Romanticized Technology

Following a popular revolt by the Luddites of England, industrial sabotage was made a capital crime by the Frame Breaking Act and the Malicious Damage Act of 1812. Punishably, the destruction of industrial machines was comparable to murder.


If we think of machines for their Utilitarian contribution to society, then perhaps at some level of usefulness a machine-life can be as valuable as a human life, in that context we assume that machines themselves have no want or right to live. However, it is interesting to note what John Stuart Mill, a leading proponent of utilitarianism, had to say about technological advancement; "It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being." This argument widely discredits the popular reason for advancement of technology and the basis of Luddites' appeal to labor, but why else might they argue against or for the advancement of technology?


Luddism was not an isolated cultural phenomenon; the movement has grown since the Industrial Revolution and been integrated with other ideologies. As with Gandhi, Neo-Luddites have argued for labor-increasing policies that laid waste to emphasis on technological gain. Still, all use technology in some shape or form.


The inescapability of its construct is constricting and confounding at worst, yet is comparable in its power to nature itself. As humankind grows, so does technology, toward what many dystopian authors have predicted in a frightening way. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World set the stage for a powerful artificial government that goes as far as to create people in labs in batches determined to have the most enviable traits for a specific niche in society. 

Perhaps what is more frightening than this power is how it parallels a modern paradigm of economic classes. Today, people are divided in resources, poor and rich, on a seemingly unfair basis. In this book, the people that are running society selfishly maintain this paradigm while straying from modern morals of equality of opportunity and the overall betterment of human society. Still, as the basic direction we seem to be headed, we should look for ways to make advancement more accommodating.


In Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of 2001: A Space Odyssey, technology has progressed to a state that is believably futuristic, based around the evolution of mankind and the development of technology. Viewing discovery through a universal lens, the movie compares people to animals, machines, and cosmos to come to wider grips with reality. In the movie, Kubrick depicts robots as a manifestation of human thought, and one of which we ultimately have control. 


HAL, the supercomputer personality of the spaceship on which much of the movie is based, is able to communicate in the most base of human emotions, though when he starts asking questions is diagnosed as having a computer error. Fearing for his life, HAL kills off almost everyone on the ship, resembling a human psychopath. When finally Dave, a human fearing for his own life and wanting vengeance shuts down HAL, the process slowly pressures the computer to die, begging for its life and finally singing itself into quiet.

Having perhaps the most personality of any character in the movie, HAL brings the question "What does it mean to be human?" If technology truly mirrors man, as we are attempting to design it, then there is much more at stake in taking a stand for or against technology than just whether it is useful. There is a moral problem in simply using as resources that which is the child of human thought.

TED talks

The advancement of thought is one of the primary goals of the modern educational system. A major concern for how this is implemented is explored on TED's main website at the “About TED” page. The page, while describing how TED is structured to change the community, shares interesting links to other pertinent factors of its methodology, including one titled; “Is TED Elitist?”





Highlighting the issue of classism for debate, the website communalizes an argument for its own ability to reform, and addresses its disconfirmation within popular methodologies of learning. A major goal of compulsory public education is to provide for all children, that they may grow into more productive and better-rounded people. Ultimately, TED accepts a form of elitism and argues that the concern for universal application is unfounded. The advancement TED glorifies in its mission is a shared means for greater overall satisfaction.







As TED manages to keep itself in-check, other initiatives for information-sharing will likely follow suit. While public education might lack the means for such high-end presentations as TED’s in the classroom, schools could, with lesson-planning, incorporate engaging videos and representations of lessons to give students a feel for the ‘real-world’ use of what they are learning. This, however, cannot make-up for the glorified elitism that innovational powerhouses such as TED thrive on.

Game Theory

TED talks have been the focus of much thought and are themselves a way of making a game of learning. Looking at the influences of games in culture, we must seek to manipulate ourselves at a higher level, in not only a way that is logical and explainable, but entertaining.


This idea is not completely new, as it has many claims to philosophy over the past hundred years. For example, German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein constructed a logic-based philosophy on language games and the way we communicate. Thoughts from game-logic observers often center around applying game theory to every situation, from the infinitesimal to infinite.

                                   

Today's culture is immersed in sentiments of this mentality and seeks to innovate through its logic. 

Philosophy of history, set at odds with full understanding

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Alexander Chase


An interesting quote, it has been attributed to many sources; from Henry David Thoreau to Blaise Pascal, and also Mark Twain and Albert Einstein, whose quotes have contributed a piece through this project. Often, quotes such as this one go uncited in their everyday use, much as every time a word is used we rarely think of its creator. However, it is still nice to identify a face with an idea.


Likely, many of these people and others have said something along those lines at some point, but in reality the idea comes plainer across without the historical backing of every individual. As misattributed quotes and Twainisms have become a permanent feature of popular culture, they are both easier to find and more easily employed. If we are to take Twain's position on the matter; "Only one thing is impossible for God: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet."


Building on this standard for explanation, we cannot simply look to public figures for an explanation; we must think through its implications so that they apply to more than our initial thoughts.