Aleishia Bradac
English 102
Research Analysis Essay
I was eighteen when I shot my first gun. I was over at my friend, Katie’s house and her dad had a target set up in the backyard and was shooting at it. I was watching him shoot the gun and Katie asked me if I had ever shot a gun before. I told her no I haven’t, so she asked if I wanted to. I thought, why not, I like to think of myself as the kind of person who will try (almost) anything once. Her dad showed me how to hold the gun, and let me fire away. Surprisingly I had a pretty good aim. That was the first and last time I shot a gun. I have never been pro-gun or really dead set against them either. They were just sort of there. My family is very involved in the navy and the marines. My grandfather was in WWII, two of my uncles were in Vietnam, another two uncles and my father were in the Gulf War. My mom’s boyfriend is pretty big into hunting. So all my life I have been surrounded by guns. There have always been guns in my home, though I have not always been aware of it. I never really realized how pro-gun my family was until this past year, the thought just never occurred to me. As I mentioned in my Research Paper, my mom voted for McCain over Obama because of one issue: gun control. That phone conversation really opened up my eyes. I had never paid attention to my family’s obsession with guns; I wasn’t interested so I just kind of ignored it all. Honestly, the fact that my mother chose McCain over Obama for one reason kind of annoyed me. I found myself being disappointed in her and not really understanding why this one issue of gun control could be so important. Since when were guns THAT important? I didn’t feel this way, but it seemed like most of my family did. After that conversation, I never really brought up the subject again. I was still disappointed but did not want to have a meaningless fight over it. This was until I read Technology Matters by David Nye. In my blog I wrote:
Just a thought: On page 167 of Technology Matters, David Nye poses the question, "Do weapons make people safer?" He goes on to talk about owning guns, he says that in countries where you cannot own a gun homicide and accident rates are much lower than in the United States. He really brings it home with, "In states with more guns, more children are dying." This got me thinking, why are we allowed to own guns? Why is it in the Constitution that the second amendment is the right to bear arms? What were our Founding Fathers thinking? Did they foresee this becoming such a problem? Now I understand that there are people who hunt and all that jazz but still this is a huge problem. Too many people die because of guns, or is it just the people that use them, not the guns? If so do you think that if we outlawed guns, we would see more people killing with knives or some other sort of weapon or do you think that we would see homicides and accident rates decrease?
After I read that passage in Technology Matters, I began thinking about the conversation with my mother again and how it really bothered me. I just didn’t understand how people could be so pro-gun when the statistics are not at all positive. So instead of arguing with my mother over her beliefs, I decided that it would be the focus of my Research Paper. In a way, it’s a sort of argument and lets me put my views out there, without causing any unnecessary family drama over guns.
It started as a research about how technology makes us safer or how we believe that it makes us safer. But the main question was, does technology really make us safer? So with the gun, people own them to use as protection for their families. They believe that owning a gun makes them safer. So then I thought why is this? Why do we believe that owning a gun makes us safer even when all of the facts say otherwise? Yet you still have people who are pro-gun and really do believe that it is essential to own a gun. What makes them think this way?
The first draft of this Research Paper ended up being horrible. I’m not going to lie, it was dreadful. I believe my teacher said it was “like a safety commercial.” I was focusing on how guns are unsafe and really it was just me throwing a bunch of facts in there. I was a bit too anti-gun. I knew that my paper was in need of some major help but I was lost. We then had our first conferences, which was like a breath of fresh air. My teacher didn’t understand why I didn’t use papers. This was because I thought my discussion was too broad and I was worried that I wouldn’t be able to narrow it down enough. She and my peers then asked me questions and gave suggestions. They were interested in the gun aspect of my paper and suggested I look at it from a different angle. I then thought about what I had written in my blog previously. “Why is it in the Constitution that the second amendment is the right to bear arms? What were our Founding Fathers thinking?....Too many people die because of guns, or is it just the people that use them, not the guns?” These questions lead to other questions like: What was the view of our Founding Fathers? How do others who are pro-gun view the world? Do they feel in control when they own a gun? How does owning a gun control their perspective?
After asking all of these questions I felt much more confident about my research. This idea of the gun controlling a person’s perspective fit perfectly in with my previous essay about the different ways technology has control over us. The paper turned from a question of safety to a question of why we believe the gun makes us safer. Why this technology has control over our perspectives.
For the beginning of my Research Paper I have a general discussion of the control and technology debate. I did this because I thought it would be beneficial to the reader to understand what is being said about this debate. I referenced the three texts that we focused on in class: The Human Factor by Kim Vicente, Cat’s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut and Technology Matters by David Nye. As a class we started with The Human Factor. As I began reading Vicente I started to have my own ideas of what he was saying. I wrote in the margins, “Technology can overpower us. We can lose the control. We may not fully understand what it’s capable of. Sometimes it can turn on you without you realizing. What happens when we lose all control? What can we do to gain back control?”These were the first questions I began asking in class and it showed up in all of my assignments. So when I went to write my blogs, I looked back on my notes from reading it the first time. In the essay, the Human Factor was what stood out to me the most and I began to think about it in every way possible. I thought that it had many different ways of showing itself, which I began to explore in my Research Paper. Then we read Cat’s Cradle and I could just see all these different ways the Human Factor came in to play with the characters. I especially was interested in Dr. Hoenikker and his “science smarts” and his “social stupidity.” Then I thought about how Vicente talked about control and I was thinking that some of the characters in Cat’s Cradle had completely lost control of their lives; which made it all connect for me.
NOTE: I feel like there should be more, but I’m not sure what to elaborate on. Should I be quoting my Research Paper and then be explaining things?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A False Sense of Security in the American Home (Assign 7)
False Sense of Security in the American Home
It’s 5am and your alarm clock is going off. You get up shower, blow-dry your hair, get dressed and you are off to work. You work hard all day at your job. Come the end of the work day, you are ready to go home, have dinner and spend time with your family, so you get in your car and are on your way. You get home, walk in the house and you have a sense of security and comfortableness. You flip on the lights all around the house to brighten the place up and make it look homier. The kids are home and doing their homework. Meanwhile, you are in the kitchen cooking dinner, finally it’s time to eat, afterwards everyone watches a movie and then it’s off to bed. The nightlights are plugged in and the handgun is in your nightstand ready to be used if someone gets through the alarm system; you drift peacefully to sleep, feeling comfortable, safe and secure in your bed. Various electrical devices and handguns have been used to keep the American family safe for years. But what happens when these technologies that we all have become so accustomed to, fail us? What happens when they no longer keep us safe, but put us in danger? These questions have led me to the bigger picture: Is there a false sense of security in the American home due to advances in technology?
