I agree with many, if not all of Kevin Kelly’s views on the evolution of modern technology. His connections to evolution are very insightful and should be exposed to more people. What is technology? What does it mean to us as humans? His definition of technology that I found most intriguing was “Technology is anything that doesn’t quite work yet.” This definition can apply to many modern pieces of technology today. For example, the computer has not been perfected. It has issues sometimes. So, in a way, technology is something that works some of the time and not all of the time. Technology naturally has flaws, just as life does. Not all of the creatures evolution creates work out. Neither does all of the technology man creates. This is what makes Kelly’s views really resonate with me. What is technology’s view of the world? Personally, I can imagine what technology must think of the world. It probably thinks that life couldn’t keep up with some of the stuff that it does. It would see biological organisms as inferior to itself. Technology is so important to us today, and I think it would see that. Speaking of biological organisms, we haven’t found them all! The plan to explore random spots on the globe is smart. This can truly unlock the secrets of the specific parts of evolution and help us to advance as a society. The more we understand about life on our planet, the more we can observe from nature, giving us an edge in our modern lives. What does he mean by “hacking”? Does his definition simply mean a different way of conducting life? That’s what it appears to be, but then what do you compare that to? Different than what? How does the circular evolutionary chart work? How have organisms as simple as bacteria, etc. not seen radical changes? This is one view that I may not completely agree with. He makes an argument that every organism is just as evolved as every other organism. Could this view also apply to technology? Could one argue that the computer is just as evolved as the printing press? I believe it can. Also, could other technology help existing technology evolve through co-evolution? He gives the example about finding 6,000 species of technology in one home. My question is, what is included as a “species of technology”? This is a point that I don’t understand. Because of the issue with what is a species and what isn’t, I believe that technology is not the seventh kingdom of life. This doesn’t make sense. Technology is not alive. The coronet example did not make sense to me either. What was the man measuring? Just because a technology exists does not mean it is still alive. Just because you can still get a bone knife doesn’t mean that they are widely used. I think a piece of technology can be dead if no one uses it anymore. I agree with some of Kelly's views, but others do not make sense. I do think that his message is sound, however.
No comments:
Post a Comment