Technology is a phenomenon unlike any other.

As such, many attempts have been made to define its essence: its truth or purpose. It has been argued that the availability of technology invite those with harmful intentions to exploit their utility. However, this discussion demonstrates that it is rather the essence of technology that carries the real danger when integrated with society. In order to validate this claim, it is useful to first explore the paradoxical nature of technological phenomena. It is true that technology affects many aspects of daily human life. The invention of primitive tools such as axes and knives facilitate chopping, hunting and other activities. Clothing and shelter allow establishment in colder climates. Simple machines such as the pulley and the screw permit difficult tasks to be performed with minimal exertion. Clearly, new technologies make tasks essential to survival easier than they would otherwise be. To compare with other phenomena, such as the natural phenomenon of lightning, it is evident that it, too, affects humans. The key difference between technology and nature, however, is that technologies do not simply shape human behavior; they are also motivated by it. This mutual dependence ensures the perpetual reshaping of both. Technology is also unique in that it challenges other phenomena. 20 century German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, offers his view in comparing a windmill to a hydroelectric generator. In doing so, he illustrates that the use of a windmill simply harnesses energy readily available in nature. Although this energy is then refined into a usable form, hydroelectric generation involves redirecting water to achieve suitable pressure and flow rate. Heidegger underscores the ability of humans to influence the environment and its natural phenomena when he 1 states, in reference to the power plant, even [ the river] itself appears to be something at our command. The true essence of technology will follow from conclusions that can be inferred from the discussion so far, because, as Aristotle puts it, the knowledge of the es sential nature of a substance is largely promoted by an 2 acquaintance with its properties. This essay will link the subject of the writings quoted in essays by Dr. John Scott to the essential properties of technology, and then explains how they are dangerous. It is worth noting that 1 because the true essence of technology is nothing technological , this discussion deals not with how instantiations of technology are dangerous. This difference between the technological and the essence of technology is first described in Dr. John Scotts essays by quoting Morton Winstons explanation of how a collection of tools differs from what is needed to 3 accomplish practical objectives: Technology is not a collection of things, but rather a systematic and rational way of doing things; it is in general, the organization of knowledge, people, and things to accomplish specific practical goals. It is often assumed that the design and construction of something technological will accomplish a practical goal. However, the validity of that assumption is measured in rationalizing the need for it in reaching the goal. The gap that creates this assumption is the expectation that human behavior will be altered in the production of a new thing. This behavior is what Winston refers to as a systematic and rational way of doing things- what he calls technology. The collection of things required to effect this change is not technology.
th

Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology. Edited by David Krell. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993, p. 317 2 Aristotle, De Anima. As quoted in McKeon 1941, [402b] 3 Winston, Morton. Society Ethics and Technology. Toronto: Nelson Thompson Learning, 2003.

To illustrate this concept, a cellular phone is often referred to as technology. Winston, however, would define technology as how the phone organizes people into a network, to accomplish the practical goal of facilitated communication. It is appropriate that Winston quotes Andrew Feenburg, as key elements present in this next definition agree with the one just explained: Technology... can no longer be considered as a collection of devices, nor, more generally, as the sum of rational means. These definitions imply that technology is essentially non-social... (I)f one ignores most of its connections to society, it is no wonder technology appears to be self-generating... (S)ocial process is not about fulfilling "natural" human needs, but concerns the cultural definition of needs... (T)echnology's essence is not ... a causal structure that remains the same ... Technologies do of course have a causal aspect, but they also have a symbolic aspect that is determining for their use and evolution. While he agrees that technology is not merely a collection of things, he adds that it is not sufficient to define it as a sum of rational means. This claim states that technologys essence is both to satisfy human needs but most importantly to redefine them. The symbolic aspect of technology invests meaning into the redefinition of these needs, and motivates its evolution. Although he is addressing the subject of subject of his profession, Engineer John Robinson encourages 4 another dimension of the essence of technology: [engineering] is explaining why a particular solution to a problem is the best... (E)ngineering has a ... mode of argument to justify what it does. Indeed there are at least two modes of argument, and these depend on what the word 'best' means for a particular problem . Although there will be no perfect solution, there is always room for improvement in design. Gabriel Marcel claims that the goal of applied science is to develop solutions to problems that approach perfection. An applied science...can always be brought to a higher and higher point of accuracy and adjustment. ... (T)he inverse is also true... nowhere else but in the realm of applied science can we speak of perfectibility and progress in an absolutely strict sense. In this alone can perfection be 5 measured, since it is equivalent to output. Technology therefore also seeks flawless solutions. The meaning of a flawless solution is apparent when one considers the causal aspect which is responsible for meeting human needs. Feenburgs definition also plays a role in this interpretation, as the applied science is also concerned with continually adjusting its understanding of human needs, and bringing it to a higher and higher point of accuracy. The exposure of society to continually more perfect solutions is one of the fundamental properties that make up the essence of technology. In many ways, this is a great thing. As Aristotle puts it, Surely possession of the good constitutes the highest in human aspirations and pursuits?

4 5

John A. Robinson, "Engineering Thinking and Rhetoric," Journal of Engineering Education (July 1998): 227-229. http://www.intuac.com/userport/john/writing/nthinking.html

Marcel, Gabriel. Being and Having. Glasgow. Translated by Gabriel Marcel. Glasgow: The University Press, translated by Katharine Farrar, 1949.

To answer this question, Feenburg states, social process concerns the cultural definition of needs. In arguing that technology is a social process, through its accomplishment of practical goals, its evolution implies the continual reshaping of what constitutes human needs. It would seem that this essence would guide humanity to a state of perpetual dissatisfaction, as the needs of humanity are not static and can never, therefore, be met. In addition, society is encouraged to expect accuracy. Assuming the functionality of any tool carries its own risks, should it malfunction. A bigger threat is how society is becoming blind to things that are not precisely measurable. The devaluation of intangibles is certainly a symptom of this blindness. The values of human life, emotion, or, that of preserving the ecosystem, have no standard by which they are measured. Consequently, they may be ignored or undervalued in compound problems, as Robinson explains them, where a balance is sought to satisfy solution criteria. The discussion of the symbolic aspect of technology in John Scotts essay, Measuring goods is closely related to Marxist thoughts on the fetishism of commodities. He argues that technology invests meaning into commodities that it would not otherwise have, and that it is a subjective value related to the buyers perception of a good. The good seems always right there for the having in its latest defining embodiment as the newest revolutionary ideology. As Marx states, man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by 6 Nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. The perceived usefulness defines a goods value but it does not reflect the cost to produce it. As such, Marx argues that technology is blinding society to the relationship between production and purchase. The essence of technology in all of its causal, symbolic and optimizing aspects tempts humans with the thought of possessing the good, the best, and the promise of practicality. It has allowed deeper thinking and questioning that these members of the human race would otherwise not have time for. However, it follows that these same aspects can lead the society into unhappiness, unquestioning and coldness, whose desperation to possess the good overwhelms existence.

Karl Marx. "Ch. 1 as per First German Edition, as transcribed by Bert Schultz (1993)." Marxists. 2005. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4 (accessed September 25, 2012).