colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (06/15/85)
> > This list is ridiculously one sided. However, that may be mainly > > because there isn't that much good literature out there praising > > technology. Indeed, it would probably seem silly as Vonnegut showed in > > "Cat's Cradle." The only good book that conveys a positive image of > > technology I can think of offhand is Rand's "Anthem." Anybody out > > there know of anything other fiction that points out (but not > > necessarily celebrates) the good side of technology? > > Going back quite aways, how about "Looking Backward" by Edward Bellamy. This > book, published in the 1880s, is about a man of that period who goes to sleep > and wakes up in the utopian society of the year 2000. It has been a number > of years (about 10-15) since I read this book, but I seem to recall that the > technology was presented very positively. ... _Looking Backward_ was so uncritically positive about the future that Stephen Leacock published a story parodying it: "The Man in the Asbestos Suit." When the narrator reaches the future, he is informed that all variety has been eliminated as tedious--no more weather, no more women, and so on. The future is as uniformly grey as Bellamy's writing style! I agree that it's silly to praise technology. The benefits of technology are manifest whenever you flip a light switch. The drawbacks are more subtle. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/16/85)
It seems to me that the main drawbacks attributed to technology, in lierature and in general, are actually the problems generated by those who use technology for "evil" purposes, and frequently blame the resulting problems on technology. Mike Sykora
colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (06/18/85)
> It seems to me that the main drawbacks attributed to technology, in > lierature and in general, are actually the problems generated by > those who use technology for "evil" purposes, and frequently blame the > resulting problems on technology. > > Mike Sykora I can't let this one go by. It's right over the plate. "In accepting an honorary degree from the University of Notre Dame a few years ago, General David Sarnoff made this statement: 'We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.' That is the voice of the current somnambulism. Suppose we were to say, 'Apple pie is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value.' Or, 'The smallpox virus is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value.' Again, 'Firearms are in themselves neither good nor bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.' That is, if the slugs reach the right people firearms are good. If the TV tube fires the right ammunition at the right people it is good. I am not being perverse. There is simply nothing in the Sarnoff statement that will bear scrutiny, for it ignores the nature of the medium, of any and all media, in the true Narcissus style of one hypnotized by the amputation and extension of his own being in a new technical form. "General Sarnoff went on to explain his attitude to the technology of print, saying that it was true that print caused much trash to circulate, but it had also disseminated the Bible and the thoughts of seers and philosophers. It has never occurred to General Sarnoff that any technology could do anything but _add_ itself on to what we already are." H. M. McLuhan, _Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man_ (1964) Has it occurred to _you?_ -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/25/85)
>/* colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) / 10:44 am Jun 18, 1985 */ >There is simply nothing in the Sarnoff statement >that will bear scrutiny, for it ignores the nature of the medium, of >any and all media, in the true Narcissus style of one hypnotized by >the amputation and extension of his own being in a new technical >form. >It has never occurred to >General Sarnoff that any technology could do anything but _add_ >itself on to what we already are." I don't follow these explanations (but then, perhaps I'm hypnotized . . . :-). Please eleborate. Mike Sykora