Human vs. Non

It’s easy to say that the line between technology and human has blurred given that its almost impossible in this day and age to live without technology. Its not by choose, but more by necessity. Thus it would have been important to maintain the distinction when theorist first realized that technology would overpower our society.  At this point, when were are so dependent on our computers, cars, and cell phones, it seems like belated topic to discuss.
The biggest advantages to humans and technology  being part of an integrated system is our ability to share knowledge. As Boczkowski explained in his work, sharing our knowledge is “…the backbone of social, economic, and cultural life of many societies today” (Boczkowski, 899). What would this school be with out computers? How would this very class operate if we could not download our weekly reading from scholars around the world. How would we share our opinions without weekly blogs. Technology feeds off of us the way we feed off of it.
This is in direct relation to McLuhan’s theory about the medium being the message. If the medium was technology as a whole, than the message is clear: we wouldn’t exist without technology and technology wouldn’t exist without us. In the Latour’s piece, he compared NRA’s argument toward its critics. The NRA refuted the slogan “Gun’s kill people”, by suggesting that “the gun is a tool, a medium, a neutral carrier of human will…”. If you examine this argument closely, you’ll see that the gun is a man made tool. The gun does not choose, the decision is in the hands of its maker. It is merely a medium, but the “message” to kill or not to kill, is dependent on its user. This analogy could be used for all technology, whether we choose to or not to use our computers, cell phones, and cars is a message in itself.

Advertisements

One Response to “Human vs. Non”

  1. mediasaucy Says:

    I think you make a very good point about the growing tendency of humans in developed nations to become dependent on their technologies. It’s a point I’ve been considering for weeks trying to unravel the interdependency between us and our “systems.” Like we talked about in class, the dichotomy of dependence is a two-way street; we advance by advancing our technologies and the technologies improve and advance by our tweaking them to fit our needs. Like N. Katherine Hayles writes in this week’s reading, Donna Haraway speculates in Manifesto for Cyborgs and loragrass gives an example of in her very perceptive blog posting, the further we move forward with “progress” the more the boundaries between which parts are human and which are technology become blurred. At the same time, it’s working as a loop: the more we have access to things like WIFI, texts and emails through our cell phones and GPS naviagtion, the more we use these technologies/the more we use these branches of technologies the more we dream up other ways for them to branch out, the more we develop and the more “add-ons” we invent and launch in the realm of technology. Then, the more familiar we get with those innovations, the more dependent we grow on them and the feedback loop becomes less like a complete perfect circle, and more like a Slinky spiraling in infinite loops as it grows and stretches, before flipping over and starting again.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: