Spirited discussion in last class about whether technology limits or expands our possibilities. Obviously technology has made certain aspects of our lives easier and it has allowed for a lot of entertainment value (both time wasting and enlightening). I fall right down the middle of this debate: not believing in an omnipotent technological conspiracy theory that technology and its elitist inventors and controllers are intent on completely subduing individual autonomy for their selfish needs of power and greed (Bill Gates is not the Devil incarnate); on the other hand I am not so naive as to believe that there's not some complex relationships at work out there that seek to do grave injustices and harm. The human mind is curious and inventive and it will never stop evolving the technological enterprise.
Personally, I make choices everyday. For example; not to have a cell phone, to limit TV use, to read what I want, talk to whom ever I want, eat what I want, live where I want, etc. Some of these choices are the lesser of two evils, some are choices made out of economic concerns, but they still count as having made a choice and it is the ability to choose that defines our individualism. Individuals will continue to use technology for what ever means they see fit - and Society, through it's political will, will attempt to control and counteract for the benefit of its citizens. Ultimatly control of our lives is in our hands - choices we make are not limited by technology and it's so-called evil agenda. As was pointed out in class, the example of the Mennonites or community cooperatives that passively control their involvment with technology, it is possible to be more in control of one's life by exercising choice - which we are free to do as long as it doesn't impinge on another's freedoms (in some countries that implies religious freedoms as well).
I find Noble's dire message that "unrestrained technological development...allowed to proceed apace, without serious scrutiny or oversight-without reason...[without] [p]leas for some rationality, for reflection about pace and purpose, for sober assessment of costs and benefits - for evidence even of economic value, much less larger social gains" is a worthy sentiment and one that watch-dogs, whistle-blowers, police, politicians, capitalists and criminals alike will forever be debating. One must keep in mind the modus operandi of technological advances and ask the very broad question, Who does it really benefit? and the very personal question, Do I really need it?

Michael

Living and Working with Technoloy

Thinking about the love/hate relationship we have with technology - especially the kind that we interact with on a daily basis (TV, computer, cellphone, palm, alarm clock, teflon frying pan, saran wrap), and recalling the first time I ever used a computer, around 1990. I managed to be a perfectly happy Luddite up to then, avoiding most things overtly technological at home and at work. Among my peers there was a certain fear mixed with anticipation regarding computers and how they would change not only the work flow, but the home-flow as well. In my work as a film editor, my work space consited of a bench with film rewinds on each end, a six plate flat-bed editing machine (steinbeck - a close up of the rollers is shown above), and a 4x4x4 wooden trim bin lined with canvas. In this room without windows I would toil away cutting and splicing celluloid film frames with an Italian, guillotine splicer. It was comforting to know that if the illumination, halogen bulb blew or a drive belt broke (these were about the only things that could go wrong with this German engineered equipment), you could easily replace them yourself and get on with your work. It was very labour intensive work; winding and rewinding film, loading reels of film onto the flat bed, pulling trims from the reels and hanging them in the trim bin. Today, the manipulation of picture and sound is done completely with computers, in a digital world, the software that enables this process available to anyone who cares to use it(even the cost isn't that prohibitive anymore). Of course not everyone who has access to technology can actually use it - not everyone who owns a computer can edit for movies and TV , just as not everyone who owns a camera can make movies or anyone who owns a pen be a writer. I've embraced technology although there will always be a technological gap between what I know and what I have to learn. But this game of catch-up keeps it interesting. I still toil away in windowless rooms, but now I have the soft glow of three 30 inch LCD monitors, the quiet hum of a Mac G5 connected to a tera bite of storage space and the warm, fuzzy feeling that if anythings goes wrong with this equipment - I can't fix it!!!

Michael

Reading "The Religion of Tech": "learning the arts anew would return man to his prelapsarian grace...medicine would restore mankind to its original immortatliy." I quess that's exactly what we are witnessing in this culture of antiaging and "nip and tuck". A lot of technology goes into the very idea of staving off the coporeal effects of the 'ravages of time'. A lot of people spending a lot of money on medicine and surgery to prolong life - to escape the inevitable - to attempt immortality- treating the body as not so much biological as mechanical and manufactured - claiming psycological reasons for such body amendments and contortions. On the other hand a lot of research and money continues to try and find the cures for the deadly diseases (that seem to elude us at every turn). Advances in medicine, and electronic and mechanical technologies have made life easier for those who suffer in ways that in centuries past would have made for a "short and brutish" life. Extending the length and dignity of life is a worthy cause - keeping in mind that there are undeniable and unalterable limits. We are the only animals that live and know those limits. Being aware of the limits of life - our impending death - hopefully inspires us to live the best life we can. I'm not sure that organized religion can accomplish that - at least not for me, but spirituality I believe is in all of us - a universal spirituality that transcends any kind of ritualized/formalized religion and works at a very individualized level. It's the main component of the inspiration of life. This aint no dress rehearsal!

This is the first posting on this blog. It will serve as a test because this blogging is all new to me. I'm looking forward to this journey of AK/CLTR 4210, but right now i'm feeling quite adrift in a murky quagmire of unanswerable questions about the concept of technological advances and how they relate to the notion of attaining perfection and becoming one with god. The idea that technology/the useful arts, exist primarily to redress man's fall from grace, that their true objective is a "quest for transcendence and salvation" seems to be the very antithisis of what i, up to now have preceived to be technology's true goals - the relentless pursuit of "power and profit".

Michael