The light bulb is one of the most common technologies of all time. It was invented in the 1800’s by Thomas Edison, since then it has grown in popularity and now everyone has them in their homes. I just walked through my 3 bedroom upper of a house that I rent and counted 47 light bulbs. American’s rely on light bulbs to give us light when it is dark, we do not perceive them as a dangerous technology, but they are, “According to the National Fire Protection Association, lamps, light fixtures, and light bulbs (28%) and fixed wiring (22%) accounted for the largest share of fires among major types of electrical distribution equipment” (www.nfpa.org). They are the leading cause in fires in homes, yet we still perceive them as keeping us safe. For example, when you were a child you were most likely afraid of the dark and had to sleep with a night light. You were afraid of the monsters that came out in the dark and believed that the light kept them at bay. The American culture sees light as safety, when in reality it can be very dangerous. Instead of a scary, hairy monster, you may experience a fire monster! But really this is nothing to joke about. According to the NFPA “each year fires that start in electrical systems or lighting equipment damage more than 24,000 homes, kill 320 people and injure 830 plus.” Americans see light and the light bulb as something that keeps us safe in our homes and lights the way for us in the dark. Most of us could not imagine life without the light bulb. Does the light bulb give us a false sense of security in our homes? We have so many in our homes that we use every day and we use them without thought. We have become so accustomed to light bulbs that it is just second nature to us. We never stop to think about the dangers that they can cause. Every time you flip the lights on, you are not afraid of a fire to start. Should we be? Should be afraid and more cautious? I honestly do not think that everyone should stop and think about this every time that they turn on a light, but I do think that Americans should be aware of the dangers. Light bulb and light fixture companies should take charge and promote this light bulb safety awareness, instead of just letting the National Fire Protection Association and others like it deal with it. They should make people aware of the dangers and how to prevent them. The county of Santa Clara has a whole section of their website devoted to this cause. They advise homeowners to make sure they do not overload electrical sockets, replace cracked or damages light fixtures and electrical cords. Light bulbs are not the only thing that we need to keep our eyes on. We have so many different electrical appliances that could cause harm to our home or worse our family. According to the Energy Information Association, the official energy statistics from the U.S. Government, “In 2007, the average monthly residential electricity consumption was 936 kilowatthours (kWh)” and” Appliances account for 64.7% of electricity consumption in the average American household (2001). Refrigerators consumed the most electricity (14%), followed by lighting (9%)” (www.eia.doe.gov). The average American home uses a large amount of electricity and most of that is in appliances. Lighting only accounts for 9% of the 64.7%, which leaves 55.7% for the rest of the appliances we use. Like the county of Santa Clara says, make sure you do not plug in many appliances into one electrical socket. American’s use a lot of electricity and thus have become so dependent on it. We are accustomed to having our nightlights, our refrigerators, alarm systems, vacuums, microwaves, televisions and other various electrical appliances. I do not think that most people realize how much electricity they use or how many appliances they have plugged in at once. American’s like things done fast and don’t usually stop to think about the consequences. For example, my first roommate was always in a rush, she would get up late hurry to get ready and run out the door for class or work. She was always leaving her hair straightener plugged in and on. I learned to always check if it was on before I left for class, so she would not burn the place down. One weekend I went to go visit some friends in Madison, on Sunday when I got back I found out that there was a fire in our apartment! My roommate had left her hair straightner on and it had caught some nearby papers on fire. Luckily she was home at the time, so nothing was really damaged but it could have been really bad if she had left. Ever since then, she has always remember to turn off and even unplug her straightner after every use. She was never bothered with thinking about the consequences until she had to, and now she has learned from it. This is just one example of how you have to be careful with electrical appliances. They may make you feel safer or make your life seem easier, but they can put you and your belongings in danger if not used correctly. And sometimes even when they are used correctly things go wrong, but that’s just life.
Back in the day we didn’t have guns. We protected our loved ones through other ways. But since the invention of guns we have come to use them more for safety. In our Constitution the 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms. From the beginning of our country’s history, guns have been inseparable from the American culture. According to Douglas J. Wiebe Ph. D. who is a Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics Senior Fellow, “One in three U.S. households contains at least one firearm” and “there were roughly 200 million firearms in private hands in the U.S. – almost one for every American adult” (LDI Issue Brief). Many Americans own handguns and keep them in their homes, they say they have them to protect their families and keep them safe, but are they doing the job? In Technology Matter, the author David Nye says that, “In 1998, 31,708 Americans died from gunshots. Of these 17,424 were suicides. More than 1,000 of the deaths were due to accidents. Americans also used guns to murder 12, 102 people, many of them in domestic disputes. Roughly two-thirds of all gun-related deaths were self-inflicted accidents, suicides, or murders within the circle of family and friends. Guns purchased as protection against criminals or intruders all too often killed the people they were expected to protect” (p. 167). I do not think they are doing their job of keeping people safe from criminals and intruders. Instead they are causing alarming death rates because of accidents or arguments that got out of hand. Suicide rates are higher in homes that have guns. According to Douglas J. Wiebe’s study “Guns were the most common method of suicide, accounting for the deaths of 68% of male victims and 42% of female victims. The most commonly used type of firearm was a handgun. Most victims were at home when they committed suicide, and most used a gun that matched a type of gun in their home.” Also from this study, Wiebe claims that people with a gun in their home are 3.4 more times likely to commit suicide than people without guns in their home. I am not saying that guns are the cause of suicide but if someone is thinking about it and on the edge, they may do something rash and a gun in their home could be the weapon of choice. Not only is gun-related suicide higher in homes with guns but accidental deaths and injuries are much higher in homes with guns too. I knew this kid in high school, Chris, he came on the bus one day with his face all bruised and gross, turns out his little brother accidentally shot him in the face above the eye with a BB gun. The little BB was still under his skin, he could have had his eye shot out, but he was lucky. His little brother was not even allowed to be using that gun, but he said he was just playing with it. Accidents like that happen all the time, and lucky for my friend Chris, it was just a BB gun. It could have been much worse. According to Wiebe, “Persons living in a home where a gun was present were 3.7 times more likely to die from an unintentional gunshot wound than persons with no gun in the home.” So people go to the store and buy these guns thinking that they will help to keep their family safe but in reality they are doing the opposite. These guns are putting your family in danger; the risks get higher when there is a gun in the home. I know that the facts are out there and this has been a debate that has been going on for years, but the deaths keep racking up. The gun was a technology that was slow to take up, but once it replaced other methods it became very popular. Now most American families have them to protect their families but in reality they are what you should be protecting your family against.
Every technology has a good side and a bad side. With every advantage comes another disadvantage. This is just how things work. With the light bulb and other electrical devices you get light, an alarm system, or an easier way of doing things but the cost could be a fire, a ruined home, dead loved ones. Then you have the gun in your home that you say protects your family, and maybe sometimes it does but you also have a higher risk of suicide and accidental death and/or injury. How many disadvantages are we willing to overlook for an advantage? Do we use our electricity and have our hand guns in our nightstand and feel safe? Yes, most of us do. We do not think of the disadvantages, we don’t stop and think about the consequences of our actions or our possessions. Sometimes the American culture can be so one-sided, focusing on one aspect. We need to stop and think things through; we need to realize that with good comes bad. We need to be ready to face the bad.
It’s 5am and your alarm clock is going off. You get up shower, blow-dry your hair, get dressed and you are off to work. You work hard all day at your job. Come the end of the work day, you are ready to go home, have dinner and spend time with your family, so you get in your car and are on your way. You get home, walk in the house and you have a sense of security and comfortableness. You flip on the lights all around the house to brighten the place up and make it look homier. The kids are home and doing their homework. Meanwhile, you are in the kitchen cooking dinner, finally it’s time to eat, afterwards everyone watches a movie and then it’s off to bed. The nightlights are plugged in and the handgun is in your nightstand ready to be used if someone gets through the alarm system; you drift peacefully to sleep, feeling comfortable, safe and secure in your bed. Various electrical devices and handguns have been used to keep the American family safe for years. But what happens when these technologies that we all have become so accustomed to, fail us? What happens when they no longer keep us safe, but put us in danger? These questions have led me to the bigger picture: Is there a false sense of security in the American home due to advances in technology?
