Postman, Chapters 1-3 Discussion

Is the judgment of Thamus rational? Can we predict cost and benefit of technology?

In this writing by Plato, King Thamus exhibits a level of caution and sobriety that is a characterization of many great leaders, and is often mistaken for pessimism and narrow-mindedness. However, in the mind of Thamus, he truly felt that is judgment was a rational decision at the time, and focused primarily on the cost of technology in this instance. As rational-thinking humans, though, we almost have to look at writing as a technology that was definitely a necessity, and although Thamus felt that writing would cause an entire generation of people to become ignorant and absent-minded, he did not take into account the firsthand depictions of historical happenings and legends that could be recorded through the writing process, and how inter-personal communication would become more efficient.

To predict all of the costs and benefits of technology is to become the most accurate and successful psychic in history! Overwhelmingly when creating new technologies, the benefits are the only aspect that is viewed seriously, and this is often as a selling point to end users and potential benefactors. The cost of technology is often more difficult to calculate and definitely less heard by humans. Human nature causes us to continuously move forward and learn on new levels, and technology is often the means that we use to get to those levels. So, if the question is can we predict all costs and benefits of technology, the answer is “No.” However, if the question is can we predict some of the costs and benefits of technology, the answer is “Absolutely!” Every decision that we make has costs and benefits when you think about it, and being able to predict these is not possible, or we would have a world where no one made a mistake, and obviously that will never be the case.

Do you agree with what Postman says about the rise of technocracy? Does it really divorce faith and intellect?

Postman postulates in his book that culture can be classified into three types: tool-using cultures, technocracies, and technopolies (Postman, 1992), therefore we can say that technocracies arise from tool-using cultures. In his book, Postman gives a brief history of the evolution of the United States from the tool-using culture that we once were in Europe, to our migration across the Atlantic to become a technocracy, obviously before our current state of technopoly. The reading implicates that great thinkers and inventors such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton knew that their inventions would bring about a change in the culture of man, and did so while keeping their faith in God, and belief that their inventions or technologies were inherently good and would contribute to the success of man.

It is true that in tool-using cultures a faith in God was central to everything that was invented, created, and utilized, which gave purpose to the lives of man, and still does. However, somewhere in the midst of the change from tool-using to technopoly, our culture decided that the worlds of science and technology were not compatible with the theology that had proved to be the life-force for centuries. Kepler, a man of God, called for this separation of moral values and intellect around the year 1600 that is one of the characteristics of technocracies. This belief blossomed over the next 400 years to become what we have today, and that is an idea of total separation of church and state, which isn’t exactly the same argument, but one that definitely was an offshoot of Kepler’s original argument.

Insofar as the argument that exists that intellect is exclusive to science and technology, and those who are religious are dependent upon a “myth,” I completely disagree. One would assume that with the message of open-mindedness that technology and science claim to support, there would be a place for theologians and provide a sect of science and technology in which to prove the beliefs that those who choose to believe in a higher power. But, I believe the people have the inherent tendency to feel the need to be part of the “next big thing,” and whatever is “cosmopolitan,” at the time. As the author Johnny Rzeznik states, “I'm not really a technophile. But it's just nice to be asked to be involved in something that's new and cutting edge.” Therefore, I feel that Postman is correct that technocracy does divorce faith and intellect, but it is a fallacy and has only occurred because culture has allowed it to, when in truth most people do believe in a higher power, but are too fearful of the idiom that accompanies someone of faith. Even those men mentioned earlier, as well as Francis Bacon, referred to as the first man of the technocratic age, were devoutly religious men who I feel asked for respect for technology, and did not necessarily mean for religion to be cast to the wayside in its wake.

How do you see technopoly? Is it inevitable? Does it subjugate culture?

