Draft

David Nye uses many sources in his book Technology Matters. He uses them as a way to help the reader understand what point is trying to be made and clarified by him. Nye uses not just one source, but also many. With each example he uses something different. He makes it more detailed and simple by given a variety of examples. He just doesn’t dwell on one certain area to make his point. What I mean is that, he refers to different generations and centuries. We go from modern science to basic things such as tools and roads. It is how he is able to explain his thoughts and words. I will be using two sources that Nye also used in his book to explain what his views are and those that are being shared and left out.
One of the sources that I chose to use was a piece written by Sherry Turkle who is a professor of social studies of science and technology at MIT. The title of the article she had written is called How Computers Change the Way We Think. And in no debate this is a true statement. With the recent development of computers there is so much we have been able to do which would not have been able to do before or would have took much longer to accomplish. But with this development there has been a lot of debate on what has provided us with, the good and the bad. Turkle tells us that it has made us more efficient in the idea of getting things done faster and more smoothly. This however does not still prevent errors from happening.
She talks of the bad with her first encounter with ‘computers’. When calculators were first a thing for students to have and use many lost the ability to do calculations that were simple in the back of their heads. Those who had used them made many more errors than those who still did the work the long way. A simple idea that even technology can screw up even if we put in the correct data. She moves on to the idea of privacy. My generation has never experienced the true idea of privacy. Like Turkle says, “Middle-school and high-school students tend to be willing to provide personal information online with no safeguards, and college students seem uninterested in violations of privacy and in increased governmental and commercial surveillance.”
Turkle brings up the idea of chat-rooms and online gaming. Is it portraying us as whom we really are or as some person we want to be. In conclusion we, the people, do both. We act as ourselves but at the same time we act as people we aren’t, making ourselves look better. She then moves on to the idea of PowerPoint. This program is of great use and can do a lot for people. However it truly shows the person for who they are. The misuse of the program can only be blamed on the person running it. However we get a sense of that person on how they gathered their information and how well they put it together.
In general you can see that Turkle sums up the idea that technology changes us for better or worse. But she does not tell us what is the outcome; we have to see for ourselves. It all depends on how we use it. With that we are able to see how we react with the technology to see if we are in control or it controls us.
The next source that I used from Nye was by Theodore Roszak. His book is called The Making of a Counter Culture. The first chapter he has talked about the idea of Children of Technocracy. What he means is that we, or even any generation, are the children of technocracy. Meaning that even if it is not as complex as today’s time, at some point there was a technological advance that was the big thing of the time. We are run by it all no matter what. How we use it depends on the need and if it is really vital to you. This can be related to any generation like I said because technology comes out at anytime. (need more from this source)
I think that Nye has the general population involved in these sources, because it deals with everyone. No one is left out because this involves everyone and everyday lives. I feel that I will use this because one of my questions that I want to answer is how technology controls us. Is it us that controls us or not really? Such things as iPods, computers, and cell phones. It deals with all people in the world.

2 Sources

When reading the two sources obtained from Nye's Technology Matters, it seems that he was able to use them in proper context. I feel that Nye properly used the text in a way that he is able to explain his examples from another perspective. He uses the idea of cultural uniformity and diversity with a passage from Theodore Roszak's The Making of a Counter Culture. But before we go into Nye and the sources, I will talk about the sources and how they make their arguments.

The first source that Nye used and I decided to look up and research was a journal article called How Computers Change the Way We Think. Written by Sherry Turkle, it basically brings up the fact that as technology gets more complex we aren't willing to pay attention how to fix things. She points out the fact that as personal computers came into play, people in the beginning were willing to figure out the problem, but as the complexity grew the less and less people wanted to know how to fix them. They became to complex to understand, so in reality, who would want to fix them all by ones self? This is a great example, and I believe that it definitely relates to society and how it works. We buy all of these gadgets and want them to work, but when they break down on us, we usually don’t bother to fix them ourselves. Instead we send them away to the ‘technicians.’ And instead of saving money by learning to fix it ourselves we spend the money to get it fixed or even more to replace it. Programs are made complex, but at the center they are very easy to use. Children at the Elementary level start to use Word processor and Microsoft Excel. This just shows the facts that we are not challenged as much to think about how to organize and put words together. With the technology we have in programs, most of the time it will show us the correct way to figure everything out.

