What Does it Mean to be Human in an Age of Modern Technology?

What does it mean to be human in the age of modern technology? Many feel that technology is only a useful tool and has not changed what it means to be human. Others argue that today’s technological advances have become so rapid, sophisticated and ingrained in daily life it is taking away from the interest, welfare and humanistic nature of our society. Most all do agree that technology has certainly played a role in humanity’s social and behavioral progress throughout history. However, to what extent technology really drives the development of our social and behavioral changes can elicit a heated discussion.
Humans are driven, curious creatures that seek to solve problems and have a need for social interactions. As well they desire some form of system of belief (though not necessarily religious in nature) and aspire to be part of something collective or feel a sense of purpose to life. Countless studies provide that human behavior arises out of the interaction between individuals and their environment. Although environments do influence human behavior, many contend the basic tenets of humanity such as compassion, the need to have connected relationships and the desire to improve upon our lives have not changed in the face of technology. However, it is clear that human attitudes and expectations today are certainly very different than even several generations ago. Much of which, is a direct result of technological exposure and availability. Without question, technology and humanity have a tremendous influence and effect on each other.
Some advocate technology and humanity have become entirely interdependent and interconnected. James Burke and Robert Ornstein’s book, The Axemaker’s Gift, discusses how humanity has used technology to shape our society for the last 120,000 years. Their belief is that the axemaker’s gift not only provided a new tool for society but it had a permanent, fundamental effect on humanity.
“…[The axemaker] introduced a new kind of once-and-for-all change in the cyclical processes of nature. The axe also redirected the development and the selection of individuals in human societies …whose exclusive use of axemaker knowledge would give them mastery over nature…At their command, axes cut a swathe…wherever humans went, clearing our path, making our progress easier.”

