What Technology Wants; Changing Nature, Opting Out
Podcast:
In this week's podcast I discuss how Kevin Kelly's ideas about the evolution of the technium and the evolution of the organics change the way we think about and define nature. I also discuss the possibility of opting out of using certain technologies. I end by asking if we can in fact opt out or if we are forever forced to use and participate in technologies.
The music used in this podcast is taken from Depeche Mode, "Enjoy the Silence."
(19 votes)
Comments
Location, location, location
Good job! Your podcast is clear, to the point, and thought provoking. You raise some excellent points about how technologies are affecting us even when we "opt out" of using them. Just because we do not own or use it (whatever “it” may be), does not mean that it is not influencing out world.
In America, especially in cities, it is impossible to get away from the influence of technology. It is all around us all the time! I definitely do not think that we can opt out of using all technologies; however, I think people can truly opt out of using some of them based on where they live. For example, Amish people may use some technologies to do their work and such; however, if there are no televisions in the entire community, then are they not successfully opting out of that technology? I mean, if no one in that area watches the television to know what is on it, then how is it still affecting them?
Christa Weaver
Is opting out an option?
Great work in this podcast, it really got me thinking. The way you explored ideas from the text is very effective and engaging. If I may take the liberty to vastly simplify, your podcast seems to revolve around two main ideas: Has nature been altered? and, Is it possible to opt out of technology either wholly or in regard to certain parts.
The question of whether or not nature has been altered by technology is one that has interested me for sometime. It seems apparent that mining, clear-cutting and farming technological advancements have had a profound (and mostly negative) impact on the enviornment. Yet the question now becomes, is this a natural occurance? and/or, Can technology be isolated and set apart from nature? I think it comes down to the concept of there being two forms of nature, nature with a capital 'N' and nature with the lower-case version. With the capital, Nature tends to be a spiritual force or embodiment of the world as a whole. Though it seems impossible to seperate humankind from this, it does seem possible to seperate thought-based technologies. The lower-case nature is the home of the 'beehive/skyscraper' argument I like to participate in, the question being: if bees build a hive and humans build a skyscraper, what is the difference? Each take elements of their enviornment and reassemble them in a useful way for their well-being and livelihood. Thus they each use technological constructions to reach their collective goals.
The idea of opting out also fascinated me as I read Kelly's text. As a self-described luddite and non-user of facebook and twitter, I do believe one can opt out of certain technologies. However, I whole-heartedly agree with your assesment that even while personally opting out, I am still influenced by these technologies. The amount of tweets and postings I read in pop culture magazines come to mind. Thus the technium flows ever onward not matter which specific parts we choose to, or not to, swim in.
Opting Out: The Amish and the Chesapeake Bay
Jenna, great podcast! It raised some really intriguing questions. I’d like to focus, for now, on the question of whether it is possible to ever “opt out” of technology.
As you explain, Kelly suggests that it is possible to pick and choose the technologies that we use as individuals, even if we can never really opt out of the technium as a whole. He praises the Amish in particular for being mindful of their choices; they choose which technologies to use and which to reject in order to “strengthen their communities” (218). He applauds their ability to really analyze the effect of a particular technology on their community and their commitment to using only those technologies that “enhance family and community and distance themselves from the outside world” (226). Kelly does admit that “if we apply the ubiquity test—what happens if everyone does it—to the Amish way” we can see that their system has certain failings (237). Even so, for Kelly the Amish serve as a model of how we non-Amish can choose our technologies carefully.
In June 2010, the New York Times ran a story (“Amish Farming Draws Rare Government Scrutiny”) concerning problems caused by Amish dairy farming. Specifically, it addresses the EPA’s attempt to persuade Old Order Amish communities to alter their farming practices. The article explains how Amish agricultural practices – namely, allowing manure from their cows to accumulate without being treated or managed – have caused serious environmental degradation in the Chesapeake Bay.
In this case, the choices that the Amish are making – maintaining traditional practices and turning down government aid – are ostensibly the best for the maintenance of their community and its values. Yet the repercussions of their choices negatively affect non-Amish in the surrounding areas. People who live in the area around the Chesapeake Bay are suffering the negative consequences of the Amish farmers’ insistence on “opting out” of the technology. (If you read the article, you’ll see it’s actually a bit more hopeful than that – many farmers are now reluctantly “opting in.”)
At the end of chapter 11, Kelly poses the technium’s dilemma: “to maximize our own contentment, we seek the minimum amount of technology in our own lives. Yet to maximize the contentment of others, we must maximize the amount of technology in the world” (238). In this case, the dilemma is similar: the Amish seek to minimize their adoption of new technology, but to maximize the contentment of the other land-users (as well as the ability of people and animals to continue to live and thrive in the local environment), they need to add technology to their own community. Opting out, in this case, is not neutral – it causes harm to those who do not have the ability to choose. Perhaps in this case the Amish have a responsibility to “opt in” for the sake of the community outside their own.
Great podcast! I think your
Great podcast!
I think your podcast was clear, easy to follow, and very focused – good job!
In any respect, your idea hit on a lot of points that I’ve been thinking about. I was particularly interested in your argument of re-conceptualizing our understanding “nature” as “natural”; that is, unaffected by or “standing outside of” technology. I think, in many respects, you are right: “nature” is constantly being influenced, affected, and shaped by technology. Thus, I have to agree with your assessment that we cannot think about nature “as outside of technology,” but rather very much dependent or working within technology.
It’s also interesting to think about “opting out of technologies.” Yes, I agree with Kelley, that we can choose to live our lives by not “directly” participating in certain technologies: computers, blogs, podcast, etc. We have a right to NOT directly use these products; yet, does that mean we are still not – in some ways – affected by these products? You take something, for instance, as politics, which shapes our lives and our society. Blogs, podcast, the news, the internet, newspapers – all of which we would consider “technology” –affect how our political system operates. (Take, for instance, Facebook’s affect on the Obama winning the presidential election.) Political leaders constantly create or amend policies based upon voting polls, the news, or what the local newspaper is saying. Thus because technology impacts our political system, one may in fact directly opt out of using certain technological devices, but their lives are still being shaped by these technological innovations.
Does this mean they are participating, as you ask? I would think so. In fact, this reminds me of what Kyle (I think?) was talking about last week in his podcast, arguing that when “technology actually works” it is seamless, for we don’t know it really impacts our life. Thus, I would say that – in response to your question at the end of your podcast – that participation in technology is to simply be affected (in some way) by technology. Because we are being affected by technology, in other words, we are participating within a technological culture.
Great work!
Steve