The light bulb is one of the most common technologies of all time. It was invented in the 1800’s by Thomas Edison, since then it has grown in popularity and now everyone has them in their homes. I just walked through my 3 bedroom upper of a house that I rent and counted 47 light bulbs. American’s rely on light bulbs to give us light when it is dark, we do not perceive them as a dangerous technology, but they are, “According to the National Fire Protection Association, lamps, light fixtures, and light bulbs (28%) and fixed wiring (22%) accounted for the largest share of fires among major types of electrical distribution equipment” (www.nfpa.org). They are the leading cause in fires in homes, yet we still perceive them as keeping us safe. For example, when you were a child you were most likely afraid of the dark and had to sleep with a night light. You were afraid of the monsters that came out in the dark and believed that the light kept them at bay. The American culture sees light as safety, when in reality it can be very dangerous. Instead of a scary, hairy monster, you may experience a fire monster! But really this is nothing to joke about. According to the NFPA “each year fires that start in electrical systems or lighting equipment damage more than 24,000 homes, kill 320 people and injure 830 plus.” Americans see light and the light bulb as something that keeps us safe in our homes and lights the way for us in the dark. Most of us could not imagine life without the light bulb. Does the light bulb give us a false sense of security in our homes? We have so many in our homes that we use every day and we use them without thought. We have become so accustomed to light bulbs that it is just second nature to us. We never stop to think about the dangers that they can cause. Every time you flip the lights on, you are not afraid of a fire to start. Should we be? Should be afraid and more cautious? I honestly do not think that everyone should stop and think about this every time that they turn on a light, but I do think that Americans should be aware of the dangers. Light bulb and light fixture companies should take charge and promote this light bulb safety awareness, instead of just letting the National Fire Protection Association and others like it deal with it. They should make people aware of the dangers and how to prevent them. The county of Santa Clara has a whole section of their website devoted to this cause. They advise homeowners to make sure they do not overload electrical sockets, replace cracked or damages light fixtures and electrical cords. Light bulbs are not the only thing that we need to keep our eyes on. We have so many different electrical appliances that could cause harm to our home or worse our family. According to the Energy Information Association, the official energy statistics from the U.S. Government, “In 2007, the average monthly residential electricity consumption was 936 kilowatthours (kWh)” and” Appliances account for 64.7% of electricity consumption in the average American household (2001). Refrigerators consumed the most electricity (14%), followed by lighting (9%)” (www.eia.doe.gov). The average American home uses a large amount of electricity and most of that is in appliances. Lighting only accounts for 9% of the 64.7%, which leaves 55.7% for the rest of the appliances we use. Like the county of Santa Clara says, make sure you do not plug in many appliances into one electrical socket. American’s use a lot of electricity and thus have become so dependent on it. We are accustomed to having our nightlights, our refrigerators, alarm systems, vacuums, microwaves, televisions and other various electrical appliances. I do not think that most people realize how much electricity they use or how many appliances they have plugged in at once. American’s like things done fast and don’t usually stop to think about the consequences. For example, my first roommate was always in a rush, she would get up late hurry to get ready and run out the door for class or work. She was always leaving her hair straightener plugged in and on. I learned to always check if it was on before I left for class, so she would not burn the place down. One weekend I went to go visit some friends in Madison, on Sunday when I got back I found out that there was a fire in our apartment! My roommate had left her hair straightner on and it had caught some nearby papers on fire. Luckily she was home at the time, so nothing was really damaged but it could have been really bad if she had left. Ever since then, she has always remember to turn off and even unplug her straightner after every use. She was never bothered with thinking about the consequences until she had to, and now she has learned from it. This is just one example of how you have to be careful with electrical appliances. They may make you feel safer or make your life seem easier, but they can put you and your belongings in danger if not used correctly. And sometimes even when they are used correctly things go wrong, but that’s just life.
Back in the day we didn’t have guns. We protected our loved ones through other ways. But since the invention of guns we have come to use them more for safety. In our Constitution the 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms. From the beginning of our country’s history, guns have been inseparable from the American culture. According to Douglas J. Wiebe Ph. D. who is a Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics Senior Fellow, “One in three U.S. households contains at least one firearm” and “there were roughly 200 million firearms in private hands in the U.S. – almost one for every American adult” (LDI Issue Brief). Many Americans own handguns and keep them in their homes, they say they have them to protect their families and keep them safe, but are they doing the job? In Technology Matter, the author David Nye says that, “In 1998, 31,708 Americans died from gunshots. Of these 17,424 were suicides. More than 1,000 of the deaths were due to accidents. Americans also used guns to murder 12, 102 people, many of them in domestic disputes. Roughly two-thirds of all gun-related deaths were self-inflicted accidents, suicides, or murders within the circle of family and friends. Guns purchased as protection against criminals or intruders all too often killed the people they were expected to protect” (p. 167). I do not think they are doing their job of keeping people safe from criminals and intruders. Instead they are causing alarming death rates because of accidents or arguments that got out of hand. Suicide rates are higher in homes that have guns. According to Douglas J. Wiebe’s study “Guns were the most common method of suicide, accounting for the deaths of 68% of male victims and 42% of female victims. The most commonly used type of firearm was a handgun. Most victims were at home when they committed suicide, and most used a gun that matched a type of gun in their home.” Also from this study, Wiebe claims that people with a gun in their home are 3.4 more times likely to commit suicide than people without guns in their home. I am not saying that guns are the cause of suicide but if someone is thinking about it and on the edge, they may do something rash and a gun in their home could be the weapon of choice. Not only is gun-related suicide higher in homes with guns but accidental deaths and injuries are much higher in homes with guns too. I knew this kid in high school, Chris, he came on the bus one day with his face all bruised and gross, turns out his little brother accidentally shot him in the face above the eye with a BB gun. The little BB was still under his skin, he could have had his eye shot out, but he was lucky. His little brother was not even allowed to be using that gun, but he said he was just playing with it. Accidents like that happen all the time, and lucky for my friend Chris, it was just a BB gun. It could have been much worse. According to Wiebe, “Persons living in a home where a gun was present were 3.7 times more likely to die from an unintentional gunshot wound than persons with no gun in the home.” So people go to the store and buy these guns thinking that they will help to keep their family safe but in reality they are doing the opposite. These guns are putting your family in danger; the risks get higher when there is a gun in the home. I know that the facts are out there and this has been a debate that has been going on for years, but the deaths keep racking up. The gun was a technology that was slow to take up, but once it replaced other methods it became very popular. Now most American families have them to protect their families but in reality they are what you should be protecting your family against.
