Explorations of the major themes of the course "The West and the Modern World". Primary analyses of major documents that form the basis of the Western World.
Monday, December 19, 2005
FINAL ESSAY "The West: Progressive and Retrogressive Forces"
I plan to compare and contrast as well as point out the progressive and digressive ideas/ideals of western culture in relation to how "the west" views others as well as itself. There are many possible ideas or areas to focus on when speaking about western society or western culture. In the following paper, I would like to focus on how present day western society, in relation to both scientific and technological advancements, has both benefited from and has suffered from these advancements. The main focus of the paper will pertain to the pros and cons of a society, meaning ours, who relies so heavily on technology. In our world today, people are always looking for some tool, which could be a physical tool or a piece of software for your computer which will help you do something and save time. By making our lives easier through advances in science technology, are we lowering our personal worth and relying to heavily on automated tasks? It is hard to say whether this is a yes or no, because it depends on the individual(s) involved. This is just one idea I will be touching on. By discussing how other countries are in the same boat that we used to be in, specifically in regards to the industrial revolution we can see that history repeats itself. This will be both in terms of quality of life and advancements in science and technology. I believe that improvements in science and technology are good, but morality and responsibility needs to play a huge part. I will begin by showing some general progressive and digressive qualities of western society and then show some examples along with how I believe they are similar. There are many progressive ideas that come from the west. We are currently in the information revolution. The advancements in communication have been the biggest progressive advancement. Information is power and helps us to continually make our lives better. When I say communication, I think of cell phones, the internet, satellites, etc. Without communication, we would not be able to work or trade with other countries at the same level as we do now. Globalization would not be possible. Ask yourself the following question. "Could you imagine life without the internet or a telephone?" The ideas of the west would not be possible if we were unable to communicate with others easily. How much money and time is saved by the technological advances in communication? It is immeasurable. I think that it is great that we are continuously trying to improve technology and just as importantly science and medicine. Some health afflictions that in the past would have either killed you or brought you to the brink of death are curable through the work of doctors and scientists. The flu vaccine is a perfect example. We can now receive a simple shot that will protect us from this affliction, whereas in the past, you would have to hope that your immune system would be able to overcome this. People who have been in accidents have a better chance of leading normal lives. If you lose a limb due to amputation or some other reason, you can now get an artificial limb. If you are a burn victim, you can have a skin graft to help your body repair itself. Who knows, maybe some day, scientist would be able to develop something to let us grow back lost limbs. On the other hand, there are digressive points to explore. The continual development of weapons would be the biggest. When I say weapons, I also include biological weapons as well. I believe that moral judgment has to play a large role when it comes to science and technology. "The west" as well as other countries continues to create weapons of mass destruction to protect themselves from each other. This is ironic in a way. The notion of promoting peace while creating weapons that go against that idea. I think that everyone will agree that we would be better off without weapons or war. The reality is that these two things will always exist. Unfortunately the ante gets higher as technology becomes better. Just as medicine and progressive technology gets better, so does the technology that creates weapons. The digressive technology can be said to be more influential. There is much more money being put into "Defense" than into focusing on curing diseases. This can be said of the west, but to be honest this pertains to people in general. Another digressive quality of the west is the dependency on technology. "The West" is so fascinated by technology and what it can do for us that we let it control our lives. We are a society fascinated by finding a "quick-fix" for everything. We are always looking for the easy answer, which is not necessarily the best answer or solution to a problem. We used to be a society where hard work was the way to succeed, but now it seems that it is less about that and more about finding the easy way. I believe the following quote from the film Swimming with Sharks is very strong: ...that's the trouble with your *#$@# MTV-microwave-dinner generation; you all want it now. You think you deserve it just because you want it? It doesn't work like that! You have to earn it... (George Huang, 1994) The information Age that we are a part of has made us heavily dependant of computers so much so that we now have increased the risk of having our identity stolen by hackers. With online transactions, we can put our entire lives at risk by simply buying something online.
