Technology is the most widespread and used element in our world today. It's innovation and evolution touches everyone on the planet, from cutting edge space technology, to video games on the iPad's of our children. As a result, the challenging conversations that we have concerning the essence and purpose of technology in the modern world are essential for our future.
In an ever-changing world, the conversations we have about technology in our future will carry us into the next age. Influential websites and online sources garner millions of views and their influence, words, and stories can be felt across the globe. From TED talks to articles on the Atlantic, it is now so easy, so convenient, and so readily accessible to form a global connectivity network with great minds from around the world.
Technology is taking over our world rapidly. More than just video games and computers, technology is evolving in warfare, infrastructure, social networking, and even evolving onto the human body. It is crucial to understand the role that technology will play in the world of tomorrow. This museum explores the vastness, the variety, and the inter web of connections that technology touches on in today's modern world. The artifacts culminate to create an experience that emphasizes the unique world of technology and illustrates how it works it's way into different facets of our society.
Technology is taking over our world rapidly. More than just video games and computers, technology is evolving in warfare, infrastructure, social networking, and even evolving onto the human body. It is crucial to understand the role that technology will play in the world of tomorrow. This museum explores the vastness, the variety, and the inter web of connections that technology touches on in today's modern world. The artifacts culminate to create an experience that emphasizes the unique world of technology and illustrates how it works it's way into different facets of our society.
How is technology used in the global market
"Isn’t it strange to call Facebook, a company that makes websites and mobile apps a “technology” company, but to deny that moniker to firms that make diesel trains, oil-drilling platforms, and airplane engines?" (Ian Bogost)
Facebook is one of the largest and most influential technology companies on the planet. But according to The Atlantic, Facebook isn't actually a technology company. Their reasoning is that the term "technology" is thrown around uselessely to the extent that it loses meaning. According to the article Facebook is Not a Technology Company, all major corporations use computers and technology so identifying every business that utilizes computers would be pointless. Rather, technology corporations are defined a company that innovates the purpose and rhetoric of the computer age and distributes it to the greater market. Rather than utilizing technology to meet a goal, technology corporations' goal is to utilize technology to develop new technology then distribute that new technology to the global business economy. Therefore, there is a distinct differentiation between the use of technology to reach a goal (Exon Mobile, General Mills, etc) and the goal of technology to reach a more innovative technological development level (Apple, Intel).
Where is the limit on technology usage and where do we draw the line between too much and not enough?
"it’s increasingly difficult for reviewers to fully evaluate these ecosystems as they grow deeper, more personalized, and more dependent on the technologies used by someone’s social circle" -Matt Buchanan
Perhaps the largest discussion occuring in the talk of technology is the idea of when to stop. When is it too much and when does all this innovation begin to hurt us. Some would argue that we are already there. The New Yorker discusses the ideology between this discussion. As a whole, American society tends to push ourselves to believe that what we do online isn't an accurate representation of us. We believe that while we use technology excessively, there is absolutely no way that it could ever define us, could ever become us. We are quite hypocritical in that we claim that the real world is the most important world and that the digital world is just a tool, and yet we use the digital world as an extension of ourselves. We do everything that we would do in the real world online, and then discredit it's validity. The sad truth is that while we want to believe that we can be independent without technology and that it does not define us, the truth is quite the opposite. "Some of our closest friends and most significant professional connections are people we've only ever met online, and a third of recently married couples met online." (The New Yorker).
The reality of the global situation is that there is no longer a line between our online personalities and our true personalities; rather, they are merged into one. What people do online now is an accurate representation of what they do in person. The line is being blurred. Trying to disconnect is useless because it only hampers the very real and powerful connection between the digital world and the real world. The futility of trying to differentiate these two universes is immense because we will never truly disconnect. We will never escape the digital world. Because the digital world is now the real world.
