Technopoly
I just finished The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas (which was quite enjoyable) and started Technopoly by Neil Postman. I have always had a love-hate relationship with technology. I do love it, in general. The problem is this: it seems as if, rather than decreasing my workload, my workload gets heavier with increased technology. Postman not only has some great insights of his on regarding our culture, he has also included some excellent quotes by other people with equally profound insight. Here are two of those, and hopefully have more to say about the book as a whole once I'm done with it.
"Whether or not it draws on new scientific research,
technology is a branch of moral philosophy, not of science."
Paul Goodman, New Reformation
If there had been no railway to conquer distances, my child would never have left his native town and I should need no telephone to hear his voice; if traveling across the ocean by ship had not been introduced, my friend would not have embarked on his sea-voyage and I should not need a cable to relieve my anxiety about him. What is the use of reducing infantile mortality when it is precisely that reduction which imposes the greatest restraint on us in the begetting of children, so that, taken all round, we nevertheless rear no more children than in the days before the reign of hygiene, while at the same time we have created difficult conditions for our sexual lives in marriage. ~Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents
Postman argues that America has entered an era of Technopoly: "deificaiton of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology." The last part is key. No longer, he says are we in control of our technology, but it is in control of us. Technopoly results, in part, from information overload. "In particular, Technopoly flourishes when the defenses against information break down."
On another, somewhat unrelated, note: Do I understand correctly that we have a potential presidential candidate who has read the Constitution...and even believes that it should be upheld? I have been very disillusioned with politics in America for the last decade or so (since I've been of voting age). So far, this guy seems fairly refreshing. What am I missing other than the fact that he has probably no chance of winning?
2 comments:
The problem is this: it seems as if, rather than decreasing my workload, my workload gets heavier with increased technology.
I totally agree with this statement! In fact, I was reading a post somewhere a week or so ago where the writer talked about the invention of the stove and how it had increased the wife's work. Apparently, before the stove, women cooked one-pot meals (like soup or porridge) with maybe bread from an oven. That is it. Once the oven was invented (even though it was touted as such a time saver), the wife was expected to feed her family a more extravagant meal complete with side-dishes! So, with the increased ability came increased expectations.
This is why I have gone back to making mostly one-pot meals without guilt! We are peasants in this world so why not eat like it? :)
Anyhow, I have never read Technopoly, even though I am a Postman fan, so I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Love, Brandy
ps. We are flirting with Ron Paul, too, though we still need to read some of his position statements. I know that I agree with the majority of his voting record! Also, I think he can win if everyone who likes him is actually brave enough to vote for him. Unfortunately, that will probably have to require turning off talk-radio, where the "conservative" hosts would rather win than have principles! :(
I am continually amazed at Postman's writing...so much of it makes sense. I should finish the book today though I doubt I will have a chance to post my thoughts yet.
As for Dr. Paul, I don't think that his being unlikely to win is a sufficient reason to not vote for him...though I know that is many people's reasoning...probably how we ended up with our governor. I think its silly to vote for a second-rate candidate just because you think the best won't win. It just means I can't be overly excited about having such a candidate as a choice.
Post a Comment