Undoubtedly as Burke and Ornstein point out, the relationship between humanity and technology will continue to have an essential impact on our current and future cultural paths. However, Burke and Ornstein caution that we must cease to blame our problems on technology and that humanity must assume full responsibility for its utilization and outcomes. Only with an understanding of responsibility and ownership can we expect to properly guide the path of technology.
Others accept as true that technology has had much more of a negative impact and effect on human behavior and that it has become something bigger than what humanity can even hope to reign in. Jacques Ellul reflected on this in his book The Technological Society. Ellul feels that technology has widely become out of control and unchecked. He writes that humanity “is becoming aware that he has not created an instrument of freedom but a new set of chains…man sees that technique has changed, but he is unwilling to examine it too closely for fear of losing his last hopes.” Unfortunately, Ellul does not give any insight on how to turn the tide of technology and he leaves the reader with only daunting concerns and chilling thoughts of the direction that our world is headed in. Looking through the Ellul lens, it appears as if technological victory has been gained at the price of an even greater hopelessness and helplessness for humanity. Although Ellul may be at the extreme end of the spectrum in considering we are on a technological auto-pilot, we do need to examine what “chains” technology has or potentially can have us bound up in. As it is often said, technology has been a double edge sword for society. On the positive side, it has allowed us to extend our life expectancy, reduced the risk of diseases, improved our food supply, enriched our education, automated our households and industry, upgraded our transportation, supplied a plethora of entertainment and enhanced our ability to connect and communicate. These are just a few examples of its many luxuries. However, these luxuries have had more than a monetary cost associated with them. Some fear that we have allowed technology to saturate our culture to the point that we have become too dependent upon it. Its permeation, the constant overexposure and access to technology has created a false sense of control and even a complete addiction. Many claim humans behave too robotically or methodically and our emotions and relationships have become much more detached or post human like. Having access to so much data and media information allows decisions to be made from a scientific perspective rather than from our conscious or our true emotions. The advances and the abundant technology that we now have access to has possibly even limited individuals from using their innate creativity. Others claim it has created a society of laziness and has stunted our intellectual capacity as well. For example, a recent California State University study provided that communication, writing and literacy skills are being hampered because of the vast use of “quick” technological communication such as texting, email and instant messaging that are ubiquitous in society today.
Today’s easy to use access to modern technology for science, medicine, electronics and communication is certainly much different from the toil of the Neolithic technology of farming, pottery, record-keeping and writing of our ancestors. However, even looking back over thousands of years, the question of the extent of the “effect” of technology had on societal and behavioral change is still debatable. As discussed, there are varying schools of thought on the degree of technological influence and determinism. Hard determinists believe that technology develops independently from society and man is molded and directly affected by technology that is continually emerging. Soft determinists believe that society does change, or is shaped, because of technology, but that man has much more control of the path and direction that technology takes and how it affects his nature. But all determinists believe that technology is seen as the prime-mover throughout history.
Robert Heilbroner wrote that there is a sequence to technology and that society must go through one stage of technology before it can begin the next stage of technology. He also felt that three social forces determine the level of technological progress of a society. The first of these dynamics is that “the very activity of invention and innovation is an attribute of some societies and not of others.” This is exemplified in the United States today in Amish and Mennonite societies. Some societies simply choose not to implement technologies based on certain beliefs. Other societies have had environmental disadvantages and deficiencies such as the New Guinea society spoken about in Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel. As Diamond points out: “Food production in New Guinea is still dominated by the crops and agricultural methods that New Guineans perfected over the course of thousands of years.” This is not due to New Guineans lacking the intellectual capability to adopt technology but due to “differences among peoples’ environments, not because of biological differences among people themselves.”
Heilbroner’s second reason is the fact that although technology follows a stage or path, “its area of application certainly reflects social influences.” We see this example with cloning technology. Although we have the technical ability to do reproductive cloning of human life, the current global, social pressure and ethical stance has ensured that most countries have legally banned reproductive cloning. Strong social influence will always curtail or prevent technologies that people feel are not in line with their morals or beliefs. Finally, his most compelling argument is that “technological change must be compatible with existing social conditions.” Societies do not adopt technology just for the sake of technology. They only adopt those technologies that are best suited to their needs and social structure. For instance, we see those societies of under-developed countries more concerned with accessing the latest provisional and medical technology versus importing the latest video games.
Even with Heilbroner’s arguments on the level of technological acceptance of societies, we cannot deny the influencing factor that technology has had on societal and behavioral change. Neil Postman’s Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, shows us just how impactful technology has been on the world and on the American culture through language, literature, art, advertising and many other mediums over the last few centuries. He feels strongly that these mediums are in fierce competition with each other and humanity is the fallout.
“In the United States, we can see such collisions everywhere – in politics, in religion, in commerce – but we see them most clearly in the schools, where two great technologies confront each other in uncompromising aspect for the control of students’ minds. On the one hand, there is the world of the printed word with its emphasis on logic, sequence, history, exposition, objectivity, detachment, and discipline. On the other, there is a world of television with its emphasis on imagery, narrative, presentness, simultaneity, intimacy, immediate gratification, and quick emotional response. Children come to school having been deeply conditioned by the biases of television. There, they encounter the world of printed word. A sort of psychic battle takes place, and there are many casualties…They are failures, but not because they are stupid. They are failures because there is a media war going on, and they are on the wrong side – at least for the moment.”