I've listed Communication as progressive, but it can also be thought of as digressive. We as a western society have to an extent have changed our lives as technology changes. I myself find myself turning on my TV and computer the first thing in the morning, and as soon as I come home from work. Before all of these gadgets and new ways to communicate with others arrived, family was much more important. We are more distant from a "healthy home" than in the past. This can be easily proven by simply taking a trip to a small town where people aren't caught up in the big city mentality. In these spots, family is the most important thing. The big city mentality is to make money and work your way up the corporate ladder. There is a clear difference. Now I would like to give some specific examples to support my thoughts on both the progressive and digressive ideas expressed above. I will be focusing one the industrial age in the 1700's and comparing it to the modern day industrialization in China. Using that example I will explain how the Information age has influence the industrialization overseas. The Industrial Revolution, which began in Great Britain in the 1700's was a time when new methods and approaches to production of goods were formed. As our primary source explains, these new approaches were brought about because the increase of raw materials was creating a surplus of materials. At this time there was a surplus of wool and cotton. Since there was a need to increase the production of product from the material, the Flying Shuttle was invented. This sped up the production time and created a need for more material. There was also the invention of the steam engine which brought upon the need for coal to be mined. There was less of a demand and need for women to weave because of improvements in technology so they were forced to do other jobs such as mining coal. As times changed and tasks became more technology dependent, less people were needed to complete the same task. As Plato said, Necessity is the mother of invention. Where there is a need, something will be created to meet that need. I believe that this is one of the progressive ideals of the west. I think the modern day example would be the surplus of food that the US has. This has allowed us to change our focus from agriculture to a more technology oriented society. As the psychologist Abraham Maslow describes, we must eat first before we can work For a civilization to advance to the next level several conditions must be met or exceeded. Among these are the food surplus levels and the complexity of the division of labor. A strong food surplus allows for "other work" to get done (pp. 370-396). Bill Gates, perhaps the biggest name in the Information Age, realizes this priority by donating millions of dollars into improving health of developing countries before donating computers. Doing this give billions of people around the world the opportunity to enrich their lives. This follows the ideas of the "Hierarch of needs" by Abraham Maslow. People cannot hope to excel when basic needs are not met. This is a very basic, yet very powerful idea. Unfortunately the most prevalent want or need for western society is the pursuit of power and money. The first thing that comes to mind is the outsourcing of I.T. jobs to overseas countries. The simple fact is that this is done because of corporate America’s thirst for more earnings at any cost. It only helps the big corporations and of course the company where the jobs are being outsourced to. It does not help the people who have lost their jobs in an effort by corporations to lower operating costs. The same thirst for money and power is the same ideal that is currently keeping the US from joining 141 other countries in an effort to slow down the greenhouse effect. This effort is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The US is currently the largest contributor to the world pollution. (BBC, 2005) The reason for this in my opinion is the large interest the US has in oil. Many would say that the war overseas is at its core about oil. There are too many people in power that have interests in oil that the change to a better fuel will be slow to come. To me this is holding back progress in general. We, as the west seem to only care about what is best for us in the present and do not seem to look ahead to see what will be the best for us in the long run. If we are going to try to be righteous and teach other country democracy and try to show by example how can we not sign this amendment to the Kyoto Protocol? To me that just seems hypocritical. Especially since we are the single biggest contributor to world’s pollution. We should be the first ones in line to sign up. Again, the reason we are not is because the people with the most power have the most to lose. This reminds me of the presentation I did in class in regards to the condemnation and recantation of Galileo Galilei. In this document, we were presented with the documents that explained Galileo proved that the earth was not the center or the universe. This heliocentric viewpoint directly contradicted the catholic basis that people are the center of everything (Ptolemaic system). This finding was able to be proven through the use of a telescope, which was a new invention in that time. Upon further research, I was able to find out that originally the Catholic Church gave him permission after it was reviewed by Catholic censors. After he actually published the document he