Control of technology

[GabrielsThoughts]

Gabriel R Lopez
October 21, 2007
Humankind Does Have Absolute Control of Technology
Concepts of Media arts
Nevada State College

Human control over technology, is not control over physics. The physics of a car breaking down because of a lack of maintenance, does not mean the technology failed.   I believe that humans,  as the creators of technology,  have absolute control of technology.  The toys of tomorrow will undoubtedly be the innovations of today, and within five years everything modern will be thought of as obsolete. The teletype, rotary telephone, and reel to reel tape were all at one time cutting edge technology.

A decade ago two dimensional side scrolling videogames with 32bit graphics were considered the height of gaming technology. Now, with the Xbox360 or the Playstation 3 and games such as Halo3 and Spore, 32bit graphics look as ancient as the pyramids but not nearly as mysterious. It's amazing how a technology with no purpose has evolved into a new frontier of entertainment.     

There have been arguments that the technology we possess isn't anything new, and  that we haven't truly created anything new. In addition, we have a wealth of information that we can access at the click of a mouse. Blindly, these individuals think everything that we now possess is nothing more than a redesigned or reconstructed version of something else that was created before, no imagination went into it's creation so it isn't anything special or unique. The individuals that make these arguments  also argue that we truly have no control of technology because it breaks down over time. Another argument put forth by these individuals is that relying on technology will eventually lead to our destruction. And,  with no purpose in mind, all these technological breakthroughs  and sciences are advancing humans toward nothing.

All technology is a reimagineering of something that was imagined before. The Wright brothers were inspired to reconfigure the design of the first airplane based on photographs taken  of birds in flight. One could argue that  the first airplane was nothing more than a glider, what could possibly be so fascinating about that? Gliders were invented Lu Ban in 589AD. If you think about it  what's so fascinating about airplanes now?  Clearly, the physics of a 747 is no different than that glider designed by the Wright brothers.

What of the camera that took the photographs of the birds in flight, where did that come from?  The camera was invented in the dark ages, and was used by painters. A camera was nothing more than a small room no bigger than a shed with a couple  holes in the side,  a machine used  as a tool to recreate nature accurately. (Sayre, 2004) But, if one believes that reimagineering isn't true creation,  a digital camera is physically no different than a video camera, but what of the first camera? Clearly,  film and daguerreotype are identical to digital processing. If we believe that, then we must accept the first camera was nothing more than a  shed, but since a shed is nothing more than a pile of wood, metal, or canvas reconfigured to make an artificial cave, then the camera doesn't really exist.

These types of  arguments seek to minimize the achievements of  humankind. This kind of thinking makes events like the moon landing an accomplishment no more fascinating than a bar of soap one might use to wash their hands.  Technology and science don't lead to nothing, with or without purpose everything new is built upon the discoveries and inventions of what has come before. While we are no longer appreciative of the fascinating and innovative technologies we've created,  ( for example a cellular phone with a built in 12 mega pixel camera, MP3 player, GPS, walkie-talkie, web browser, XM radio, games, touch screen, vocoder, and 80 gigabytes of memory)  this doesn't mean that history will remember it as  useless, uninspired, unimaginative, or innovative.

In pre-digital days, puppet masters guided their work by obsessively measuring how far they moved each part between poses. (Winer, 2007) Stop motion animation perfectly describes technology, each part meticulously set in motion by puppet masters. Humans are the clockmakers, the inventors and creators. Humans  find ways to create and reimagine what we perceive, we are Co-creators with the universe. Machines, the technology we take for granted, are made by man, and "it" responds to the rules man gives it.

Machines are things, objects created by man, tools to improve man's quality of life. We make machines from materials we construct. They are created, or developed from the elements, minerals, and chemicals found in our universe. We are different from vacuum cleaners and copy machines, we have life, and we can create life. But, we are still far from creating a utopian society like the Jetsons with flying cars, and sarcastic robots.

Humans are the only creatures on earth that can create new life forms. On earth the human is the only species which can determine when a machine breaks down, or how it operates. The universe accepts that all things change form over time, and over time man too changes form. Man can change and modify technology and machines, but machines cannot modify themselves, this is what separates us from machines. Machines cannot find something new or exciting, they are at the mercy of what they were programmed to do. Machines  can analyze the composition of a rock, and paint an image from random colors, but they cannot appreciate the beauty of a painting, nor find beauty in the world around them. As a tool machines only exist until they have outlasted their usefulness. Humans, like all living things, can adapt to a changing environment without hesitation or new software.