The other source that I used was The Making of a Counter Culture by Theodore Roszak. In this piece I read about the ‘Technocracy of our Children.’ In this part Roszak explains that we are part of society ran by ‘experts.’ We saw this in Kim Vicente’s The Human Factor. Experts are meant to manage and maintain society to keep it running at its best. This is the reason for having professionals do their job. We do not have simple folks who have no idea about surgery take over a surgeon’s job. Instead they have to go to school to understand the concepts on how to perform a surgery and know what they have to do in order to have a successful surgery. This is what technocracy seems to be. The ideals that certain people are meant for certain jobs. Without this the ‘technological world’ cannot be advanced without people understanding their jobs and what their contribution to the world is.

I believe that Nye uses these two contexts well. He is able to explain what he feels, but also gives facts by using the other sources to make sure his point is heard. With not only these two but many others, his ability to make his book well written gives him the opportunity to make us think not only what he believe but also for ourselves.

Does Technology Control Us

When reading chapter 2 of Technology Matters, David Nye starts the chapters off with posing a question, Does Technology Control Us? The question is the title of the chapter, after which his writing is based off of. When looking at the question it is quite broad and vague. But with that comes a smart strategy. He allows himself to have much more success in the research and examples that he gives us. It also gives us, the readers, more of an opportunity to answer the question for ourselves and debate it with others.

Nye chooses to represent both sides of the question by taking a stance with both sides. He uses perspectives from all around. He uses a socialist, capitalist, and other views on how they would answer the question. He also shows points of view from different cultures and areas throughout the world. An example is the use of the gun. In Japan the people eventually used the gun as a weapon. However they did not all like the use of it and eventually banned them, for cultural reasons. They were going back to the use of the sword and arrow. It wasn’t until about 300 years later from 1543-1853 that they used the gun again. If it wasn’t for Commodore Perry, Japan might have not used guns. However, at some point they might have, but when we look at other tribes, such as in Africa, we know that they don’t use guns yet.

He also uses the idea of the wheel. In Central America the Aztecs knew of the wheel, but decided to not use it. Instead they used all of the manpower they had to transport the material to make their buildings. Also, when in Northern Africa, the people decided to not use the wheel, because they would have to build roads and use oxen and horses, which together have to require much more water than camels. So instead they kept to camels, which don’t require so much water, and are able to carry impressive loads on their backs throughout the desert.

So to answer his question, from his point of view, it seems that technology does not control us. The only way, in which we perceive that it does control us, is the fact that we choose to let us control us. We want anything and everything possible to be in our lives, to make it simpler. Each country and nation is different. We look at the U.S., there is so much that we have and use, that we need technology to make our lives move on. The day that we no longer need technology might be the day we fall as a country, but the reverse could happen as well. The day that we keep advancing technology might be the day in which we fail as a nation and lead to our own destruction.

I believe that technology does control us. Of course my answer might seem one-sided, but its due to the fact that I have been born and raised in a country that has always used technology and adapted to its ways. I feel that if technology stopped developing that we would no longer be a super power and that there would be a stand still with other nations. Without a phone, computer, car, and other materials, what would I do? What would we do? Is it possible to move on without needing technology? The answer is floating in the air, but until that answer arrives, technology will be a 3rd parent. Helping us, either good or bad, in today’s modern society.

Choice and thoughts on Rough Draft

When looking at my rough draft for my first essay there are certain ways and different styles I chose to use when writing. One of the things that I tend to do is start off with is by stating the problem. In this case the perspective of technology by both Vonnegut and Vicente. After stating that basic problem I like to start off with one of the authors and their points and ideas of technology. After I have done that I like to go and state certain parts that I noticed that were intriguing to myself and also to the general audience. I reflect upon that and like to state a question with a possible answer. This answer of course is of opinion because I am not the only one who is reading the essay. After doing one of the pieces I move on to the second piece and do the same exact thing with that text.

After I have finished doing that I decide to compare and contrast both pieces. I find statements or ideas, which seem similar and put a few thoughts and words on that together. After which I put in my opinion on both pieces and authors. Then I usually go back through and look for statements or areas, which might seem a bit contradictory to what I had stated before. Many times I like to look for loopholes which people are able to break my paper and argument into. I believe that doing this really helps you have a firm stance and grip on your ideas, which makes it easier to defend when being questioned about it.