Every technology has a good side and a bad side. With every advantage comes another disadvantage. This is just how things work. With the light bulb and other electrical devices you get light, an alarm system, or an easier way of doing things but the cost could be a fire, a ruined home, dead loved ones. Then you have the gun in your home that you say protects your family, and maybe sometimes it does but you also have a higher risk of suicide and accidental death and/or injury. How many disadvantages are we willing to overlook for an advantage? Do we use our electricity and have our hand guns in our nightstand and feel safe? Yes, most of us do. We do not think of the disadvantages, we don’t stop and think about the consequences of our actions or our possessions. Sometimes the American culture can be so one-sided, focusing on one aspect. We need to stop and think things through; we need to realize that with good comes bad. We need to be ready to face the bad.
Monday, March 23, 2009
blog #7
To fulfill this assignment, you had to start off by rereading Nye's passages that the source is embedded in. You have to gain a feel for what he is trying to convey. Then you have to think about how he used his source, was he agreeing with it or was he not? Was he just using it as an example? There are many different reasons to use a source. Then you have to read the source itself. Instead of just reading it flat out like I normally would, I tried to read it through Nye's perspective. This way I feel I better understood what Nye was thinking when he used this source. Then I would reread the source in my own perspective and compare the two. I tried to be very unbiased so that my account was accurate. I think the main thing here is to be able to separate the different perspectives.
The online peer editing was great. I think the most useful comments are ones who just keep asking you question after question because then it helps your mind get on the same page as theirs. It also helps your flow of thought. It doesnt really help when someone says "oh i love your intro but you need to work on the body." Though its nice to hear the good things about your paper, I think the questions and even constructive criticsms are more important.
From the sources that Nye used that I had encountered I think he used them pretty fairly. But I do think that he mostly chose sources that also agreed with him. So I think that he may be kind of biased, but he didn't seem to manipulate the sources. I think it would have been interesting if he included sources that disagreed with him. I think that I may have the same problem as Nye, using sources that I agree with. Because its fun to read something and be like "wow, they are saying just what I am saying!" It kind of excites you and makes you want to read more and even gives you more thoughts of your own to expand on. Whereas when you are reading an opposing view, your bias comes into play and you just want to argue and sometimes thats not fun anymore.
The online peer editing was great. I think the most useful comments are ones who just keep asking you question after question because then it helps your mind get on the same page as theirs. It also helps your flow of thought. It doesnt really help when someone says "oh i love your intro but you need to work on the body." Though its nice to hear the good things about your paper, I think the questions and even constructive criticsms are more important.
From the sources that Nye used that I had encountered I think he used them pretty fairly. But I do think that he mostly chose sources that also agreed with him. So I think that he may be kind of biased, but he didn't seem to manipulate the sources. I think it would have been interesting if he included sources that disagreed with him. I think that I may have the same problem as Nye, using sources that I agree with. Because its fun to read something and be like "wow, they are saying just what I am saying!" It kind of excites you and makes you want to read more and even gives you more thoughts of your own to expand on. Whereas when you are reading an opposing view, your bias comes into play and you just want to argue and sometimes thats not fun anymore.
Friday, March 13, 2009
A Look at Sources (Assign 5)
In Technology Matters, David Nye discusses tool use and humans. He says that tool use is not unique to humans, but intelligent apes use tools too. Nye says, “Technologies are not foreign to “human nature” but inseparable from it” (Technology Matters, p. 2). We have evolved to use tools. We have opposable thumbs which give us a precision grasp, which helps us grasp tools. Nye believes that technology is not for basic needs but for social reasons. In chapter one Nye uses Beniger’s The Control Revolution as a source. In Beniger’s book he shows that he believes technology is any extension of a natural process. He uses the example of human breathing underwater as a technology. He argues the human brain is a technology because it probably developed because of the interaction with tools (The Control Revolution, p. 9). In the Notes section of Nye’s book he writes, “2. I will not try to make this argument, but some scholars contend that the brain developed in interaction with tool use and therefore should be considered a human technology. See e.g. Beniger 1986, p. 9”. Nye clearly states that he will not make this same argument that Beniger does. I think Nye decided to leave this part out because he doesn’t completely agree with it. I think Nye uses this passage because of Beniger’s definition of technology and agrees with parts of it. Beniger talking about human abilities as technology probably made Nye think of evolution and our opposable thumbs. I don’t think that Nye completely agrees with Beniger but used his work because it gave him ideas that he probably didn’t have before reading Benigers work. However, Nye does touch base on the brain developing and having an enlarged human cortex. I think Nye’s discussion could have included Beniger’s idea of human technologies even if he doesn’t agree with it. I think here that some of the stakeholders would be the scientific community but not all of them because some do not agree with what Nye is saying. They are left out because he doesn’t include the brain as a technology.
In chapter nine of Technology Matters, David Nye talks about how we use technology to protect us. We have made many improvements and have kept people and cities safer. Our whole world, for the most part, relies on these technologies to keep us safe. For example, at night we sleep comfortably in our beds knowing that the alarm system will go off if there is an intruder. What happens if something came unplugged and the alarm system was off without you realizing, you are then vulnerable without you even knowing it. Sometimes technology fails us. Nye says that nowadays when something goes wrong it is no longer thought of as an act of God but because of technology and the people running it. The more advanced it is the more catastrophic it can be, a chain reaction can happen (Technology Matters, p. 161-162). In this chapter Nye uses an example form Chiles book entitled Inviting Disasters. Chiles believes that we are too focused on technology, he says, “We have been hard at work for more than two centuries now, building a world out of cold iron that is very far from our ancient instincts and traditions, and becoming more so” (Inviting Disasters, p. 2). We are so focuses on technology that sometimes we don’t see the bigger picture. All of these technologies have high consequences. We rely on technology too much when it can be faulty, Chiles writes, “A lot of us are offering our lives these days to machines and their operators, about which we know very little except that occasionally things go shockingly wrong” (Inviting Disasters, p. 6). We don’t have the knowledge but we go along with it anyways and put our lives in technologies hands, thus giving technology the control. I think that Chiles wants people to realize that normal little mistakes can do major damage when it comes to technology. He shows how one little thing can escalade to a big disaster with the example of the Banqiao and Shimantan Dams. There was heavy rainfall in China and problems with dams which lead to dams failing which lead to more water flowing to lower dams that also failed, totaling 62 dams and deaths at 26,000+ (Inviting Disasters, p. 303). Which leads me to Nye; he also used this example from Chiles’ book. I think Nye used Chiles as a source because he agrees with him. They are both arguing the same thing. I don’t think that Nye left anything out because he is just using the same example and does not go into much detail of what Chiles thoughts are. I think in Inviting Disasters, he brings us some interesting points in his introduction that Nye could have also used to further his discussion on technology’s security or danger. I think that some of the steakholders here are the human population in general that are exposed to these disasters and the government too. Engineers are stakeholders that are not really addressed.
