HAVE WE BECOME SLAVES OF TECHNOLOGY?

-DHRITIMAN KAKATI, GAJIA

Technology today is not only a tool of greater scientific progress but
also an inseparable appliance of day-to-day life and with each passing day,
this relationship of ours with technology is getting more adhered. It could
have been termed as friendship. But nowadays if our cell-phones ring, a
favourite radio-jockey starts his show or a new email appears on the monitor
screen, we go bustling to it, no matter whatever important job we were on.
This is a fact of everyday life that simply refers that we are related to
technology in a way else from traditional friendship for sure. But still, despite
all the comforts, ease, sense of security and fashionable addictions whenever
a question about becoming slaves to technology arises, it looks confusing to
arrive at a definite conclusion with just one cursory thought.

Without analysing the viewpoints of the intelligentsia, yet not

reliable, we can simply have a conjectural idea convincing ourselves to
answer firmly in assertive. But in the meantime, it also has to be taken into
account that being slaves to technology does not only implicate mere
obsessions out of control but issues much more serious than that. These days
when we find it difficult to adjust with a moment without internet,
Smartphone and electricity, find it troublesome to travel without a car or
motorcycle, there are people too who have got equal civilisation norms, but
are living behind time being deprived of all those technologically bestowed
ultra-modern contentment. Whatever be the causes behind this
discrimination, it lights on the possibility or extent of retrogression away
from the influence of technology which does not seem totally impracticable.
The point of change in influence with variance in forwarding technology is
also equally important. Because we are not only concerned with the effects
that already has taken place but also with possible identical occurrences in
near future thereby judging them on the basis of socio-cultural and
humanistic standards.

The time when man learnt to delve in his knowledge in order to

develop skills was probably the dawn of civilisation. In other words, it was
nothing but the beginning of technology that delineated human civilisation
and since then they have been in turns contributing to the evolution of each
other. Interpreting the different stages of human civilisation, technological
evolution can be categorised into three chronological phases-- tools,
machines and automation. It is obvious from the classification that
dependence of human on technology is gradually increasing. Starting from
stone-age today we are blessed with sophisticated computer programmes.
But amid numerous logical and proportionately ethical values, the most
important but unidentified question is -- has technological evolution
surpassed that of us? Albert Einstein said, “It has become appallingly obvious
that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” Our wisdom has fallen
behind our ambitions and so, our grasp. Catastrophic nuclear warfare carries
a crystal clear testimony of this reality that we are dealing with powers we
do not know how to control and use properly. This should intensely be
provoking us to give a second thought over appropriate utilisation of
sophistications already adopted as well as the consequences of every
futuristic wish that we are trying to realise with outstanding capability, but
lagging wits. Similar should be the consideration about the technological aids
of everyday life which provide us a physically as well as mentally effortless
life. Because, if the ring of cell-phones becomes a thing of primary
importance, then we have to comply with the accusing too that we are the
slaves of our own technology.

The effects of various technologies are not discrete; rather they are
interrelated and hence are of multiplying leverage. A new technological
achievement alone does not influence us but also its consequences--good or
bad which in turn either foment new ideas or recruit countermeasures to
remedy the previous problems and in both cases, easiest solution that comes
our way is to rely again on another technology. For instance, let us mull over
the history of telephone. Since 1876 there has been a lot of contribution to
this appliance changing it from ‘Rotary-Dial’ to ‘Smartphone’. But if the
recent modifications say for a period of last 15-20 years are taken into
account then there are a number of conspicuous upgradations indicating the
multiplying effects of technology on people. Landline telephone has certain
limitations such as non-portability, lacking facility to save contact numbers
and frequent malfunctioning. Introduction of cordless telephones and caller-
ID removed them up to an extent but not to the full. So mobile phones have
appeared not only treating the previous inconveniences but also with
additional features like ‘Short Messaging Services’ and video games in them.
These opened the door to farther auxiliaries, more or less important, but
equally appreciated due to the common human instinct of curiosity towards
something new. But does it have only the evident positive effects? During the
reign of landline telephones, to memorise a ten digit number was of no
effort; in fact remembering telephone numbers and STD codes was some
kind of a matter to boast over. Nowadays it is not hard to find out a friend or
an acquaintance, who needs his most important password or pin-code
written down somewhere; not because he cannot memorise it, but because
of losing the confidence that it can be kept accurately in mind. Furthermore,
to talk about obsessions, their journey has started since SMS facility was
introduced. Addition of internet access feature to the phones just added fuel
to it. A large number of people today go to buy a Smartphone while the basic
necessities of a telephone can be fulfilled by any ordinary mobile phone
(against the freshly popular belief that internet is only there in a
Smartphone). Nevertheless the present revolutionary transformation in the
concept of Personal Computers in the form of Smartphone, tablet etc. is no
way less important than that in shifting from desktops to laptops or Ethernet
to Wi-Fi, as per researches say, in every six minute a Smartphone user looks
into his/her phone, be it necessary or unnecessary. To our utter
embarrassment, this also somehow resembles to the actions of a slave
reporting and asking his master what to do.