The reality of the global situation is that there is no longer a line between our online personalities and our true personalities; rather, they are merged into one. What people do online now is an accurate representation of what they do in person. The line is being blurred. Trying to disconnect is useless because it only hampers the very real and powerful connection between the digital world and the real world. The futility of trying to differentiate these two universes is immense because we will never truly disconnect. We will never escape the digital world. Because the digital world is now the real world.
What happens when it all fails
"Added to this, from a long-term perspective, nearly half (45%) of organisations have experienced a loss of brand equity or market share following a major technology failure." -Andreas Grabner
If the day comes where technology fails on us, it will be the most devastating day in history. The world would drop to a complete standstill. We rely on technology for everything; from military to infrastructure to transportation to food and everything in between. (The Atlantic) A global technological meltdown would be a monumental loss that would hit everybody on the planet. As a result, there are conversations concerning the importance of survival and living in a world without technology. Survivalists are people who devote their lives to preparing for a potential crisis. However, the greater community believes that these people are in a sense crazy because we have invested so much money into our technology infested world that it is impossible for it to ever fail.
Easy vs. demanding technology
"The choice between demanding and easy technologies may be crucial to what we have called technological evolution." -Tim Wu
First of all, what is easy and demanding technology? Demanding technology is the kind of technology that is challenging to understand and utilize. It takes time to understand and use effectively. Without practice and understanding, use of demanding technology can yield unpredictable results. Easy technology, in contrast, is technology that is easy to understand, use, and gives predictable results. Now, why is this a question or debate? People tend to lean toward easy technology because it's, well, easy. It makes sense that one would choose an easier task over a hard task if the end outcome is the same. However, using easy technology to accomplish tasks makes us dumber. We start to lose our analytical and problem solving skills pretty quickly if we do not stimulate them. The skills that we need to make technology easy to use are the skills that we begin to lose with easy technology. Therefore, do we continue to advance and evolve technology at the cost of losing our own mental fortitude and sharpness, or continue to make technology more accessible and understandable for more people? (The Atlantic)
What about the kids?
It is fair to say that most adults did not grow up with the kind of technology that today's children have today. (The Atlantic) It is a hard question whether to allow children to grow up with the advances of technology or to stay traditional and limit the amount of technological use they can have. There are three arguments. One is for the child to have as little technological exposure as possible because some believe that technology deteriorates the mind and character of a child. Others believe in balance in which a child is allowed some exposure but is limited to explore other pursuits. The last arguement is that since the world has so much technology, it is only logical to throw kids into the digital world becuase that is the world that they are going to be living in. All three arguments have advantages and disadvantages and there is a lot of conversation and dispute around the world on just how much technology is enough for children.
See a similar artifact here:
Talks, Ted. "How to Live with Robots." Ted, www.ted.com/playlists/17/
how_to_live_with_robots. Accessed 17 Nov. 2016. Multiple Sources
how_to_live_with_robots. Accessed 17 Nov. 2016. Multiple Sources
How does Technology Change Ownership
"What will happen to copyright law, intellectual property, and the concept that ideas can be owned?" Lauren Believe
Ownership is when someone holds possession of something. Someone owns a house, a car, a book, or a toy. We own them because we bought them. We purchased our own exclusive edition of a house that is ours and only ours. However, in the ever changing world of technology, why buy something when we have access to literally everything. (Slate) Instead of buying a song, why don't you just listen to it on Youtube? We no longer have to buy something. We just look it up on the world wide web. What are the potential consequences of this? For one, singers and songwriters are angry because they can no longer sell CD's. Their music is no longer theirs. They feel like once they spend hours and hours creating a song, everyone can listen to their art without paying or giving them due recognition or reward. This goes further. Slate reveals that we are starting to lose ownership on every day goods like our refrigerator and our washing machine. Technology has taken over these tools and now they are wifi compatible and programmable. Do we own our own refrigerator anymore?
