray technology in a way, which is harmful. The world, well mainly the U.S. and Russia, were at a tense point with the threat of a nuclear war ready to happen at any point. Vonnegut seems to show the craziness and also the emotions are mixed, but pretty split among the people. You have the scientist world he seem to believe that finding the answer for everything is the best way to live life and also having the upper hand, but then you have the regular people who just simply do not want to know about what is going on in the world of technology. It is interesting how it all works, because it seems true to today’s society. Most of the time we care, but not as much, only when it works we are happy, but if it does not work, then we have many problems with it.
"The Human Factor" and “Cat’s Cradle” seem to be self -explanatory. It seems that whatever we do, create, or destroy, the idea that human thought is behind it. For whatever we do, there is a cause and effect. Sometimes it is beyond our control, while other times we proceed without looking beyond what we already know. When inventors create projects they always, or should always be thinking of the repercussions that might be possible if it fails. Like nuclear reactors, if they fail, they cause much damage to the area. They think of the benefits and harms of the product, but it is not up to them sometimes to see where it goes. Take iPods for example: They are great for sharing music and getting information, but can make society anti-social in many ways. There is a lack of communication between people when we are "plugged-in." We are the final critics of the technology and how we use it is the review. If we use it a lot, it will get a good review, but sometimes the over use and under use of something can be good or bad. But sometimes we are so near sighted that we lose our focus and cannot seem to look beyond the actually problems that might be caused. In the end, it comes down to being our fault them.