The supremacy and allure that humanity often perceives about technology is a powerful vision. So much so that to dismiss technology as entirely subordinate to socio-political, historical, and culturally specific contexts would be fallacious. Every aspect of our social framework and underpinnings are either touched or heavily tied to technological progress and aspirations. Technology has enveloped the world and we have seen global capitalism emerge because of the way technology has intertwined societies. Historically, most nations feel that they have benefited from the effect of technology, at least monetarily. This wealth has of course lead societies to want to become an even larger part of the technological bandwagon.
Corporations and advertisers have certainly played their role to perfection in the technological saga as well. They have woven the idea of ease and effectiveness technology can have into the daily fabric of our lives. It is their single purpose and job, to appeal to our buying senses so that we spend money on those products they produce. They entice the consumer with “cutting edge” or “new” technologies to do so. Corporations also employ the latest data and technology locally and globally so they can gain the most profit on every dollar society spends. They continue to create new products to beat their competition and win our buying dollars in the name of profit. Humanity has undoubtedly been culturally influenced because of this continual consumption loop. Undeniably our society has changed because of these new technologies, but can we say that it has been an unwilling victim or a completely innocent bystander?
Technology has been and will continue to be a reality of our lives. Although society may not always understand the full impact of technology and the consequences that employing new technologies can carry. This has been especially apparent with the negative impact we have seen technology play on the environment. As well, society may not be in control of the human hands that it resides with. We do not know what other societies may do in the future with biological and nuclear weapons that they may develop or have access to. However, we must recognize that technology, in itself, is responsible for driving our societal and behavioral changes. It is our human desire and need to obtain superior technologies that make our lives more convenient or enjoyable, or even make us feel more powerful, as well as the greed of corporations that has been the driving force of our behavior and societal modifications along the path of technological development. Humanity has and can still control their destiny, world and conduct. Society just needs to be cognizant about the developments that are happening through awareness and education. Humanity also needs to be vigilant about ensuring technologies that could have a negative impact, or that go against the grain of social morality, are controlled by laws or production. As Postman states, “when we admit a new technology to the culture, we must do so with our eyes wide open.”
In the final overall analysis of technology, my belief is that we have used technology to be even more creative, educated and understanding as a human species. Certainly we strive for ways to make life easier. However, since the beginning of time humans have searched for tools and techniques to help assist them in day to day living. That drive is very innate and almost imbedded in our DNA. It is human nature to want to improve upon life and to strive for better, faster, more convenient avenues so that we can deeper concentrate on those areas that bring us the most enjoyment in life. I believe technology has had more of a constructive impact on our culture and society and we will continue to examine our past mistakes and seek to better understand the implications of technology so that future generations can further flourish. Humanity and technology will absolutely continue to overlap and intertwine. The influence technology has on our society and behavior will also endure. However, it will be humanity that will choose to control and direct those influences. We are at the helm and can decide either to improve our culture without sacrificing our sensibilities, emotions or our humanitarian qualities, or not. What it means to be human in our age of modern technology is that we assume our accountability for this role and ensure that we implement technologies responsibly and with “eyes wide open.”

Bibliography

Burke, James, and Robert E. Ornstein. The Axemaker's Gift: Technology's Capture and Control of Our Minds and Culture. New York: Putnam, 1997. Diamond, Jared M. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton &, 1998. Ellul, Jacques. The Technological Society. New York: Knopf, 1964. Heilbroner, Robert L. "Do Machines Make History?" Technology and Culture 8, no. 3 (July 1967): 335-45. Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Knopf, 1992. Rosen, Larry D., Jennifer Chang, Lynn Erwin, L. Mark Carrier, and Nancy A. Cheever. "The Relationship Between "Textisms" and Formal and Informal Writing Among Young Adults." The Relationship Between "Textisms" and Formal and Informal Writing Among Young Adults. April 7, 2010. Accessed June 30, 2012. doi:10.1177/0093650210362465

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. James Burke and Robert E. Ornstein, The Axemaker's Gift: Technology's Capture and Control of Our Minds and Culture (New York: Putnam, 1997), 255.
[ 2 ]. Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society. (New York: Knopf, 1964), 301.
[ 3 ]. Larry D. Rosen et al., "The Relationship Between "Textisms" and Formal and Informal Writing Among Young Adults," The Relationship Between "Textisms" and Formal and Informal Writing Among Young Adults, April 7, 2010, Communication Research, accessed June 30, 2012, doi:10.1177/0093650210362465.
[ 4 ]. Robert L. Heilbroner, "Do Machines Make History?," Technology and Culture 8, no. 3 (July 1967): 342.
[ 5 ]. Jared M. Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (New York: W.W. Norton &, 1998): 318.
[ 6 ]. Ibid, 25.
[ 7 ]. Robert L. Heilbroner, "Do Machines Make History?," Technology and Culture 8, no. 3 (July 1967): 343.
[ 8 ]. Ibid
[ 9 ]. Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (New York: Knopf, 1992), 16.
[ 10 ]. Ibid, 7