See related articles and pages here:
technology in warfare today
Wikimedia. 27 Apr. 2015, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:US_Navy_040626-N-8704K-004_The_conventionally_powered_aircraft_carrier_USS_J
ohn_F._Kennedy_(CV_67)_pulls_into_the_port_of_Valletta,_Malta.jpg. Accessed
12 Jan. 2017.
It's no secret that technology is the staple of an effective war machine. Throughout history, wars have gotten bigger, badder, and more brutal than the previous one. The reason is technology and where to limit it. Countries competing for more advanced and complicated technology hit the point where technology would do more than just win them the war. It would destroy the world twenty times over. Aircrat carriers are some of the most dangerous, complex, and effective war machines on the planet. City sized Death Stars on waters can shift and influence politics, military movements, and fear for people within a thousand mile radius just by it's very presence. Since technology has continued to advanced and become more complex exponentially, what destructive potential are we now capable of? Is it not scary to think that our world could be destroyed at the touch of a button? (A Staple of Geniuses) There is discussion on chemical warfare, drone strikes, and where do we draw the line between a powerful military and a world destroying one.
File:US_Navy_040626-N-8704K-004_The_conventionally_powered_aircraft_carrier_USS_J
ohn_F._Kennedy_(CV_67)_pulls_into_the_port_of_Valletta,_Malta.jpg. Accessed
12 Jan. 2017.
It's no secret that technology is the staple of an effective war machine. Throughout history, wars have gotten bigger, badder, and more brutal than the previous one. The reason is technology and where to limit it. Countries competing for more advanced and complicated technology hit the point where technology would do more than just win them the war. It would destroy the world twenty times over. Aircrat carriers are some of the most dangerous, complex, and effective war machines on the planet. City sized Death Stars on waters can shift and influence politics, military movements, and fear for people within a thousand mile radius just by it's very presence. Since technology has continued to advanced and become more complex exponentially, what destructive potential are we now capable of? Is it not scary to think that our world could be destroyed at the touch of a button? (A Staple of Geniuses) There is discussion on chemical warfare, drone strikes, and where do we draw the line between a powerful military and a world destroying one.
See a similar artifact here:
Drone warfare
Wikimedia. 17 Dec. 2014, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:MQ-1_Predator_unmanned_aircraft.jpg. Accessed 12 Jan. 2017.
Drone warfare is one of the most challenging, morally complex, and challenging conversations that we have today concerning our military. Drone warfare is using reliable military intelligence to conduct precision strikes on high value targets using flying drones, therefore keeping American lives safer but at the sake of a lot of potential collateral damage and innocent lives being lost if the intelligence is even a smidge inaccurate. Many military officals love drone warfare because it works. Dozens of terrorist leaders have been taken out with no American lives being lost. We have the capability to watch, analyze, and execute from the safety of a box sitting in Utah. At first glance, it sounds like the answer to all our prayers of less lives lost. (New York Times) However, the truth is that drone strikes are much more complicated than they seem. There is a moral dilemma with killing from thousands of miles away. Often times the high priority targets are in close proximity to children, families, and other innocent civilians. Is it right to ignore these obstacles if we take out the bad guy? Or does that make us no better than the bad guy we're working so hard to eliminate? In addition, there are instances where our military intelligence is incomplete, where we don't know who else is in the building, and we don't know just how much damage our 500 lb. laser guided bomb will do and what the percent likelihood is that the little boy playing with his toy truck 300 yard away has of surviving. The movie "Eye in the Sky" documents the very real discussions that military and political officials have daily when talking about potential strikes. So the question is: do American lives outweigh the potential damage that drones could cause, and at the end of the day, is it worth it?
File:MQ-1_Predator_unmanned_aircraft.jpg. Accessed 12 Jan. 2017.