I think that Chiles brought us so many things that I would like to include in my final research paper. I want to continue my topic of control, does technology have the control? In Chiles’ introduction to Inviting Disasters he brings up many solid points that I have not considered before. For example he says, “While the human race remains the same genetically as it was many millennia ago, our technological world careens ahead daily” (Inviting Disasters, p. 4). I thought this was very interesting, in my previous papers I have touched base on the role knowledge plays in the control factor. But I never thought about how humans are genetically the same as they have been for many years, which also got me to thinking how advanced technology is compared to us. Yes, humans have created the technology but few of them have the knowledge. The average human is not equipped with this knowledge which gives the technology that is so far advanced the control. Also he talks about how we offer our lives up to machines, we rely on these machines, and we trust these machines even when they cause huge disasters. We continue to trust them even when they have wronged us. Why is this? We keep running back them after they have hurt us. I can’t help but think of all the women in the world who have been battered by their husbands or all the children who have been hit by their parents but every time (not always) they go back to them, they love them anyways. Why do we do this to ourselves? There have been women and children who have taken a stand and walked away, will we as a society ever do this? Will we walk away from technology? When will we have had enough?
In chapter nine of Technology Matters, David Nye talks about how we use technology to protect us. We have made many improvements and have kept people and cities safer. Our whole world, for the most part, relies on these technologies to keep us safe. For example, at night we sleep comfortably in our beds knowing that the alarm system will go off if there is an intruder. What happens if something came unplugged and the alarm system was off without you realizing, you are then vulnerable without you even knowing it. Sometimes technology fails us. Nye says that nowadays when something goes wrong it is no longer thought of as an act of God but because of technology and the people running it. The more advanced it is the more catastrophic it can be, a chain reaction can happen (Technology Matters, p. 161-162). In this chapter Nye uses an example form Chiles book entitled Inviting Disasters. Chiles believes that we are too focused on technology, he says, “We have been hard at work for more than two centuries now, building a world out of cold iron that is very far from our ancient instincts and traditions, and becoming more so” (Inviting Disasters, p. 2). We are so focuses on technology that sometimes we don’t see the bigger picture. All of these technologies have high consequences. We rely on technology too much when it can be faulty, Chiles writes, “A lot of us are offering our lives these days to machines and their operators, about which we know very little except that occasionally things go shockingly wrong” (Inviting Disasters, p. 6). We don’t have the knowledge but we go along with it anyways and put our lives in technologies hands, thus giving technology the control. I think that Chiles wants people to realize that normal little mistakes can do major damage when it comes to technology. He shows how one little thing can escalade to a big disaster with the example of the Banqiao and Shimantan Dams. There was heavy rainfall in China and problems with dams which lead to dams failing which lead to more water flowing to lower dams that also failed, totaling 62 dams and deaths at 26,000+ (Inviting Disasters, p. 303). Which leads me to Nye; he also used this example from Chiles’ book. I think Nye used Chiles as a source because he agrees with him. They are both arguing the same thing. I don’t think that Nye left anything out because he is just using the same example and does not go into much detail of what Chiles thoughts are. I think in Inviting Disasters, he brings us some interesting points in his introduction that Nye could have also used to further his discussion on technology’s security or danger. I think that some of the steakholders here are the human population in general that are exposed to these disasters and the government too. Engineers are stakeholders that are not really addressed.
I think that Chiles brought us so many things that I would like to include in my final research paper. I want to continue my topic of control, does technology have the control? In Chiles’ introduction to Inviting Disasters he brings up many solid points that I have not considered before. For example he says, “While the human race remains the same genetically as it was many millennia ago, our technological world careens ahead daily” (Inviting Disasters, p. 4). I thought this was very interesting, in my previous papers I have touched base on the role knowledge plays in the control factor. But I never thought about how humans are genetically the same as they have been for many years, which also got me to thinking how advanced technology is compared to us. Yes, humans have created the technology but few of them have the knowledge. The average human is not equipped with this knowledge which gives the technology that is so far advanced the control. Also he talks about how we offer our lives up to machines, we rely on these machines, and we trust these machines even when they cause huge disasters. We continue to trust them even when they have wronged us. Why is this? We keep running back them after they have hurt us. I can’t help but think of all the women in the world who have been battered by their husbands or all the children who have been hit by their parents but every time (not always) they go back to them, they love them anyways. Why do we do this to ourselves? There have been women and children who have taken a stand and walked away, will we as a society ever do this? Will we walk away from technology? When will we have had enough?
Monday, March 9, 2009
Unsure (blog 6)
In Chapter 1, David Nye uses some ideas from James Beniger's The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society. He mentions how we have opposable thumbs which made it easier for us to grasp and use tools and how during evolution our brains developed. David Nye's main focus on page 2 is to show how crucial the use of tools is to us. At the end of this paragraph he has given his source as James Beniger. If you follow it to the back of the book to the Notes, you can read the following, "2. I will not try to make this argument, but some scholars contend that the brain developed in interaction with tool use and therefore should be considered a human technology. See e.g. Beinger 1986, p. 9" (Technology Matters, p. 227). This really didnt make sense to me. Page 9 of Beinger's work that David Nye is referring to doesn't really concern David Nye. By that I mean, the same ideas are not really there. I kind of don't really see why Nye would even cite Beinger. Nye clears states in his note that he will not make the argument that the brain is a human technology but that is precisely what Beniger is talking about. I guess I just dont understand why Nye cited Beniger's work when, to me, it doesn't seem like he needed to. Also looking through his Notes, David Nye cites just people who gave him and idea or who inspired an idea of his, is this what we are supposed to do too?
Monday, March 2, 2009
Another Form of the Human Factor (Blog #5)
Kim Vicente has this theme of the human factor which you can also see in David Nye's Technology Matters. David Nye mentions B.A. Turner, who wrote Man-Made Disasters, when discussing how one small thing leads to another which can build up and cause a disaster. He writes, "No single mistake is usually the cause of a disaster, which rather comes about through an unforeseen interaction of several small miscalculations or errors" (Technology Matters, 164). David Nye is saying that there is usually this build up of errors that happens which causes a disaster; it isnt just one wrong flip of the switch. I think that Vicente would agree with this but add on several small "human" miscalculations or errors. David Nye does not seem to be putting a blame on anyone in particular but Kim Vicente does. Vicente has this notion of the human factor which is the problem; the human factor being that the technology may work perfect but if the human running it does not exactly everything they are doing, something can go wrong. Nye somewhat approaches this conclusion with bringing in human intervention but he does not go as far as give the blame to humans. Nye looks at it as more of an "unforeseen interaction of several small miscalculation or errors." However Nye does start to talk about human intervention and how it has caused problems, such as spraying DDT to kill malarial mosquitoes when instead it gave way to a DDT resistant mosquitoe which lead to more outbreaks. In my opinion this is another form of the "human factor" that Vicente is talking about. The intervention of humans has caused these techonologies to become deadly.
Just a thought: On page 167 of Technology Matters, David Nye poses the question, "Do weapons make people safer?" He goes on to talk about owning guns, he says that in countries where you cannot own a gun homicide and accident rates are much lower than in the United States. He really brings it home with, "In states with more guns, more children are dying." This got me thinking, why are we allowed to own guns? Why is it in the Constitution that the second amendment is the right to bear arms? What were our Founding Fathers thinking? Did they foresee this becoming such a problem? Now I understand that there are people who hunt and all that jazz but still this is a huge problem. Too many people die because of guns, or is it just the people that use them, not the guns? If so do you think that if we outlawed guns, we would see more people killing with knives or some other sort of weapon or do you think that we would see homicides and accident rates decrease?