was condemned for his findings. He was put on trial and condemned to prison. During this time he was threatened with torture and ultimately he gave in and was forced to formally recant his ideas and finding. In this situation, the people in power, which at this time was the Catholic church, forced Galileo to recant his findings even thought they had merit. They were threatened by what his findings would or could mean. If one doctrine was thought to be untrue, it would cast doubt on the rest of the doctrines and threaten all that the church had become. People would lose faith in the church. I feel that these two examples relate to each other because they are an example of western societies thirst for money and power. In both cases, past and present, the powerful keep the population from progressing if it threatens their way of life. In the case of Galileo, technology helped him prove his theory, whereas in the present day, new technology seems to be held back because it threatens the oil industry. It seems as though throughout history, you are able to speak your mind unless your ideas or findings are contrary to the wealthy and powerful. This brings up another interesting topic of conversation. Does technology, specifically the information aspect of technology cause a social divide in society? Does it take away from our lives in respect to the benefits of social interaction or add to it? One viewpoint by William J. Mitchell says that through the use of the internet, we are able to be more open in our social interactions. The internet provides anonymity for people who wish to remain anonymous. You are able to express your opinions without fear of being physically attacked or persecuted. The internet also allows you to reach more people, even though this may not be face-to-face. People that you would have never had a chance to interact with are now brought closer together through the use of the internet. Products and services that you may never had thought could help are now available to everyone, assuming they are able to afford the technology to get online (Egendorf, p.48). The opposing viewpoint by Andrew L. Shapiro is that the internet lessens our social ability. The internet disengages us from public life and helps us to forget the value of face-to-face interaction. In his views this leads to isolation and depression. He explains …the more time we spend online, the less time we will have to interact directly with our families…(Egendorf, p. 60) I recall one debate in class in regards to Phyllis and her son. She explained how she was upset that all her son did was stay in his room and barely came out to spend time with the family or get out into the real world and spend time with people or play sports. Ryan on the other hand made the statement that he should be able to stay in his room if that is what he decides to do. In this instance, you can see that both sides have valid points. Why? Because people should do what makes them happy, but at the same time, spending your life in your room will dramatically affect the way your integrate with the public. One needs to find a balance between the two. In conclusion I would like to review my thoughts that I have presented throughout the previous pages. The main theme is that technology has its benefits and drawbacks to western society. Ultimately we as people need to be proactive and moral when it comes to how we both develop, and as I have explained in the example regarding global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, holding back technology. Throughout history we as people tend to look and the small picture most of the time. We only see what can benefit us and not what will benefit everyone. Technology itself is not biased. Technology can only be used in the way that we apply it. Whether it be by creating bombs and chemical weapons to “defend” ourselves or create cures for illnesses and procedures to help those who need it, human nature plays its part. Again…history repeats itself. Maybe not with the same specific events as before, but our way of thinking will either be progressive or digressive depending on who you are referring to.
References
BBC News. (2005, February). Kyoto Protocol comes into force. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4267245.stm
Egendorf, Laura K. (Ed.). (2004). The Information Revolution: Opposing Viewpoints. Farmington Hill: Greenhaven Press
Spacey, Kevin (Actor). (1994). Swimming with Sharks [Film]. Los Angeles: Trimark Pictures
Thatcher, Oliver J. (Ed.). (1901). The Ideas that have Influenced Civilization in the Original Documents, Volume V. Boston: Roberts-Manchester Publishing Co.
1 comment:
Frank Alvarez
Final Paper
December 2005
I plan to compare and contrast as well as point out the progressive and digressive ideas/ideals of western culture in relation to how "the west" views others as well as itself. There are many possible ideas or areas to focus on when speaking about western society or western culture. In the following paper, I would like to focus on how present day western society, in relation to both scientific and technological advancements, has both benefited from and has suffered from these advancements. The main focus of the paper will pertain to the pros and cons of a society, meaning ours, who relies so heavily on technology. In our world today, people are always looking for some tool, which could be a physical tool or a piece of software for your computer which will help you do something and save time.
