Technology, the surrender of culture to technology - Essay Example

Section/# Technology: An Analysis/Discussion “The computer argues, to put it baldly, that the most serious problems confronting us at both personal and public levels require technical solutions through fast access to information otherwise unavailable. I would argue that this is, on the face of it, nonsense. Our most serious problems are not technical, nor do they arise from inadequate information. If a nuclear catastrophe occurs it shall not be because of inadequate information. Where people are dying of starvation, it does not occur because of inadequate information. If families break up, children are mistreated, crime terrorises a city, education is impotent, it does not happen because of inadequate information. Mathematical equations, instantaneous communication, and vast quantities of information have nothing whatever to do with any of these problems. And the computer is useless in addressing them” (4). One of the most prevalent philosophical issues within the past 50 years has been whether or not modernism and its derivatives are the most hopeful means by which humanity can work to extricate itself from the cycle of chaos, misery, and destruction that has defined our existence for the past several millennia. As such, the modernist approach to philosophical questions regarding the nature of man and who we are and where we are going usually pointed to a future world in which technology and the application/understanding thereof would seek to solve all of earth’s problems. As our civilization has advanced, developed life-altering technologies that would not have been imagined or conceivable a mere 20 years ago, it has become painfully obvious that humanity’s greatest drawback is not concentric around our level and implementation of technology but rather the disparities, inequalities, and moral deviance that defines how we interact with one another. As such, this brief essay will seek to understand and grapple with some of the biggest problems that face our current society with respect to ethics and morality as well as to trace the moral and communicational changes that this author might seek to employ in order to reduce the level of corrosive/destructive habits that define the current world. In this way, the analysis will also consider one of the main drawbacks to such an approach that the author has noted. As the author above stated, our lack of understanding and humanity’s continued disregard for the matters that define the health and lifestyle of others that share our planet is not born out of a lack of access to or application of the correct technology. Instead, these issues are fundamentally born out of the fact that humanity’s selfish nature continually seeks to aggrandize itself at the expense of those around it. Rather than employing the available resources and knowledge to seek to ameliorate the suffering and hardship of others, the issue itself boils down to one of selfishness and lack of concern rather than one which can be defined by an inherent lack of the tools, mechanisms, or technology to alleviate these stresses that exist. In this way, a common theme that can be observed throughout human history and interactions between classes, not to mention the communication models that define these, is the fact that there is a common theme of exploitation that extends from earliest history until the current time. An all too common model for advancement in human society and culture has been that in order to achieve some level of success, another individual or group of individuals must necessarily be exploited to make this happen. Such an approach is of course the epitome of immoral and is one of the reasons that such a high degree of misunderstanding and bloodshed has defined the recent past. Due to the fact that one group attempts to marginalize, enslave, or exterminate another based no purely selfish and/or utilitarian/immoral motives it results in wars, disease, famines, and all of the negative externalities that help to define the human experience. Naturally, there are other factors beyond these; however, if one considers the driving force for change in the world for the past several hundred years (not even to mention a broader time-scale of human history) it becomes painfully obvious that such a philosophical mechanism is a signature aspect of our world. Moreover, such a selfish motivation is not only indicative of humanity in terms of large groups acting upon other groups, it is found at the very core of the selfish nature which we encounter each and every day within personal life, interaction, and conversation. Due to the fact that it is common and expected that each and every human being will work to achieve their highest self-utility (happiness), a model of supreme and absolute selfishness has come to define nearly every single aspect of human interaction that one can imagine. Sadly, such a cross-societal understanding has meant that the baseline for human interaction/communication can only be understood by the fact that regardless of the topic, tenor of the issue, belief system of the participants, or geographic origin that they exhibit, one can rightly assume that selfishness will be the common thread that binds them together as they all seek to maximize their own utility in the given context. Firstly, this level of selfishness is exhibited on the micro scale in person to person interactions and/or communication. However, once this issue come to light on a macro scale, the level of selfishness begins to transcend personal barriers and finds itself exhibited in an entirely new perspective; albeit engendering the same facets and qualities it did on the micro scale. Once selfishness is exhibited within organizations, governments, and similar powerful bodies, the level of avarice and greed for personal gain that is exhibited has led to instances as egregious and despicable as the Bhopal disaster, the Enron collapse, the Fast and Furious gun trafficking scandal, and a litany of others. One could understand these as merely a byproduct of the fact that all organizations, regardless of the size and or intended scope, experience a certain degree of corruption and drawbacks. However, this author argues that due to the fact that this level of selfishness is indicative of the most primitive of human-to-human interactions, it is only manifest to a higher degree within an organization that is inherently comprised of many individuals who each continually work to leverage their own selfish desires to their own supposed and perceived level of gain. As such, the corrosive/destructive moral and communicational habit that most directly affects this author in meeting the needs and demands of a freer and better world is this issue of selfish communication patterns. With respect to communication, one can quickly understand that there are a host of issues that generally impede good communication from occurring. These include, but are not limited to, inability of the communicators to listen effectively, inability of the communicators to consider the position from which the participant’s point of view is deriving, inability of the communicators to approach the issue, and thereby the solution as well, from a different perspective, and the inability of the communicators to thoughtfully consider their own words and the words of their fellow participants prior to charging ahead with their own plans. Each of these, although separate in many ways, can fundamentally be broken reduced to the root cause of selfishness on the part of the participants. Invariably, the communicators are unwilling