What can blue do for you?

We have been talking in class the last few meetings about how we think about technology. In these conversations two key questions keep coming up: do we think that the given technology influences how we use it or is the technology itself neutral and the culture decides how it will be used? This is a very difficult question to answer because upon analysis you find that both view points have very strong arguments and examples for being correct. The book opens with the example of guns and the common saying that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and then cites the comedy of Eddie Izzard (a similar joke also appears in the movie Shoot em' up). I find that I really agree with the saying. Almost any tool created by civilization can be used for either harm or for good. I recall that before move in my freshman year I was trying to put together a toolkit for my dorm, which I would need to use for basic tasks like taking something apart. However due to the resent increase in violence on college campuses I was worried about bringing any objects that might be seen as dangerous: like a hammer or utility knife. In thinking back to this dilemma, I find that I have encountered these questions before in the real world. 
Even though in another setting like at my home, this conflict would not need a second thought, at school one could see these as either simple tools for household repairs or dangerous weapons that could be used in the next college massacre (Even though yes, VT and Columbine involved firearms, blunt objects and knifes can be just as deadly). Because of this I really feel that the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder: meaning that the opinion of the technology is up to the individual or society. Consider the following. If we go back to the gun example, we find that the gun control laws are much stricter in the northern states. It is extremely rare and taboo for someone living in a state like PA or NJ to walk into a store and see a presumably ordinary citizen with a holstered gun strapped to his hip. While if you traveled to a state like Texas or Wyoming a person carrying a loaded weapon would not be given a second look (at the University of Utah, it is legal for students to be carrying weapons on campus). This is a direct result not only of statistics showing that guns are more dangerous in more densely populated areas, but also the culture that make those different areas unique. The fact that different areas of the world have different views and regulations regarding technologies like this to me suggest that the technology is more what the individual makes of it, and not inherently bad or good.

These decisions in the use of an item or technology cause the changes and improvements that the technology has on culture. For instance if we chose to use computers as weapons (and some might say that in some ways they are) instead of tools for learning, we would cause certain changes to take place in the world. Say that scientists some how developed a computer program when the first personal computers were coming out that caused extreme physical addiction to whomever used it and something was taking away the choice of whether or not to use this program when you got your computer. Now instead of being just a tool that can be used by the society how and when it sees fit, the computer is now a weapon that can be used to control people. While this supports the theory of determinism because people chose to use the computer as a weapon instead of a tool, using technology in this way would directly cause a tech war rather than usher in the information era. Instead of using computers to learn, communicate, and inform, they would be used as a means of mass control, suppression, and compression. The subtle change in the application of this technology would cause complete change in both the view of the technology and how it is used.