Question 3:
Do you agree with Gorlan Lee Bush's criticism of the 'tech-fix'? Can there ever be technological solutions to social problems, or is it always wrong to think that technology will eventually give us the answer. make sure you use examples to support what you say!
I strongly agree with Gorlan Lee Bush’s criticism of the ‘tech-fix’. Gorlan criticized the general belief that technology can be used to solve all types of problems, even social ones. She said instead of looking for long-term stable social, political and cultural solutions, we are looking for an easy way out by depending on the use of technology to solve all problems. She regarded ‘tech-fix’ as a counter productive because there are so many problems, which might be caused by political, social, cultural, and the environment we live in. She said the use of tech only make our life easier, but does not solve the underlying problems.
Gorlan cited the Guerrilla Gears as an example where the New York Times reports that Defense Department spent $38.3 million for tethered blimps equipment with digital camera to spy on guerrillas movement; $30 million for electronic jammers to disrupt their remote-controlled bombs and $70 million to develop and buy what the article called rapid-reaction/new solution technologies etc. Gorlan said these technologies are very important and useful, make the people more efficient in some respect, and make life easier for them. But the problems still remain, and that unless the underlying causes of these problems, which might be social, economy, political etc are taken care of, technology alone cannot solve the problems
She also cited the use of V-Chip to block access to TV programs from kids so that they don’t watch explicit and violent programs. She commended the use of these chips, but said the underlying cause of this problem might be unsupervised children by their parents as a result of other family pressing demands.
Another good example for supporting the criticism of Gorlan, as regard to ‘tech-fix’ is the use of various CCTV camera in use almost everywhere. Even though it helps in identifying and arresting intruders and offenders from time to time, the problem of rapes, house breaking and bank robberies still persist on daily basis. The use of technology alone could not solve the problems. The underlying social, economy and cultural problem is left unattended while we are looking for short time solution. These social problems are just being managed on the surface by the use of technology. While the use of technology is commendable, time-saving, increase efficiency, the belief that technology can be used to solve all problems should be de-emphasized, instead, like Gorlan said, a long-term, stable social, economy, cultural and political solutions to our problems should be formulated.
Do you agree with Gorlan Lee Bush's criticism of the 'tech-fix'? Can there ever be technological solutions to social problems, or is it always wrong to think that technology will eventually give us the answer. make sure you use examples to support what you say!
I strongly agree with Gorlan Lee Bush’s criticism of the ‘tech-fix’. Gorlan criticized the general belief that technology can be used to solve all types of problems, even social ones. She said instead of looking for long-term stable social, political and cultural solutions, we are looking for an easy way out by depending on the use of technology to solve all problems. She regarded ‘tech-fix’ as a counter productive because there are so many problems, which might be caused by political, social, cultural, and the environment we live in. She said the use of tech only make our life easier, but does not solve the underlying problems.
Gorlan cited the Guerrilla Gears as an example where the New York Times reports that Defense Department spent $38.3 million for tethered blimps equipment with digital camera to spy on guerrillas movement; $30 million for electronic jammers to disrupt their remote-controlled bombs and $70 million to develop and buy what the article called rapid-reaction/new solution technologies etc. Gorlan said these technologies are very important and useful, make the people more efficient in some respect, and make life easier for them. But the problems still remain, and that unless the underlying causes of these problems, which might be social, economy, political etc are taken care of, technology alone cannot solve the problems
She also cited the use of V-Chip to block access to TV programs from kids so that they don’t watch explicit and violent programs. She commended the use of these chips, but said the underlying cause of this problem might be unsupervised children by their parents as a result of other family pressing demands.
Another good example for supporting the criticism of Gorlan, as regard to ‘tech-fix’ is the use of various CCTV camera in use almost everywhere. Even though it helps in identifying and arresting intruders and offenders from time to time, the problem of rapes, house breaking and bank robberies still persist on daily basis. The use of technology alone could not solve the problems. The underlying social, economy and cultural problem is left unattended while we are looking for short time solution. These social problems are just being managed on the surface by the use of technology. While the use of technology is commendable, time-saving, increase efficiency, the belief that technology can be used to solve all problems should be de-emphasized, instead, like Gorlan said, a long-term, stable social, economy, cultural and political solutions to our problems should be formulated.