Just a thought: On page 167 of Technology Matters, David Nye poses the question, "Do weapons make people safer?" He goes on to talk about owning guns, he says that in countries where you cannot own a gun homicide and accident rates are much lower than in the United States. He really brings it home with, "In states with more guns, more children are dying." This got me thinking, why are we allowed to own guns? Why is it in the Constitution that the second amendment is the right to bear arms? What were our Founding Fathers thinking? Did they foresee this becoming such a problem? Now I understand that there are people who hunt and all that jazz but still this is a huge problem. Too many people die because of guns, or is it just the people that use them, not the guns? If so do you think that if we outlawed guns, we would see more people killing with knives or some other sort of weapon or do you think that we would see homicides and accident rates decrease?
Monday, February 16, 2009
A Bit of a Reflection (Assign 3)
As I began reading Vicente I started to have my own ideas of what he was saying. In the first assignment we were supposed to take notes. So when I went to write my blogs, I looked back on my notes from reading it the first time. We also had a few class discussions which made me think of things a bit more and in depth than I had before. In the essay the Human Factor was what stood out to me the most and I began to think about it in every way possible. I thought that it had many different ways of showing itself. Then we read Cat’s Cradle and I could just see all these different ways the Human Factor came in to play. Then I thought about how Vicente talked about control and I was thinking that some of the characters in Cat’s Cradle had completely lost control of their lives; which made it all connect for me. I kind of wish I had taken notes on Cat’s Cradle because I had a hard time trying to track down the quotes I remembered. I took a lot of time re-finding them. I chose to talk about the human factor, stupidity, control and technology. I felt that they were all interconnected in this sort of web. I tried to break it down and show how they all connect and influence each other. Basically I was just showing how I put things together in my thoughts.
Peer editing online was pretty interesting. I liked it because you had a bit more time to do it and it was nice to read a variety of papers, even if you didn’t choose to comment on them. The only thing that was a disadvantage was not being able to write something right next to it, instead you had to be like “in your third paragraph, you said this….” I don’t really feel that the online format changed my reading practices because I have been reading things online for quite awhile now. These days, people can get their news online and basically everything else, so it’s pretty common. I didn’t think it was hard to transfer my blogs to my academic essay, I just took pieces of them and fit them in where I thought they should go.
Peer editing online was pretty interesting. I liked it because you had a bit more time to do it and it was nice to read a variety of papers, even if you didn’t choose to comment on them. The only thing that was a disadvantage was not being able to write something right next to it, instead you had to be like “in your third paragraph, you said this….” I don’t really feel that the online format changed my reading practices because I have been reading things online for quite awhile now. These days, people can get their news online and basically everything else, so it’s pretty common. I didn’t think it was hard to transfer my blogs to my academic essay, I just took pieces of them and fit them in where I thought they should go.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Many Faces of The Human Factor
If you would have told someone in the 1800's where we would be today, they would have put you in a looney bin. We have advanced so far in such a short time. Things that were once unfathomable have become reality. With our advances in technology has come a debate, if you will, of our control on it. Do we have control or does technology have the control over us? Some people think we have a good hold on technology, others would say that these people are in denial. Are we too dim to realize that technology has the control over us? Or do we in fact hold the control comfortably. I personally think that the more advanced technology becomes, the more it becomes in control. Sure the scientists who invented the newest high-tech object will know how to run it, but everyone else may not. So where does this leave us? In control or too unintelligent to realize that the technology controls us?
This leads me to think of the “Human Factor,” a term coined by Kim Vicente. In “The Human Factor” Vicente gives the example of Chernobyl. Toptunov was a senior reactor control engineer in charge of Chernobyl. His job was too simple and he knew what to do. What followed was a disaster because of certain events that Toptunov was not equipped with the knowledge to handle, which lead to an explosion. “The problem was that the plant designers hadn’t paid enough attention to the human factor – the operators were trained but the complexity of the reactor and the control panels nevertheless outstripped their ability to grasp what they were seeing” (The Human Factor, 11). The Human Factor plays a leading role in technology, and sometimes people forget this. The technology was developed and was flawless, but when it was left to Toptunov and his crew to run it, it malfunctioned and turned deadly. No one prepared them for what was to happen; they had no control over it. Many average humans do not have vast knowledge of technology, so when one thing goes wrong they do not know how to fix it. When the technology is smarter than the human using it, it is in control.
Now whose fault is it that these events at Chernobyl took place? I think that the humans involved with it is to blame, they lost the control. When we lose the control over technology, terrible things can happen. First it started with the designers, “The designers had done everything they were supposed to do from a technical perspective: all the hardware and software worked flawlessly” (The Human Factor, 11). The designers made the hardware work, good. But what they didn’t take into consideration was the humans who would run it. They pretty much gave the control to the technology instead of the human. Control is based a lot on knowledge, if one is smarter than the other it can take over. Then it was the workers fault also. Yes they were doing their job and doing it to their best ability, no one can fault them that. But what is there fault is simply their lack of knowledge of the equipment they are using, which could in turn be the fault of the company for not fully training their employees. But if you think about it, I’m sure the company doesn’t even know how equipment works; which brings me back to humans being unintelligent. Why use these machines if you don’t know how to use them? We are just using them for an easier route but we don’t understand them, which gives them the control. For example, let’s say I get the new Blackberry. It does all sorts of things, like email, pictures, instant messaging, phone calls, text message, etc. I just bought it and have no clue how to work it. I can’t even figure out how to call my boss to tell him I am going to be late. I can’t check my email for my classes. I can’t go on facebook to see that my boyfriend wants to go to this concert tonight. So who has the control in this situation? Not me; I have no knowledge of how to use this device which makes me in trouble with my boss, not knowing what to bring to class, and why I can’t get a hold of my boyfriend tonight. The new Blackberry seemed like a good idea at the time, all those applications in one small phone but it turned into a nightmare. Whoever holds the knowledge holds the control. But remember that knowledge can mean many different things.
The Human Factor and knowledge plays a different role in “Cat’s Cradle” by Kurt Vonnegut. For instance Dr. Felix Hoenikker is the father of the atom bomb. He was just interested in everything and anything. “And then Father spoke up. You know what he said? He said, ‘I wonder about turtles.’ ‘What do you wander about turtles?’ Angela asked him. ‘When they pull in their head,’ he said, ‘do their spines buckle or contract?’…After the turtle incident, Father got so interested in turtles that he stopped working on the atom bomb” (Cat’s Cradle, 16). Angela then told the other scientists to take away all the turtles and replace it with things about the bomb so that all he had to play with and think about would have to do with the bomb. Dr. Hoenikker was brilliant and would put his all into anything from the turtles to the atom bomb. He may have been easily distracted but once he had a thought or a question, he wanted to figure it out. I see an aspect of the human factor in him. This time Dr. Hoenikker has the intelligence and knowledge of technology but he does not think of the consequences of it. He is just interested in being able to figure things out or invent things. He seems the kind of person who wants to find a way to create everything possible that comes to mind, no matter how ridiculous the idea may seem. This goes along with the ice-nine he created which could freeze the entire earth. After he had created it he left no paperwork of it and just carried it in a bottle without anyone’s knowledge of it. “...the old man played puddly games in the kitchen with water and pots and pans and ice-nine” (Cat’s Cradle, 247). He played with it like it was a game, just converting it back and forth from water to ice-nine. Here again we see this unintelligence in such a smart man who received the Nobel Prize. Ice-nine was dangerous, not some game. He didn’t think of it as an end to the world, he let it control him.
