culture asimilated through technology

In class we talked about the possibility of all cultures being asimilated into one technological society where there would be no differences in cultures or between people. I think it would be a bad idea to take technology to this level. God made everyone different for a reason and we have to learn to co-exist with one another. If everyone were to have the same perspective and knowledge of everything it would go against our purpose of living.

The Humanity of the Megamachine

Mumford in Knowledge Among Men defines the 'megamachine' as a self-propelled entity composed of all machines including humans, the most adaptable machines that can also produce machines. Humans still remain a necessity to the megamachine, but as some fear, robotics may take the place of humans, ejecting humanity so as to increase the efficieny of the machine. The purpose of this machine, if there is one, is not clear and seems to be limited to self-preservation.

After reading Mumford's selection and Fritz Lang's Metropolis, as well as the Japanese loose-adaption of the movie*, I came to a realization that the near-miraculous medical technology I dissuced of in my last post may actually be only a part of the bigger picture--Mumford's megamachine. What does medical tech do? It heals humans and cures them of biological diseases. Are not humans part of this machine, if not at least machines themselves? If so, health technology is only maintenance of the machinery of humanity. In this manner, medical technology is also part of Mumford's megamachine.

Human "maintenance," however, is not limited to biology, but also encompasses psychology. In Mumford's essay, he explained entertainment, role-play, and fantasy to be a method of keeping humanity sane from the constant, specialized jobs given them. Given that entertainment would be maintenance of human workers, would entertainment itself not be part of the megamachine if the above logic is taken as true? Entertainment takes up a considerable portion of society and its economy and includes many forms of media from television and movies to music and art to video games of which the average gamer is 37 years old according to an ESA report.

Given that work and entertainment (or simply play) are part of the megamachine, are humans completely engulfed by this machine? We may be seperable from the machine, but we may not be able to function without it. I fear technology is integrated into humanity. Our only option then would be to limit its scope of reality (if such a thing can be done). However, a single part of a machine can stop the machine in whole such as a plane's trim tab that appears to have been the cause of a P-51 stunt plane's failure, which ended in the death of the pilot and spectators (the elevator of the P-51 was missing it in a picture before the crash).

* The Japanese Metropolis lacks the same characters and plot, but keeps the setting relatively intact and presents robots as replacing human workers, leaving them in even worse condition then had they been working.

Taste of Your Own Medicine

While technology may be considered as dangerous and have a 'will' of its own, many technologies are beneficial to human life. Of course, I'm not referring to temper-inducing video games, but rather medical technology. The use of technology in medicine has, as I have observed, grown exponentially. Today, we can keep people alive who would otherwise die in an earlier time period. The ICU (Intensive Care Units) rooms have some of the most amazing life-saving equipment. For example, the ECMO (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenator) machine will take over the functions of both the heart and lungs, when those organs have severe trauma, while these organs recover (Medscape). Then, there exists the dialysis machine which cleans out blood, supplementing damaged (or missing) kidneys. Next, the basic of all machines, the life monitors, a technology taken for granted. These provide the data doctors and nurses work with--blood pressure, heartbeat rate, etc. And, of course, don't forget about the ambulances, including air-care.

Now, some of the machines often only delay the inevitable. All humans die and age--even computers do as they age with time and become outdated and may eventually crash for good or be thrown out (How's that for death?). Some may see the ICU as being somewhat unpractical, such as using it to keep a 90-year old on indefinite life support. It's costly, and it takes away from that persons last years of life (Atul Gawande, "Letting Go..."). In other words, is holding back certain death ethical? Of more importantly, is the technology being used to do so ethical?

However, at the same time, is not advances in technology accounting for medical emergencies. With new technology, we live in a safer, yet dangerous world. With our understanding of viruses, we can label the movie "Contagion" as fantasy. Yet, at the same time, millions die in technological accidents--transportation (automobiles specifically), construction, etc. In some cases, new technology is also impeding medical technology. In an article from Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine, entitled "Cyber War has Begun", a review is given of cyber warfare and new methods of murder are available--hacking. One can theorically hack into hospital systems and cancel life-support operations "before the medical staff knows anything is wrong." Heard of sabotaging breaks? How about doing so miles away via computer? Cars have computers, in fact multiple ones in lieu of having specific tasks (fuel injection, braking, etc.). Sick stuff right? now obviously, these hackers are at fault, but is society also at fault for enabling this and making humanity so vulnerable? Technology, like many other things, has its pros and cons--life and death.

Star Trek and the Ultimate Computer

Ihde repeatedly says that people see technology in two ways: they want the convenience technology provides, but they are afraid that technology might start to control them. This contrast is evident in the Star Trek episode. Daystrom has good intentions in building M5, allowing ships to run fairly autonomous, resulting in less people being in danger. Kirk worried that he would lose his job to the "ultimate computer". The computer ends up taking over the Enterprise, realizing many people's fears.

Unrelated, I found a funny Star Trek picture.