"Technologies as Forms of Life"

     Two of the claims Winner made in "Technologies as Forms of Life" that I found particularly intriguing are 1) that the disconnect between the maker and the user of technologies is at least partially to blame for the misuse, or bad use, of those technologies, and 2) that technology shapes our world, creates a new world, even, and yet we still view it as nothing more than a simple tool. Computers, advances in biochemistry, physics, and all the things we take for granted as a regular part of every day life have been developed, and are still developing, at exponential rates; yet there have been almost no thoughts given as to why we created these things or the possible implications that may not be their intended uses.

     I think there is some truth to what Winner said about the disconnect between the maker and the user being to blame for the misuses of technology; I don't, however, think that disconnect can be the entirety of the reason. Someone can reasonably expect to make a breakthrough in viral genetics without worrying about it being weaponized. If the person's intent was to find a way to cure the common cold, she probably isn't thinking about biological warfare. I don't believe we can expect the scientist to take the blame for someone else creating a weapon using her work; by the time someone else is through using the research, that person has now created a new technology, and s/he must be the one to take responsibility for that. Adding onto this, I do believe we as a society have an obligation to take a level of responsibility for what people create, whether they're meant to be used or actually used for good or bad. It's the same argument used when talking about gun policies; we take some responsibility for allowing these individuals access to weapons, and then we talk about what can be done, what we should have done, to prevent crises like that.

     It astounds me how true it is that we hardly think about the technology we're using as more than a tool; the story of the astronaut at the beginning is the perfect example of how we tend to substitute experiences with technology for experiences with natural phenomena, a point that lends itself to the title of the essay. While these may seem to be conflicting ideas, it becomes apparent that the astronaut, while unintentionally substituting the technology for the experience, was not really seeing the technology as more than a simple tool. It was a means to an end; it was to prepare him for space, but somewhere during his training, using the machines became routine, like using our cellphones today. How many of us think about the fact that the technology we hold in our hands on a daily basis is more advanced than that which was used to send people into space? How many of us think about how amazing it is that we're able to communicate instantaneously with people thousands of miles away? More to the point, how many of us spend time (outside of this class) thinking about the long term implications of all this, the technology itself, its uses, the people using it?