From the reading, Postman describes a technopoly as a crude sort of capitalism in which all humanity is tossed aside for the promotion of machines, technology, and science. It evolves from technocracies when the tool-using culture that was hanging on by a thread in the technocracy culture completely fades away and the technocracy gives way to a world of unending greed and disregard for those who pay the price of that greed. Postman says that the beginning of the technopoly in America began in the early twentieth century when the age of inventions was at its peak, and the culture of the United States shifted to an appreciation and envy for wealth and all that it could obtain.

A technopoly is inevitable if culture is not carefully “controlled” by leaders and followers. However, as history has proven no group of humans can and will be controlled forever, and will eventually break free from whatever hold that may be impressed upon them. Since the United States is the only Technopoly thus far, with fair arguments made that Japan and some Western European countries following closely behind, it is hard to know if this evolution is inevitable, as it seems that it has never been discouraged or the cost of technology fully calculated. Technology can subjugate culture in every way, and given the opportunity, can control and fester inside a population until no other currency is valued unless it encompasses technology and science. When we examine the United States and the culture at present, we can definitely see the effects of technopoly on our culture, and make a case against the advancement of technology and industry, as we are experiencing the effects of a technopoly.

There are many positives that technology has provided, mainly noticeable in the healthcare industry, as well as education, manufacturing, and transportation, but as Postman asks the question, at what price? We are living longer, but cannot afford it. We are making education available for everyone, but how does one excel or stand out among a sea of degrees being awarded? We are more productive and efficient than ever before, but machines now replace humans. We can travel anywhere in the world relatively easily, however, the price and scarcity of fuel is becoming an ever important issue.

It seems that with an open mind, and the willingness to see both sides of everything, we could become a stronger culture, and more equipped to deal with the rise of technopolies and the problems they may cause. However, as illustrated and open mind is often not found in those that are staunch technophiles or technophobes, religious or agnostic, and this is all too often what causes so many social and cultural problems that plague our world today.

In response to the comments: (I'm still trying to figure out how to respond to comments....)
In today's time, I do feel like education is available to everyone. I realize that the lack of a high school diploma and drop-out rates are crippling in some areas, but I felt that education for everyone was a myth until I taught at a for-profit college last year, and here's what I learned.
With our government's push for a socialistic society of everyone graduating high school and college is for everyone, blah, blah, blah, I saw a horror that is being perpretrated by our federal government on a daily basis. Basically, the federal student loan system is targeting students who are not equipped and have no intent to earn a college degree by offering them "free" money to attend college. This is a vicious cycle as these ill-educated students who do not understand finance, and have NO intention of paying back student loans, are borrowing a tremendous amount of money at least three times per year from the direct loan program promoted by our government. The for-profit colleges who have extremely high tuition rates and offer degrees and certificates that are essentially worthless in the grand scheme of things are making money hand over fist in this robbery of tax dollars. (I realize this is only one of many ways taxpayers are being robbed, but I saw this firsthand). The only way students have to qualify for these loans is that they are breathing and can sign their name. They attend class for two weeks, then get their thousands of dollars in refund checks and you never see them again. Needless to say, I did not work there for long, as I honestly had trouble sleeping at night knowing what was happening to these students, and to us as taxpayers knowing that we will never have that money repaid.

Education is VERY important, but not everyone needs the same type of education. For example, my husband is a farmer, and is excellent at his job. However, he did not need to go to college, as everyone would have us believe, and he chose not to attend college because he knew it was a waste of his time because he did not like school and had no intention of pursuing a career that required a college degree at any time in his life. I think we need to stop with the view that all students need to explore all career fields, and look at the model of education practiced in Germany, where students are tested and interviewed according to interests and aptitudes, and send them on a path that will give them a greater chance of success than pushing them through so many unnecessary courses that we do now. I agree it makes for a more well-rounded individual, and I am currently pursuing my doctoral degree, but that works for ME, and I've known that for a long time I would go this route, but we need to start listening to students who know what they want to pursue, and help them specialize their education. Obviously, we have a lot of issues in our country, but education is probably one of the most poorly organized and most ridiculous organizations that has ever been promoted by our government and supported by citizens.

Okay, I'm stepping down from the soapbox....LOL