to listen due to the fact that they are inherently convinced that their point of view, and the ulterior motives/goals/utility that can be derived from this, is somehow superior to all other participants involved. In this way, the communication breaks down from the start due to the fact that with an inherent belief of superiority exhibited among the participants, it is highly unlikely that any headway whatsoever on any of the issues will be found. This inherent lack of listening and understanding is born out of a belief that one’s own motives and goals are of superior importance only serves to encourage the second breakdown that such a communicational habit exhibits. This leads to the fact that each individual communicator is so focused on bringing about the change that is associated with their own model that they fail to consider the different points of view of the other communicators involved. As can be demonstrated, the level to which selfishness – both institutionally and on a personal level – effects the way in which humanity interacts and seeks to maximize its own utility is so indicative of the way in which our society is structure, organizations are built, and communication is classified that the three of these are nearly inextricably dependent upon such a baseline of understanding. Now that the issue has been firmly understood as one that is concentric upon the root problems associated with personal and organizational selfishness, it would be remiss of this author to conclude without discussing some of the ways in which this selfishness can be abated. Of course such recommendations are worth very little weight unless it is fundamentally realized that humans are inherently selfish and such a problem is of such extreme importance and of such a pervasive nature that it impedes nearly every aspect of human advancement and development. Only with such an understanding is it possible to appreciate the full gravity of the way in which selfishness has defined the way in which humans have interacted with one another for the entire course of recorded history. However, if that is indeed understood, then it is incumbent upon the individual to work to find ways in which the level of selfishness can be reduced on the personal level to increase the way that positive benefits are derived from all parties involved. Although such cannot be accomplished on a systemic scale, the personal realization of this fact and attempting to employ communication habits and skills that break from this norm is a first step in seeking to reduce the problem associated with systemic selfishness both on a personal level and within a larger organizational context. The fact of the matter is that communication is a multi-party endeavor that necessitates a give and take relationship. Although such a give and take relationship is often defined and marked by high levels of selfishness, it is logical to assume that once this is no longer the case from one or more participants within the process, the other participants will be quick to take note of this fact and work towards a least common denominator in terms of goals/wants/and needs for the given interaction. As participants begin to take note that the driving force and underlying motive for the other participant is not rooted in selfishness, it helps to irrevocably turn the course of the interaction in a different direction and one which is necessarily defined by a greater degree of interaction and understanding. Naturally, the weakest step in the process which has thus far been detailed is the fact that the author expects that the team members/group participants within the communication process will necessarily understand and/or appreciate the fact that this author will seek to incorporate a level of non-selfishness into the equation. However, one eventuality that might necessarily occur would be that the participants would note that the exhibition of non-selfish motivating factors is merely a n opportunity for them to capitalize on a weaker communicator and seek to leverage a distinct level of advantage given such an opportunity. Naturally, such an approach is inherently pessimistic; however, it is not beyond the pale of reason. Moreover, it will be necessary for the author to seek to incorporate non-selfish approaches in a way that can be guarded from those that will only seek to leverage this approach to achieve a greater degree of their own goals. This does not mean to state that each and every person that will be communicated with will exhibit a degree of selfishness that is so strong as to blind their abilities to discern fairness; rather, it is meant as a likely externality which could result from such a radical shift from previous methods of communication and interaction than those to which the group is more often familiar. Although advocating a non-selfish approach to communications as a way to change the moral dynamic of the way in which this author interacts with and views the world is a tall order, implementing such a plan of action is of course even more difficult. The problem that is associated with such an implementation is the fact that nearly every single prior method of communication and interaction that can be measured is tinged and/or tainted by such a selfish approach. As such, developing a non-selfish approach is something that will require constant attention and self control in order to effect. Due to the fact that it has been socially engrained upon this author to behave in a certain way in certain situations with regards to achieving one’s desires, breaking such a culturally endowed and socially learned trait is not something that can effortlessly be affected. As such, the only choice to the individual is attempting, as best they can, to implement such a set of changes on the personal level in the hopes that by doing this they can affect a broader and more lasting change to the organization and/or group that they are attempting to liberate from the constraints of the old selfish form of communication that has for so long defined our world and our interaction within it. In conclusion, what is unique about the model of communication and its defining attributes that has been discussed in this essay is that it so fundamentally breaks with the original modernist perspective of human progress as to be nearly ironic. When one considers the fact that the modernist perspective believed that only through the aggregation of further technologies could the human race truly realize a level of advancement and cultural ennoblement, it seems a bit comical due to the fact that one of the primary determinants that continues to hold the human race back is one of the skills that we developed many tens of thousands of years ago during the process of human evolution; the ability to communicate with one another. As such, instead of the largest single drawback that humanity must overcome in order to achieve a freer and more fair society being concentric upon the development of some form of life-altering technology which will somehow encourage use to behave in a kinder and more concerned manner with our fellow man, the answer to what has literally and figuratively held us back is housed much more closely within our own minds as an exhibition of the selfishness that defines nearly every aspect of our lives. In this way, it is this author’s strong belief that Neil Postman’s opening quote was quite true in the fact that the human condition cannot be so simply remedied by the correct application of technology. Work Cited Postman, Neil. Technopoly : the surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books, 1993. Read More