In response to Christina’s comment on the Pandora post where she says:

Clever indeed but this brings up the question…Has technology helped or hindered man kind? Of course the quick response is both but I am curious about others thoughts on this question. Would we be better off without technology and where it has gotten us? If you are Pro technology what do you think the pros are? If you are Con technology, how has it hindered us?

I don’t think that you can be either for or against technology. Technology is as much a part of humankind as walking upright is.  Though today we regard technology as computers, iphones, electric cars and HD TVs, technology is anything that we use which aides us in what we do.  This is as simple as a stick to dig with or toilet paper to wipe our behinds with.  So the question isn’t whether technology is beneficial or not, but rather, at what point does too much technology become harmful, if at all.

Most people would agree that the ability to cook our food is a technology that is very beneficial.  On the other hand, most would agree that nuclear weapons are inherently harmful (their function is to destroy and the process to make them leaves behind harmful nuclear waste).  So where is the middle ground?  To be honest, I don’t know.

I would say that most forms of technology are inherently neutral and it is only the applications of that technology that are beneficial or harmful. As mentioned above, though, some forms can be inherently harmful, such as nuclear fission. 

(Some may argue that nuclear fission is not harmful because you can use it to generate electricity.  However, one of the by-products of fission is nuclear waste, which takes thousands of years to break down and until then gives off high levels of radioactivity and requires being buried deep within mountains of solid rock to keep it from wreaking havoc on our environment.)

I think the real question has to do with how our society views and applies various forms of technology.  For instance, the use of satellites is an amazing marvel of modern science.  The fact that we can a) design and build a box that can relay electronic messages thousands of miles, b) design and build the means of transportation that can deliver that box into orbit, and c) keep that box in orbit for years is a little mind-boggling when you consider that the light bulb is only about 130 years old.  We’ve come a long way in a relatively short period of time.

I would consider satellites themselves inherently neutral.  The various applications of satellites, however, vary greatly.  They can be used to spy on neighbouring countries, guide missiles to blow up buildings, allow friends and family to communicate from half way around the world, or allow a doctor to perform delicate, life-saving surgery on a child in a different country.  The first two uses we could do without and I’m sure the world would continue on without the last two as well, but I think the last two have created a better quality of life.

Measuring the quality of life is the key to determining what scientific break-throughs are beneficial and which are harmful.  What impact does it have on our ability to live long and healthy lives? Does my using it cause harm to another person? Does it promote equality across genders, races, and ages? Does it impact the environment negatively or positively? Does it encourage active and healthy life-styles or does it perpetuate habits that lead to obesity and other afflictions? 

Overall, I am for most forms of technology.  The potential to benefit mankind is immense.  At the same time, the potential to be harmful is equally there so we must be more discerning in our choices.  I am against many of the applications that permeate our culture.  The average American would be much better off if video games, TiVo, and fast food restaurants did not exist.

But I am definitely a big fan of toilet paper. And hockey skates.

~kbshea