A Public View?

For my last source, I decided to find out what the public as a whole believes technology to be, and what better place to find a public point of view than wikipedia. Wikipedia gives a very large selection of definitions for technology, perhaps from the differing opinions that have influenced it. According to wikipedia, “technology is a broad concept that deals with a species usage and knowledge of tools and crafts.” It is a “consequence of science and engineering”, although technology predates both of these things. Wikipedia states that technology started with “the conversion of natural resources into simple tools.” It says that technology can be “broadly defined as the entities, both material and immaterial, created by the application of mental and physical effort in order to achieve some value.” As an engineer, I like this definition that is proposed: “technology refers to tools and machines that may be used to solve real-world problems.” I am going to be trying to efficiently solve real world problems for the rest of my life, so that fits me very well. I will be creating technology. The only thing is I cannot just say I like this one and stick with it, and I cannot just look at this wiki for a definition, no matter how broad it may be. I do however like this broad idea of technology that is presented. That it is something that deals with science and math, something that benefits society, something that comes from natural resources. I think that technology is something created by the application of effort. I think that all of these definitions are correct, but maybe just re-worded of themselves. How, though, does this affect what I have already discovered. What about fire? Is it now technology? I have not come across anything or anyone that says technology ceases to be technology once it is outdated. Perhaps that was a preconceived notion that I unknowingly entertained coming into this project. Perhaps fire and the wheel are still technology, no matter how old they are. They got us where we are today (and we still use them). I am going to move away from this position that things were technology to the position that they are, no matter the age. War veterans don’t loose their titles once they get old, they earn their title through what they did. Technology shouldn't cease to be once it is old. It should be praised for getting us where we are today. Perhaps the term’s common meaning should be changed, so that “new technology” refers to what most people today call technology.

From a Professional Point of View

For my next source I decided to get away from people and see what technology media had to say. For this I went to the renowned magazine Technology Review, online of course. Apparently they have been reviewing technology for 108 years, so I bet they know what they are talking about. Because of the various articles it was hard to find one single place to look, but by examining the whole site I got a general idea of their take on technology. In their “About Us” statement, they say that they explore “emerging technologies”, and then they go on to define emerging technologies as “groundbreaking innovations that will shape and define our lives and our businesses.” From reading the website, I got a general feeling that technology is not even today, but that it is what is coming tomorrow. It’s a general feel that the only thing that matters is what is being created, and not what is already created. Where I had this idea that once something is obsolete, it is not technology (even though it was at some point), they have this idea that once something goes from idea to reality, it looses its status as technology. To give an idea of what they classify as technology, this is how they divide their website: Information technology, Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, Energy, and Business Technology. Everything on the site is futuristic, unheard of, and really really cool, but no where does it mention anything more than 1 or 2 months old. I think that things that are useful are still technology, but they present this idea that it is not technology unless it is state of the art. Perhaps this is an effect of marketers and advertising? New things are always expensive, and not ever necessary, but still it’s like you need them. On the other hand, the future is in new technologies, and embracing them is like embracing the future.

A Word from the Not as Wise

After hearing from the experience of an older man, I decided to look at the opposite side of the spectrum, to examine the point of view of someone just entering the field of engineering. I decided that my roommate David, a freshman undecided engineer, would be a perfect candidate. I asked him to tell me the first things that came to his mind when I said “What is Technology?” His answer was this
“Well, it’s ummm, how people solve problems. [Its] what they make to solve problems. Do you agree? Technology changes rapidly, constantly, other than the dark ages there wasn’t any decline in technology. It helps us be more safe, it helps us in medicine, in warfare. It allows our society to advance above others. [For instance] you wouldn’t be able to write on that computer if it weren’t for technology. If we didn’t have technology, we would just be cavemen. We wouldn’t even carry around a stick ‘cus that could be technology, we couldn’t carry a club. We probably wouldn’t even have clothes.”
It seems to me that David is defining technology by what we would be without it: cavemen, with no weapons, no fire, and no wheel, not anything. I suppose that if you take his definition, technology is basically everything around us. In this case it isn’t natural food or drink, or a hole in a rock, but everything else is technology. This poses a problem though, because I am trying to narrow my definition of technology, or at least my understanding of it. If we look at technology as everything, it becomes much harder to define. Perhaps it is everything, but in its own time. If I go back to my definition and to the definition Mr. Powers gave me, technology is something evolutionary, something restricted to the present; created by, but not including the past. Perhaps David was wrong in his tenses, and technology was everything at some point, but is limited to the here and now.