'Technology' the virus

I am not a biologist, please forgive me if my analogy falls short, it is all off the cuff, as they say.

Technology is nothing more than a man made viral parasite. We can trace its steps, and watch it mutate from a pencil to iphone. The dilemma and catalyst for watching technology invade every aspect of our lives is stems from our cultural connection to progress and development. Much like the chicken pox, or the flu, technology weaves in and out our daily routines seamlessly. These readings all seem to infer that technology is as much a part of our culture as we are a part of technology.

In Burnett's and Marshall's book, Web Theory, they expressed this as an ideology of technology. Which they say is "a framework or representations that makes whatever is current appears to be completely normal, natural and appropriate. The ideology that is concerned with technology therefore makes a new technology not only natural and normal for the culture but also what is needed to make a society better". Although it is easy to agree with this statement the only real questions that arises is : How do they know that this technology makes society better? If ignorance is bliss, and owning and ipone is bliss - how can we possible compare the two? They go on to explain technological determinism and how technology directly effects our social and cultural processes. Yet, how might our lives and culture be different if we never invented the Internet, the Radio, the Television, the telephone, and for that matter a pencil? We would still desire to communicate across boarders instantly, and we would still have a desire to search and learn about far off exotic countries. Yet as we have seen with evolution and necessity as invention, we can only imagine how humans might have evolved differently to achieve these same intricate functions.

I don't really believe that humans could evolve as fast as we created technology, but the possibility that technology burdens and inevitably shifts our natural evolution is food for thought. So, their idea that technology determines our social and cultural processes is a grim reminder that I need to breathe deeply and take my dog for a long walk.

In Bush's article, As We May Think, from 1945 I was absolutely blown way by the insight and foresight he had into the development of technology in general and specifically. Overall he had more than a basic grasp of how deep rooted technology already had on our society. His predictions of digital cameras, fax machines, computers, and social networking literally made my jaw drop in amazement. This guy would have loved the iphone.

Raymond Williams shows the parallels between human and technology through their intimate connection with the television. He claims that the effects of technologies, whether direct or indirect, foreseen or unforeseen, are as it were the rest of history - they (technologies) have made modern man the modern condition. Technological determinism at its finest.

In Roger's Diffusion of Innovation, he outlines how technologies spreads or diffuses across societies. He proclaims that a final way a social system influences diffusion concerns consequences, the changes that occur to an individual or a social system as a result of the adoption or rejection of an innovation. The key word here is consequences. He seems to acknowledge that technology is as much a consequence as it is a catalyst.

In both McLuhan's and Engelbart's readings they traced and identified a path to Technological Determinism Avenue. To deny that technology has not been an integral part of ever aspect of our life is simply insane. As Engelbart compared the path as augmenting human intellect, we can began to realize just how intimate technology and human culture is. Without one there is not the other as we know it today.