Drone warfare is one of the most challenging, morally complex, and challenging conversations that we have today concerning our military. Drone warfare is using reliable military intelligence to conduct precision strikes on high value targets using flying drones, therefore keeping American lives safer but at the sake of a lot of potential collateral damage and innocent lives being lost if the intelligence is even a smidge inaccurate. Many military officals love drone warfare because it works. Dozens of terrorist leaders have been taken out with no American lives being lost. We have the capability to watch, analyze, and execute from the safety of a box sitting in Utah. At first glance, it sounds like the answer to all our prayers of less lives lost. (New York Times) However, the truth is that drone strikes are much more complicated than they seem. There is a moral dilemma with killing from thousands of miles away. Often times the high priority targets are in close proximity to children, families, and other innocent civilians. Is it right to ignore these obstacles if we take out the bad guy? Or does that make us no better than the bad guy we're working so hard to eliminate? In addition, there are instances where our military intelligence is incomplete, where we don't know who else is in the building, and we don't know just how much damage our 500 lb. laser guided bomb will do and what the percent likelihood is that the little boy playing with his toy truck 300 yard away has of surviving. The movie "Eye in the Sky" documents the very real discussions that military and political officials have daily when talking about potential strikes. So the question is: do American lives outweigh the potential damage that drones could cause, and at the end of the day, is it worth it?
Drones in Recreation
Drones are not just used for military purpose in warfare. They have a growing demand in recreational use. Drones costing up to $1,000 or more are now in homes around the country and around the world. They're replacing remote controlled cars because they have the ability to take pictures and videos. This is a really cool and awesome tool that people can buy in which they can videotape and document adventures and sights like never before. Of course there is a negative twist on these new drones. People can use them to spy on people, to ignore basic privacy and respect for someone, and utilize drones to record harmful things against people. In addition, there is the question of airspace and drone crashes. However, technology discussion is definitely leaning toward viewing drones in civilian life as a positive because of their potential function. The video below showcases the potential of drones in construction situations. Although still in it's early stages, drones have the capability to work together to build structures and accomplish tasks safely.
Wikimedia. 15 Dec. 2013, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Walkera_QR_X350_Quadcopter_Hovering.jpg. Accessed 31 Jan. 2017.
File:Walkera_QR_X350_Quadcopter_Hovering.jpg. Accessed 31 Jan. 2017.
See a similar artifact here:
Technology in the Human Body
In the realm of health and medicine, technological advancements are rampant. Medicine technology and education is growing more expansive by the hour. We are filling the void between the disabled and the able. In fact, science has progressed some of our health to the point where we are exceeding our potential beforehand. One of the most influential scientific medical advancements that is quickly becoming the norm is bionic limbs. In times past, people who lost a limb in combat or due to an accident would be disabled for the rest of their life. They would never have that arm or leg back because the human body and cannot regenerate our lost limbs. Those days are long gone. The era of bionic limbs is here. (Nova) There are innovative limbs in the biomechanical region that are better than their biological counterparts. Bionic limbs are stronger, faster, more efficient, more precise, and more durable than any biological arm has ever been before. They give us so much capability and potential for athletic pursuits and begin to defy what was possible for the human body. Even among healthy individuals, bionics can increase their efficiency thereby resulting in a greater output. They replace the torque and power that our muscle supplies to accomplish a task, leaving us with more energy, more endurance, and more strength than ever before. It is an incredible advancement in technology that changes peoples lives. Giving people the ability to walk instills life into them. What was taken from them is now given back in a stronger and better way. However, bionics can be intimidating. For the most part, we as a society find attraction not to metal, but to flesh and bone. We appreciate the human body. With bionics becoming so prevalant and so innovative, we will soon enter an age in which we are part machine. Synthetic limbs and exoskeletons will become intertwined with our very being. It's amazing stuff, but it's also frightening just how attached technology is getting-literally. The following video is a TED talk by Hugh Herr and discusses the potential good that bionics and biomedical engineering can accomplish.
Flickr. 19 Mar. 2014, www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/13480667874. Accessed 31
Jan. 2017.
Jan. 2017.