Yet, there are dissidents with a view that fundamentally they are still
living as people lived earlier. This argument certainly has no point. Because
we are concerned with the question if or not our lives are technologically
affected beyond a correct extent and not the topic of our successful
adaptation with that influence; and if technology has grown up so much that
even our thoughts, both common and creative, are being led by it, then
strictures to being equally normal cannot be ignored, as we would be no
better than slaves so far this relationship is impartially judged.

Reinforcing this same opinion again, there emerges a sceptical point of

view regarding the possibility of retrogression also. Technology has
inculcated us to live controlling the nature. Now if we reduce technological
application in order to get rid of their obsessions then it would become a
Hobson’s choice and living only on our own means to live according to nature
as we ourselves, are parts of it. J.B.S. Haldane wrote- “I suppose that the first
step in return to nature would be the discarding of clothes which would at
once increase the mortality from pneumonia about a hundred fold. Of course
the phrase ‘live according to nature’ is quite meaningless.” To rebuff
technological dependence if a return movement is to be considered to set
ourselves back at some place or time identical to the earlier ones that is
technologically less influenced and more human regulated, so far our abilities
are concerned, in every way it would be a contradiction to the present
situations. To interpret this, for instance, in present day globalised world
where people are more interested in needs they themselves have created for
bringing a better sophistication off always, it is unimaginable that they would
keep sticking to one place considering it to be their natural habitat and hence
not obliged for any migratory movement. They have to move and as they do,
technological reliance follows. As a case in point, if we plan that from now
on we will not use motor vehicles, rather horses and hansoms then we will
not only have to think about horses but also about their maintenance.
Because resources are less abundant than they were in the past. The age
when people used to travel on horses, population was perhaps less than half
of the population now. For the same reason if someone suggests living in
huts and houses instead of constructing apartments and skyscrapers because
those involve modern technology we want to move away from, then every
urbanisation would require area and resources nearly ten times more than
they are exhausting now. Similarly if we decide to give up latest
communication mediums such as television or internet, it would cause
anomalous circumstances as the world is more complicated and different
places on it are implicitly related than they used to be in yesteryears. Simply
speaking, there is no way back from technologies already adopted in case it is
thought that giving them up will help to get rid of the obsessions controlling
us.

But on the other hand, there is also a strong refusal sincerely

proving the influences to be neither compulsory nor complementary; rather
attitudinised. This manifestation may sound a bit irrelevant because it is
implicit through some indirect references, more concerned with a pure
logical approach than a complex scientific and psychological hypothesis. We
fail to see it but every individual in the society does not earn the capacity of
buying a costly latest technology. But we cannot say that they are enjoying a
lifestyle too technologically inefficient to carry the civilisation norms. This
indicates that a possible retrogression, however indistinct, is substantial
which in turn lights on the possibility of living technologically more efficient,
yet less obsessed. In other words, we are not slaves of technology, but we
have allowed it to become our slaver.

In the modern world technological innovations belong to a number of

people whereas they are enjoyed by the entire mass which is a matter of
serious cogitation. Because if giving up all necessary composures we are
becoming only ‘gadget freaks’ then ultimate effect of it is going to be on our
thoughts being allowed to get manipulated through technological obsessions
by that certain minority. The biggest hoax of present day world lies upon the
fact that people are ready to believe anything if they are told either scientists
have discovered it or technology had achieved it. A blindfold of this sort that
should better be called a ‘modern superstition’ is not just acquired stupidity
but critically ridiculous too for it reveals a Twenty First century failure even in
putting the fingers properly on the distinction between a daydream and a
cognitive reverie, when the mankind is so busy calling itself the best. It is not
that we are not supposed to be dreamers; we must, given, realistic should be
the dreaming and practical envisaging stands as the plinth below it.

Technology is for man, man is not for technology. Picasso said,

“Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.” The ability to ask
questions characterises our seminal as the determinants of the future and
thereby requires stepping up to open the locked doors of mystery;
technology being only one of the keys. Fortunately, at present date we are
just on a dilemma whether or not to go along with the titled dialogue. But
with time it is realising itself getting stronger. Therefore, our urgent duty is to
keep humanity enlightened; or otherwise Blake will become true- “Tree of life
is sustained by arts, tree of death by science.” Undoubtedly, that will be
death. Because, if humanity dies, so does human.