Entry #1, January 21st—
I agree with a number of the statements that Adkins makes. Often science is the best way to explain things and can be applied to anything. Science’s benefits have led to advancements in technology, and developments in a variety of fields. It is true that science does not belong to one race, class, or religion. It is part of human nature to question things and to seek explanations for that we might not understand.
However, I disagree with Adkins’ opinion that science is the only truth, because it is essentially only one side of the human experience. Although science is based in humanity and our abilities to research, question, and experiment, it does not necessarily unite us all as Adkins’ video would have us believe. Science is often most advanced by the wealthy and cannot progress without the resources needed, so in some ways it divides us. Additionally, while science may explain why certain phenomena illicit feelings and emotions, it does not explain the feelings themselves. One cannot fully understand the experience of falling in love or looking up at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel through science. Adkins speaks of science with an enthusiasm that reminds me of a religious fundamentalist, the feeling that all can be explained through one approach and set of beliefs, essentially replacing one ideology with another. However, this theory reduces all things to that which can be proven. Since science is constantly being evaluated and adapted, there will always be truths that need to be examined to be proven. That does not make them any less true.
Entry #2, February 4th—
The Pinker- Wieseltier exchange is very interesting because although their arguments are framed as opposing viewpoints, there are not so far apart. Wieseltier even ends his discussion with the suggestion that the two meet in a café to further discuss their positions. In some ways, Wieseltier seems to have the better argument, but this may simply because he has the “last word” and is allowed to respond to Pinker’s understanding of his arguments.
I do not agree with Pinker’s assertion that science is somehow marginalized. In fact, I would argue the opposite. Our society seems to value most that which can be proven as “truth,” and minimizes that which we feel or experience, some of which can only be described within the context of the humanities. Wieseltier indicates in his argument that there is a separation between science and humanities because they examine different aspects of reality, but they do not necessarily exclude each other. Wieseltier explains that he believes both fields to be important, and that science is not always the best way to examine everything.
Modern day intellectuals seem to rely on science as the ultimate truth and reality. In the same vein, is it not possible for us to consider that some science was once considered blasphemy because humans regarded religious beliefs as the “truth”? Could it be possible that centuries into the future humans will view science in the same way we view the beliefs of ancient civilizations? I would assert that it should not be our position to eliminate any possibility.
Entry #3, February 25th—
Diamond documents the effects of agriculture on human society, and does so mostly by describing the negative effects it has produced. These effects are real, but it seems an overstatement to declare that agriculture is the worst mistake ever made by humans. After all, agriculture has created a more efficient system for food production, allowing us to feed more people with less effort, which it could be argued has allowed for a greater quality of life. On the other hand, the negative effects cannot be ignored. Paleopathology has shown that agriculture had effects on average height, increased mortality, and brought disease, malnutrition, and a lower life expectancy. However, agriculture itself did not create these consequences; they were brought about by the changes in how societies emerged. More densely populated areas and the interaction between societies allowed for diseases to spread more quickly.
Diamond also explains that agriculture created divisions between socioeconomic classes and the sexes. While this is partially true, I am not sure his assessment of these divisions is entirely accurate. In modern day society, areas in which agriculture is concentrated (rural areas) are less densely populated than urban areas. In this case, it would seem that industrialization has created a greater divide. The corporatization of agriculture, allowing us to produce more with less land, money, and resources, may be a better example of our drive towards efficiency, to the detriment of self-sufficiency. It has also created a greater division between socioeconomic classes. Those who own and regulate agricultural corporations are far more powerful than those who produce agricultural labor. In addition, Diamond provides examples of women in some agricultural societies working harder than men. It could be argued that in Westernized agricultural regions, gender roles create the opposite effect, wherein men complete the more physically arduous tasks.
Entry #4, March 10th— Watch the Turkle video. In your journal please make an entry which discusses whether social networking websites [such as Facebook] represent’ real’ community. Has the advance in communication technologies enhanced human relationships?
Social networking websites have certainly made it easier for people to “connect” through messages, but they do not necessarily represent a “real” community. Instead, they allow us to communicate with each other in ways that we can control. We choose how to represent ourselves through what we share in these communities. We decide what pictures to post, what we say, who we say it to, etc. Social networking websites allow us to edit what we present to the world. This seems to have created a society in which we ultimately share less of our “selves” and more of what we would like to be. If we are all portraying false representations of ourselves, how can any of us connect to each other?
The advance in communication technologies has created a decline in real socialization and interaction with others. What we present to others is a very shallow representation of who we are as individuals. We have become more uncomfortable having conversations, particularly those that seem controversial, in person. Instead, people resort to expressing opinions, which may be challenged face-to-face, in the more anonymous online setting. In turn, this allows for less self-reflection and development as we may choose to never read the responses of others who may disagree with us. In some ways this creates a false sense that our opinions are correct. Our increasing reliance on machines to do the work of humans creates the illusion of connectedness, but does not require us to consider the impact our actions would have on a human in the same interaction. The tools created by technology should be used to facilitate real interaction. For example, video conferencing allows us to have real conversations with people all over the world without removing the face-to-face context needed for true understanding of tone and intent.
Entry #5, March 24th— Read the debate between Kurzweil and Bill Joy. In your journal please elaborate on whether you agree with Kurzweil’s assertion that we cannot refrain from technological development (and why!!).
I agree with Kurzweil’s assertion that we cannot refrain from technological development for a number of reasons. Most importantly, a formal end to technological development will not stop it. As with all things in human nature, our tendency is to progress and learn. Technological development will continue in possibly illegal or unsafe ways. Unfortunately, this could result in the production of destructive technology that would not be regulated. The dangers we anticipate could be created by allowing technology to advance naturally would not compare to those we could not anticipate if development was forced “underground.” Criminals could operate without ethical restrictions while the rest of society halted advancement.
This is not to say that regulated technological development does not come with risk. However, it would be the responsibility of humans to address these risks while continuing progress. The example of the computer virus illustrates the need for both components to develop together. We must anticipate solutions to the dangers of development and pursue them with the same level of necessity. By allowing the development of technology, we are also enabling the creation of technology to control the damage it could cause. We could create advancements to increase our abilities to learn and survive. We could improve our quality of life and reduce human suffering. The potential benefits of technology are far too great for us to end its development. Who can say where we would be if we had completely ended the advancement of technology at any time in which we had identified its potential risks?
