Technology > People?

The article we are to read for the next class talks about the relationship between technology and politics. It suggests, at least at the beginning, that technology has control, or determinism over politics. It points out key examples of technological influence on political issues like the atomic bomb. This raises the important question of do we control what we create or invent, or do (at least in some ways) those innovations control us? After much reading and in class debate on this subject I believe that it is really a little of both. While yes I agree that some of the technologies that the article discusses, like the atomic bomb, undoubtedly have political impact because of the ways that they can affect society and the world. However, I think that the society has more control over both the changes that these technologies bring about, and the technologies themselves than some of the writing suggests.

While I totally agree with that sometimes technologies have unexpected and difficult to control political and social repercussions, I think the societies s that they affect have a great deal of control over their effects. For instance, in the atomic bomb example one of the unintended political effects its invention and use had on the world was the cold war and the tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. These effects however could have been far worse, and the fact that they weren't to me shows just how much control we have over our technologies. Rather than using this technology as a mere tool from which to derive fear and control over other peoples and nations, the atomic bomb could have been used to eradicate other cultures and nations as we saw fit. The positive uses of nuclear technology further support this viewpoint because the use of nuclear power has allowed countries to be more efficient in producing power.  

The Winner document argues that some technological objects have inherent political powers, I do not believe this position because I think that the view of a technology is based on perspective. An apple is just an apple until someone comes along and says that it is different or gives it some kind of power, meaning that a technology is only as powerful as a society makes it out to be. While yes, some technologies inherently have great potential to inflict damage and cause harm, there is always a second side to the coin and that same technology can be used for great good. Some historians will argue that atomic weapons have caused great harm, conflict, and death since their invention, others will take the position that the presence and even use of atomic weapons has prevented the deaths of thousands-even millions of people. I recall in the movie Star Wars, Obi Wan telling Luke that the Lightsaber, while a powerful tool and weapon, can diffuse a potentially volatile situation even while inactive. While the Lightsaber is was invented with properties to fight, kill, and harm, it is only when it is used a certain way that it makes those negative connotations reality.