How do cultures accept or try and defend themselves against new technologies? How do we cope with the uncertainty these technologies seem to bring us? What do we believe progress is? All questions and more Arnold Pacey touches on in his now dated (19830 but worthy of a read book
The Culture of Technology. A few of my favorite extracts from this book are:
This idea of technical advance as the leading edge of progress is widely held; it constitutes what some have called 'machine mysticism'.
Such people argue that technical logic 'determines a unique progression from one stage of development to the next'. The implication is that although we may not like the idea of nuclear power, micro-electronics, or heart transplant surgery, we have to solve the technical problems connected with these things if engineering and medicine are to develop... we cannot stop technology ...it is no use now 'trying to stop the silicon chip revolution'.
This kind of statement is clearly designed to defuse political dissent - but it puts the issues the wrong way round. Not many people want to stop micro-electroncs, but they may want to state preferences how how it is used. ... remarks (like above) present a view of progress which implies only one dimension of choice: either you accept innovation unreservedly, or you opt out. ... it is the choices between these that matter.
There is still the difficulty, however, that our habitual style of writing and analysis, ... is itself basically linear. Its aim is usually to understand in depth rather than to broaden awareness. It is a style based on following logical connections, pursuing meticulous detail, and measuring whatever can be measured. Unless it is skillfully used, the very literary form of such discussion can itself trap one into a narrow, linear view.