Also the Human Factor comes in to play with Dr. Hoenikker’s children, Angela, Newt and Frank. When Dr. Hoenikker died each of his children took a piece of ice-nine. They did not have much knowledge of it but took it anyways, which ended up controlling their lives. Papa has just taken ice-nine and died when it all comes out that each of them has given away part of their share of ice-nine. Angela was an awkwardly tall and no so pretty girl; she had no friends and never had a date. “The United States had obtained it [ice-nine] through Angela’s husband” (Cat’s Cradle, 244). Harrison C. Connors came to Angela after her father had died and they were married two weeks later. He had never even talked to her before that but she used ice-nine to buy herself a husband in him. Connors could care less about her; Newt mentions that he would come home late at night with lipstick on him. Angela refuses to see anything wrong with that; she refuses her stupidity of buying her husband with ice-nine. Ice-nine is a technology that has controlled her life, lead her into a marriage that is worthless and she ends up dying because ice-nine freezes the world. Little Newt was controlled by his share of ice-nine too. He met Zinka, a Russian dancing midget and fell in love. They had a weekend on Cape Cod together that Newt says was the best time of his life. Angela tells Jonah, “Newt didn’t give it to her. She stole it” (Cat’s Cradle, 245). He was intoxicated by her sexiness and in the end was too stupid to realize that she was just after ice-nine and did not really care for him. Then we have Frank, he got mixed up in problems and fled the country with his ice-nine. He says, “I bought myself a job, just the way you bought yourself a tomcat husband, just the way Newt bought himself a week on Cape Cod with a Russian midget!” (Cat’s Cradle, 243). Frank was found by Papa in San Lorenzo and bought himself a job as General. Here again the ice-nine has controlled Franks life. It is the reason he got the job, was supposed to marry Mona and become the next president even though he didn’t want to. And because of these three children of Dr. Hoenikker the United States, Russia and Papa had ice-nine. Papa had cancer so he took ice-nine, which in turn ended the world. Each of these characters lives were controlled by ice-nine and were in denial of it. Angela just pretended her marriage was a good one, Newt pretended that Zinka really loved him and Frank pretended that it was okay to buy a job. Each one of them symbolizes mankind as a whole. We are in constant denial of our stupidity which allows technology to control us.
Both in Vicente and Vonnegut’s writings we see the web of technology, the human factor, control and stupidity; which is just like our lives. The human factor can be a problem in many ways, from lack of knowledge, too much knowledge, not taking into consideration certain things, and even what you choose to do with certain technology. I think that as technology gets more advance, our lack of knowledge will give it the control. And because of this, our great advanced technology could be our downfall someday.
This leads me to think of the “Human Factor,” a term coined by Kim Vicente. In “The Human Factor” Vicente gives the example of Chernobyl. Toptunov was a senior reactor control engineer in charge of Chernobyl. His job was too simple and he knew what to do. What followed was a disaster because of certain events that Toptunov was not equipped with the knowledge to handle, which lead to an explosion. “The problem was that the plant designers hadn’t paid enough attention to the human factor – the operators were trained but the complexity of the reactor and the control panels nevertheless outstripped their ability to grasp what they were seeing” (The Human Factor, 11). The Human Factor plays a leading role in technology, and sometimes people forget this. The technology was developed and was flawless, but when it was left to Toptunov and his crew to run it, it malfunctioned and turned deadly. No one prepared them for what was to happen; they had no control over it. Many average humans do not have vast knowledge of technology, so when one thing goes wrong they do not know how to fix it. When the technology is smarter than the human using it, it is in control.
Now whose fault is it that these events at Chernobyl took place? I think that the humans involved with it is to blame, they lost the control. When we lose the control over technology, terrible things can happen. First it started with the designers, “The designers had done everything they were supposed to do from a technical perspective: all the hardware and software worked flawlessly” (The Human Factor, 11). The designers made the hardware work, good. But what they didn’t take into consideration was the humans who would run it. They pretty much gave the control to the technology instead of the human. Control is based a lot on knowledge, if one is smarter than the other it can take over. Then it was the workers fault also. Yes they were doing their job and doing it to their best ability, no one can fault them that. But what is there fault is simply their lack of knowledge of the equipment they are using, which could in turn be the fault of the company for not fully training their employees. But if you think about it, I’m sure the company doesn’t even know how equipment works; which brings me back to humans being unintelligent. Why use these machines if you don’t know how to use them? We are just using them for an easier route but we don’t understand them, which gives them the control. For example, let’s say I get the new Blackberry. It does all sorts of things, like email, pictures, instant messaging, phone calls, text message, etc. I just bought it and have no clue how to work it. I can’t even figure out how to call my boss to tell him I am going to be late. I can’t check my email for my classes. I can’t go on facebook to see that my boyfriend wants to go to this concert tonight. So who has the control in this situation? Not me; I have no knowledge of how to use this device which makes me in trouble with my boss, not knowing what to bring to class, and why I can’t get a hold of my boyfriend tonight. The new Blackberry seemed like a good idea at the time, all those applications in one small phone but it turned into a nightmare. Whoever holds the knowledge holds the control. But remember that knowledge can mean many different things.
The Human Factor and knowledge plays a different role in “Cat’s Cradle” by Kurt Vonnegut. For instance Dr. Felix Hoenikker is the father of the atom bomb. He was just interested in everything and anything. “And then Father spoke up. You know what he said? He said, ‘I wonder about turtles.’ ‘What do you wander about turtles?’ Angela asked him. ‘When they pull in their head,’ he said, ‘do their spines buckle or contract?’…After the turtle incident, Father got so interested in turtles that he stopped working on the atom bomb” (Cat’s Cradle, 16). Angela then told the other scientists to take away all the turtles and replace it with things about the bomb so that all he had to play with and think about would have to do with the bomb. Dr. Hoenikker was brilliant and would put his all into anything from the turtles to the atom bomb. He may have been easily distracted but once he had a thought or a question, he wanted to figure it out. I see an aspect of the human factor in him. This time Dr. Hoenikker has the intelligence and knowledge of technology but he does not think of the consequences of it. He is just interested in being able to figure things out or invent things. He seems the kind of person who wants to find a way to create everything possible that comes to mind, no matter how ridiculous the idea may seem. This goes along with the ice-nine he created which could freeze the entire earth. After he had created it he left no paperwork of it and just carried it in a bottle without anyone’s knowledge of it. “...the old man played puddly games in the kitchen with water and pots and pans and ice-nine” (Cat’s Cradle, 247). He played with it like it was a game, just converting it back and forth from water to ice-nine. Here again we see this unintelligence in such a smart man who received the Nobel Prize. Ice-nine was dangerous, not some game. He didn’t think of it as an end to the world, he let it control him.
