Emily+Choi+RP+Post+5

So far, there are two major viewpoints on the issue of technology and how it will shape the future culture of first-world societies. There is the pessimistic approach and the optimistic approach. Some try to take the middle ground, saying that some types of technology are acceptable while others are not, but most take a polarized approach on the topic and attempt to appeal to one or the other of two different audiences: the young and the old.

The optimistic approach is thus: that technology, if used correctly or in moderation, can have a strong positive influence on shaping the future of humanity. Technology can be used to cover for undesirable parts of labor as well as improving what it means to be human, and, most importantly, the positive effects of technology can already be experienced today. Notably, however, this viewpoint has primarily been presented by people who are involved in technology as a career or as a genuine hobby. One therefore may think that these viewpoints are influenced by personal bias. But perhaps these people pursued technology because they saw it as a positive opportunity, and not the other way around, in a sort of "chicken or egg" conundrum.

For example, according to Sean Carroll, renowned CalTech physicist and blogger, "the Internet is a great help to those of us who prefer to be kept honest -- it's just up to us to take advantage." In making this comment, Carroll argues that, if used correctly, the Internet is a way to better society as a whole by helping humans keep honest. //Wired// editor Kevin Kelly agrees when he writes, "For every accepted piece of knowledge I find, there is, within easy reach, someone who challenges the fact. Every fact has its antifact." Although it may seem that these two authors are disagreeing - one believing that the Internet makes finding the truth easy while the other believes that it makes it hard - both are actually coming to the same point: that, as a whole, the Internet is a great intellectual force that can help oneself push closer to truth, even if it involves being approached by counter-evidence, sometimes skeevy, sometimes not.

On the other side is the pessimistic approach: that technology is leading humanity to its downfall, and that we are ergo being increasingly "owned" by our machines, losing what it means to be human. This viewpoint is primarily supported by a senior generation of individuals, but it has also spread into some young people who would rather believe figures of authority and rampant pessimism than forge a path of optimism for themselves. (I'm speaking a bit too personally here.) Pediatric occupational therapist Cris Rowan is one such person who maintains that technology is causing developing children great harm. She herself writes, " Technology's impact on the 21st century family is fracturing its very foundation, and causing a disintegration of core values that long ago were the fabric that held families together." Others choose to express their viewpoints through poetry. Poet Lisel Mueller writes of a departure from human values, describing humans as being those "who cannot stop their computers," and even alludes to science-fiction-esque ideas, in which humans "live forever, / in lightweight, aluminum bodies / with numbers stamped on [their] backs."

Personally, I am still strongly on the "technology is good" side. Perhaps I speak only as a young person, but many of the sources that speak otherwise seem to lack persuasion for me.