When I have others review my paper online, it seems for some reason to be much more helpful. I think that it is the fact that they can always go back to it and have more suggestions. Also, we have the opportunity for more people to read it and give their opinions. Some opinions may be repeated, but it may be a sign that it might be a universal problem with the paper. Also with the reviewing on blogs, there are many more ways to make your paper even better than what you originally had. What I mean is that, with the opportunity to see others papers, you can get a sense of what might be able to fit in well with yours and be able to use that to make yours stronger. Being able to use this as a benefit helps out not just me, but the entire class because we can see what others have done, and use for ours now and for future use.

Going from the academic papers to the blogs was an interesting step. I used it in English 101 back in the fall semester, and I honestly really preferred to use this over the paper revisions. It just is helpful because so many more people can look at your paper and make comments, and I like I said before you can look at everyone’s and see what they have that might be helpful and useful to your own paper.

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.

Engaged through Envy

So I went over to the mosaicist, watched him for a while, and then I told him, “I envy you.”
“I always knew,” he sighed, “that, if I waited long enough, somebody would come and envy me. I kept telling myself to be patient, that, sooner or later, somebody envious would come along.”

This quote from Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, I believe is quite engaging in the fact that it can be applied to almost anyone of us. I know that with my own personal life that I would love to be recognized with a talent that is valuable to society. Maybe it is the fact that each of us does have that talent, but we do it in a way, which is not so easily recognized and wanted. For example, I play basketball, a lot of basketball. I wish that I could have been recruited or looked at by a smaller university to play for. Then again it could and was my choice to go to a smaller school and be a “walk-on.” Then and only then I might have still been playing for a school.

Looking at the broad view though, I think that Vonnegut meant to put this in as a dream for all of us to ponder. We look at the accomplishments of the scientists, whose combined knowledge created on of the most powerful weapons to the world at the time, the Atom Bomb. But looking at it more vaguely and on a broader sense he throws in a statement that makes us truly dream as I stated before. Yet it is so true. In today’s society we often try to flaunt what we are skilled at. We don’t necessarily throw it out there and are obnoxious with it, but we hint at it. This is turn, gives us hopes of trying to be noticed as someone with skills, and that someone can hopefully use us. Also we look for the ability to make money in any way.

I also think that Vonnegut might have used this to show his own idea that at one point in his life, maybe his writing career that he wanted this to happen to him. Being a writer is not a simple task. To be recognized as a great writer is an accomplishment, but many sacrifices have had to be made in order to be where you are now. Vonnegut understands the mindset of trying to achieve greatness in one’s own way. He achieved his by becoming a writer, and a successful one at that. In the end though, it is true we want someone to come along and be envious of what we can do and they can’t. We want them to smother us with praise and this gives us a sense of being great at something.
1) What is the purpose of wanting someone to envy?
2) Is there a reason or a possibility why Vonnegut put that in his book? Is he trying to show off? Make a point?
3) Through the work of Vonnegut, is he asking us to engage in something that we feel that we might be good at? Or might do well in?

When comparing the texts from Cat's Cradle and The Human Factor there seem to be a lot of similarities over the contrasts. When looking at the two there seems to be a lot of ideas that the view on technology is bad. It is similar in the way in which they talk of the advances. One, Cat's Cradle, speaks of the advance of the weapons. In this case the Atomic bomb. In the other scenario we have the general idea of airplanes, nuclear reactors, and smaller devices. Both Kurt Vonnegut and Kim Vicente seem to call out on technology as a bad thing.

With Cat's Cradle the Atomic bomb, did in fact end the war, but at a terrible cost. Thousands were killed and many more were wounded because of a single, powerful bomb. The main character seems to question the idea that technology is meant for good, even though his father did help create the atomic bomb and was one of the lead researchers and developers. Looking at his sister though, she is the oldest and at one point slaps him for saying nasty things about their father. She backs him up by saying that he ended the war and saved millions. Later in the book we read about the atrocities of WWI through the adventures of a man. He talks about how he is captured and his boat is used as target practice for the German sailors in their U-boat. At the Second Battle of Ypres, he is gassed and hospitalized for two years. In the end we find out that millions died in WWI. Of course, well some might know, that in WWI there were many technological advances, especially with weapons. It was not a pretty war, and many deaths were brutal because of the uses of some technological advances, such as guns, gas, planes, submarines, and much more.

"The Human Factor" seems 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 looy beyond the actualy problems that might be caused. In the end, it comes down to being our fault them.