Question #4:
Do you think that, on the whole, technology helps or hinders the goal of gender equality? Or does it perhaps not make any difference? Explain your answer.
It is true, according to Anita Borg that “technology increasingly affects all dimensions, no matter where or how we live. Technology pervades the culture of the developed world, and technology has extra ordinary potentials for improving the human condition.” She said the creator of most of our current technology represents a narrow stratum of the world population- North American males, and that most of the world’s women do not have a voice in the design of technology solution and therefore does not represent their needs or those of their families and communist.
On the whole I think technology does not really helps or hinder the goals of gender equality. I think technology does not really make such a significant difference in terms of gender equality. I think, and I believe that gender equality is a social problem which should be tackled as such; hence Bush said it is wrong to think that equality will follow from technological changes alone, and that addressing social problems from a purely technological perspective will fail us to get to the root cause of those problems.
Technology has decreased hardships and sufferings while raising the standards of health, living and literacy throughout the industrial world, but not without problems, according to (Mesthene 1970. p.26) ‘technology is neither wholly good nor wholly bad. It has both positive and negative effects, and usually has the two at the same time and in virtue of each other.” Every innovation has both positive and negative consequences that pulse through the social fabric.
Gender equality has been an issue from Adam. So technology is also an equity issue because it has everything to do with who benefits and who suffers, whose opportunities increase and whose decrease, who creates and who accommodates. So Bush is saying that to understand the impact of a technology on women and society, we must understand the effects it has in a number of different contexts, amongst which are the design or developmental context; the use context; the environmental context; and the cultural context. She discussed the decisions, materials, personnel, processes and systems necessary to create tools and techniques from raw maters. The motivations, intentions, advantages and adjustments by the use of particular techniques or tools; the effects of a technology on its surroundings; and the norms, values, aspirations, laws, morals, ideas and interactions of the society of which the tool or technique is a part.
Like Bush says, a feminist unthinking of technology should strive for holistic understanding of the contexts in which it operates, and assessment of technology must recognize it as an equity issue, therefore the challenge is to ‘transform society in order to make technology equitable and to transform technology in order to make society equitable’
Do you think that, on the whole, technology helps or hinders the goal of gender equality? Or does it perhaps not make any difference? Explain your answer.
It is true, according to Anita Borg that “technology increasingly affects all dimensions, no matter where or how we live. Technology pervades the culture of the developed world, and technology has extra ordinary potentials for improving the human condition.” She said the creator of most of our current technology represents a narrow stratum of the world population- North American males, and that most of the world’s women do not have a voice in the design of technology solution and therefore does not represent their needs or those of their families and communist.
On the whole I think technology does not really helps or hinder the goals of gender equality. I think technology does not really make such a significant difference in terms of gender equality. I think, and I believe that gender equality is a social problem which should be tackled as such; hence Bush said it is wrong to think that equality will follow from technological changes alone, and that addressing social problems from a purely technological perspective will fail us to get to the root cause of those problems.
Technology has decreased hardships and sufferings while raising the standards of health, living and literacy throughout the industrial world, but not without problems, according to (Mesthene 1970. p.26) ‘technology is neither wholly good nor wholly bad. It has both positive and negative effects, and usually has the two at the same time and in virtue of each other.” Every innovation has both positive and negative consequences that pulse through the social fabric.
Gender equality has been an issue from Adam. So technology is also an equity issue because it has everything to do with who benefits and who suffers, whose opportunities increase and whose decrease, who creates and who accommodates. So Bush is saying that to understand the impact of a technology on women and society, we must understand the effects it has in a number of different contexts, amongst which are the design or developmental context; the use context; the environmental context; and the cultural context. She discussed the decisions, materials, personnel, processes and systems necessary to create tools and techniques from raw maters. The motivations, intentions, advantages and adjustments by the use of particular techniques or tools; the effects of a technology on its surroundings; and the norms, values, aspirations, laws, morals, ideas and interactions of the society of which the tool or technique is a part.
Like Bush says, a feminist unthinking of technology should strive for holistic understanding of the contexts in which it operates, and assessment of technology must recognize it as an equity issue, therefore the challenge is to ‘transform society in order to make technology equitable and to transform technology in order to make society equitable’
1 comment:
You mention some good examples here in support of your argument.I think you're right that the idea of a tech-fix often leads us down a fruitless path.
Post a Comment