We may not be able to stop a car from breaking down, but that doesn't mean the technology failed. Humans have no set expiration date, and are not limited by the skills they possess. Humans, machines, and by extension technology,  share a common bond. Everything on earth is made of the same elements, just different configurations. Humans are inspired to create by the world around us, and the ideas we share with one another. One idea can be improved by a another, and who knows what wonders the future may hold as long as we don't give up on our dreams.



Bibliography
Gibson, J. (2005, December 5) Smart Toys. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved    September 28, 2007 from ( not used)    
   http://www.smh.com.au/news/icon/smart-toys/2005/11/30/1133311090876.html
Sayre, H. (2004) A World of Art, Pgs 378-379 paragraph 3,  Upper Saddle River, New    Jersey published by Pearson Education. Retrieved October 8, 2007   
Winer, A. (2007) Puppet Masters. Wired Magazine:15.10, pgs.122,124,126. Retrieved    September 28, 2007

[Fuyudenki]

you've got some misplaced commas there.

Remember, a comma is like an anemic period.  It indicates a pause, both in idea and in speech, and shouldn't just be stranded in the middle of a strange sentence without a bus ticket.

Other than that, cool.

[techmaster-glitch]

I liked that. It was a very well-thought out description of human technology. The sad thing is, it doesn't affect me much, becasue I already basically agree with everything said here, just phased differently from what I've heard before. While it is very refreshing to see someone else who truely understands technology, this begs the question; what was the purpose of posting this?

...Are you one of those people who get into an uber-philosophical mode just as they're about to go to sleep?

[GabrielsThoughts]

no, it's a midterm paper, and I know that control over technology is worth discussing.

I happen to think we have absolute control over technology, just not who uses it,  and how it is used. One of my classmates believes that we have absolutely  no control of technology and was using a car breaking down as an example, and my sister is the one who told me we are progressing towards nothing, and was using the I-phone as example of how everything is just a reconfiguration of something else, further complaining how there aren't enough resources in the world to support blah blah blah, my philosophy and hers are exact opposites.

[Tapewolf]

One nitpick - we are still using 24-bit graphics for the most part.  Usually this is padded up to 32 bits because it's more efficient for the CPU to move 4 bytes of data than 3 - sometimes the extra byte is used to store an alpha channel.
Also, the popularity of phones and PDAs has given something of a resurgence to low-res 2D games and or isometric 3D games.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Your argument tends to wander a bit.

Also, it's not clear, where you're quoting other peoples counter-arguments, when their argument finishes and yours picks up again.

If you want, I'll go through a full critique...

[Jigsaw Forte]

Your argument tends to wander a bit.

Also, it's not clear, where you're quoting other peoples counter-arguments, when their argument finishes and yours picks up again.

If you want, I'll go through a full critique...

Is there a size limitation on this paper you're writing? It seems like it could benefit from a cleaner outline of the work, but I feel that it would make the paper itself about twice as big.

[superluser]

One nitpick - we are still using 24-bit graphics for the most part.  Usually this is padded up to 32 bits because it's more efficient for the CPU to move 4 bytes of data than 3 - sometimes the extra byte is used to store an alpha channel.

Perhaps he's referring to the processor, not the color depth?  The Sega 32X could be said to have 32-bit graphics, but it certainly didn't have 32-bit color.

Actually, on that point, I may have something to say about the thesis.  We've had 64-bit processors since 1991, and we really haven't seen any 128-bit processors since then. (Yes, Transmeta.  I see your hand.)

You handwave through your opponents' arguments without even citing them.  Find some examples of these arguments (like ``There have been arguments that the technology we possess isn't anything new.''  Who says this?) by looking around on JSTOR or another scholarly database and namedrop (for example, ``Scholar McScholarlyguy argues that the technology we possess isn't anything new'').  You'd be surprised at how well that works.  It's probably best not to call them blind, either.  Research their actual arguments and find their weak points.  Hammer away at those.

You seem to do a lot of caricaturing of your opponents' arguments, too.  I think you need to slow down, find out what your opponents really say, and argue against that, rather than making up straw men.

You seem to also have two theses (Thesis one: There is still innovation.  Thesis two: Man can control his innovations.) which do not seem to relate to each other.  Perhaps you can make a stronger bridge between the two?  Maybe a short connecting paragraph before ``In pre-digital days?''

Also, it's not clear, where you're quoting other peoples counter-arguments, when their argument finishes and yours picks up again.

Yeah, that too.  Of course, that puts him in good company with people like Andrea Dworkin.

When's this paper due, anyway?

[Omega]

Humans are the only creatures on earth that can create new life forms. On earth the human is the only species which can determine when a machine breaks down, or how it operates.

This sounds horrible wrong and solipsistic.

Please explain further, before I start judging you as a human being.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Please explain further, before I start judging you as a human being.

Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself? ;-]