Also the Human Factor comes in to play with Dr. Hoenikker’s children, Angela, Newt and Frank. When Dr. Hoenikker died each of his children took a piece of ice-nine. They did not have much knowledge of it but took it anyways, which ended up controlling their lives. Papa has just taken ice-nine and died when it all comes out that each of them has given away part of their share of ice-nine. Angela was an awkwardly tall and no so pretty girl; she had no friends and never had a date. “The United States had obtained it [ice-nine] through Angela’s husband” (Cat’s Cradle, 244). Harrison C. Connors came to Angela after her father had died and they were married two weeks later. He had never even talked to her before that but she used ice-nine to buy herself a husband in him. Connors could care less about her; Newt mentions that he would come home late at night with lipstick on him. Angela refuses to see anything wrong with that; she refuses her stupidity of buying her husband with ice-nine. Ice-nine is a technology that has controlled her life, lead her into a marriage that is worthless and she ends up dying because ice-nine freezes the world. Little Newt was controlled by his share of ice-nine too. He met Zinka, a Russian dancing midget and fell in love. They had a weekend on Cape Cod together that Newt says was the best time of his life. Angela tells Jonah, “Newt didn’t give it to her. She stole it” (Cat’s Cradle, 245). He was intoxicated by her sexiness and in the end was too stupid to realize that she was just after ice-nine and did not really care for him. Then we have Frank, he got mixed up in problems and fled the country with his ice-nine. He says, “I bought myself a job, just the way you bought yourself a tomcat husband, just the way Newt bought himself a week on Cape Cod with a Russian midget!” (Cat’s Cradle, 243). Frank was found by Papa in San Lorenzo and bought himself a job as General. Here again the ice-nine has controlled Franks life. It is the reason he got the job, was supposed to marry Mona and become the next president even though he didn’t want to. And because of these three children of Dr. Hoenikker the United States, Russia and Papa had ice-nine. Papa had cancer so he took ice-nine, which in turn ended the world. Each of these characters lives were controlled by ice-nine and were in denial of it. Angela just pretended her marriage was a good one, Newt pretended that Zinka really loved him and Frank pretended that it was okay to buy a job. Each one of them symbolizes mankind as a whole. We are in constant denial of our stupidity which allows technology to control us.
Both in Vicente and Vonnegut’s writings we see the web of technology, the human factor, control and stupidity; which is just like our lives. The human factor can be a problem in many ways, from lack of knowledge, too much knowledge, not taking into consideration certain things, and even what you choose to do with certain technology. I think that as technology gets more advance, our lack of knowledge will give it the control. And because of this, our great advanced technology could be our downfall someday.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Mankind is in Denial of their Stupidity
“I bought myself a job, just the way you bought yourself a tomcat husband, just the way Newt bought himself a week on
I thought this passage from the book really laid out what Kurt Vonnegut was trying to say. And to put it simply mankind is stupid. The worst of it is that mankind constantly refuses their stupidity, which in the end will lead to downfall or the end of the world in Angela, Frank and Newt’s case. Angela was an awkwardly tall and not so pretty girl; she used ice-nine to buy herself a husband. Her husband could care less about here; Newt says that he would come home late at night with lipstick on him. Angela refuses to see anything wrong with that, she refuses her stupidity of buying her husband with ice-nine. Frank got mixed up in problems and fled the country. He ended up at
Another way to see is this is stupidity in general with technology. Not knowing how to use a certain remote control, a nuclear plant, etc. This stupidity could end in self-destruction. Most of us are only considering ourselves and our advances, not taking in what could happen by our choices. Just like Frank, he needed a job so he gave ice-nine to Papa. He probably didn’t think that it would end the way it did. He wasn’t concerned at the time with the consequences of his actions; he was just interested in having a job.
Also I can’t help but wonder if Angela, Frank and Newt knew what would happen if ice-nine got out. Did they know what it was capable of doing? They were, in a sense, too stupid to be in control of ice-nine. In the book it says that their dog had a bit of ice-nine, so they must have had an inkling of what it could do. They may have not known that it could freeze the entire Earth but they saw what it did to their dog. Wouldn’t they have realized what they had? If they did realize this, why would they give it away? And if they didn’t realize, would they have done the same things if they did know?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The Human Factor and It's Role in Control.
Technology. If you would have told someone in the 1800's where we would be today, they would have put you in a looney bin. We have advanced so far in such a short time. Things that were once unfathomable have become reality. With our advances in techonology has come a debate, if you will, of our control on it. Do we have control or does techonology have the control over us? Now, I do not have the answers to this but I have recently been informed of the term "The Human Factor," a term coined by Kim Vicente. The Human Factor plays a leading role in technology, and sometimes people forget this. When developing new technology, one must take into consideration the Human Factor. Let me explain this more clearly, technology is developed, it can be completely flawless, perfect inside and out but the minute you have an average human running it, it can malfunction and even turn deadly. Many average humans do not have vast knowledge of technology, so when one thing goes wrong they do not know how to fix it. I think this is the point that Vicente is trying to make. That because the technology is smarter than most of us, it is taking the control.
The Human factor can be found in other places too. In “Cat’s Cradle” by Kurt Vonnegut the human factor plays a big role. For instance Dr. Felix Hoenikker is the father of the atom bomb. This character was just interested in everything and anything. He was brilliant and would put his all into anything from turtles to the atom bomb. I see an aspect of the human factor in him. I do not think that when he was creating the atom bomb, that he thought of exactly what it would be used to do, instead I think he was solely interested in being ABLE to produce an atom bomb. He seems the kind of person who wants to find a way to create everything possible, no matter how ridiculous the idea may seem. The Human Factor here being that Dr. Felix Hoenikker had the vast knowledge of technology but not so much the knowledge of the consequences of the technology that he created. This also goes along with the ice-nine he created which would freeze the swamps and the mud for the Marines. He was presented with a problem and he was determined to find a solution. The solution was ice-nine but I don’t know if he followed it through and realized that it could be the end of the world. It would freeze one swamp and everything that fed into and out of it and so on until the whole world was frozen.
The Human Factor is present everywhere; from how to fix a car, knowledge of consequences, how to run a nuclear plant, and even how to use a cell phone. It can be an average human or it could be a genius; we all have our flaws which don’t mix well with technology. And because of this human factor we could very well lose the control, if we haven’t already.
The Human factor can be found in other places too. In “Cat’s Cradle” by Kurt Vonnegut the human factor plays a big role. For instance Dr. Felix Hoenikker is the father of the atom bomb. This character was just interested in everything and anything. He was brilliant and would put his all into anything from turtles to the atom bomb. I see an aspect of the human factor in him. I do not think that when he was creating the atom bomb, that he thought of exactly what it would be used to do, instead I think he was solely interested in being ABLE to produce an atom bomb. He seems the kind of person who wants to find a way to create everything possible, no matter how ridiculous the idea may seem. The Human Factor here being that Dr. Felix Hoenikker had the vast knowledge of technology but not so much the knowledge of the consequences of the technology that he created. This also goes along with the ice-nine he created which would freeze the swamps and the mud for the Marines. He was presented with a problem and he was determined to find a solution. The solution was ice-nine but I don’t know if he followed it through and realized that it could be the end of the world. It would freeze one swamp and everything that fed into and out of it and so on until the whole world was frozen.
The Human Factor is present everywhere; from how to fix a car, knowledge of consequences, how to run a nuclear plant, and even how to use a cell phone. It can be an average human or it could be a genius; we all have our flaws which don’t mix well with technology. And because of this human factor we could very well lose the control, if we haven’t already.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