By making our lives easier through advances in science technology, are we lowering our personal worth and relying to heavily on automated tasks? It is hard to say whether this is a yes or no, because it depends on the individual(s) involved. This is just one idea I will be touching on. By discussing how other countries are in the same boat that we used to be in, specifically in regards to the industrial revolution we can see that history repeats itself. This will be both in terms of quality of life and advancements in science and technology. I believe that improvements in science and technology are good, but morality and responsibility needs to play a huge part. I will begin by showing some general progressive and digressive qualities of western society and then show some examples along with how I believe they are similar.
There are many progressive ideas that come from the west. We are currently in the information revolution. The advancements in communication have been the biggest progressive advancement. Information is power and helps us to continually make our lives better. When I say communication, I think of cell phones, the internet, satellites, etc. Without communication, we would not be able to work or trade with other countries at the same level as we do now. Globalization would not be possible. Ask yourself the following question. "Could you imagine life without the internet or a telephone?" The ideas of the west would not be possible if we were unable to communicate with others easily. How much money and time is saved by the technological advances in communication? It is immeasurable.
I think that it is great that we are continuously trying to improve technology and just as importantly science and medicine. Some health afflictions that in the past would have either killed you or brought you to the brink of death are curable through the work of doctors and scientists. The flu vaccine is a perfect example. We can now receive a simple shot that will protect us from this affliction, whereas in the past, you would have to hope that your immune system would be able to overcome this. People who have been in accidents have a better chance of leading normal lives. If you lose a limb due to amputation or some other reason, you can now get an artificial limb. If you are a burn victim, you can have a skin graft to help your body repair itself. Who knows, maybe some day, scientist would be able to develop something to let us grow back lost limbs.
On the other hand, there are digressive points to explore. The continual development of weapons would be the biggest. When I say weapons, I also include biological weapons as well. I believe that moral judgment has to play a large role when it comes to science and technology. "The west" as well as other countries continues to create weapons of mass destruction to protect themselves from each other. This is ironic in a way. The notion of promoting peace while creating weapons that go against that idea. I think that everyone will agree that we would be better off without weapons or war. The reality is that these two things will always exist. Unfortunately the ante gets higher as technology becomes better. Just as medicine and progressive technology gets better, so does the technology that creates weapons. The digressive technology can be said to be more influential. There is much more money being put into "Defense" than into focusing on curing diseases. This can be said of the west, but to be honest this pertains to people in general.
Another digressive quality of the west is the dependency on technology. "The West" is so fascinated by technology and what it can do for us that we let it control our lives. We are a society fascinated by finding a "quick-fix" for everything. We are always looking for the easy answer, which is not necessarily the best answer or solution to a problem. We used to be a society where hard work was the way to succeed, but now it seems that it is less about that and more about finding the easy way. I believe the following quote from the film Swimming with Sharks is very strong:
...that's the trouble with your *#$@# MTV-microwave-dinner generation; you all want it now. You think you deserve it just because you want it? It doesn't work like that! You have to earn it... (George Huang, 1994)
The information Age that we are a part of has made us heavily dependant of computers so much so that we now have increased the risk of having our identity stolen by hackers. With online transactions, we can put our entire lives at risk by simply buying something online.
I've listed Communication as progressive, but it can also be thought of as digressive. We as a western society have to an extent have changed our lives as technology changes. I myself find myself turning on my TV and computer the first thing in the morning, and as soon as I come home from work. Before all of these gadgets and new ways to communicate with others arrived, family was much more important. We are more distant from a "healthy home" than in the past. This can be easily proven by simply taking a trip to a small town where people aren't caught up in the big city mentality. In these spots, family is the most important thing. The big city mentality is to make money and work your way up the corporate ladder. There is a clear difference.
Now I would like to give some specific examples to support my thoughts on both the progressive and digressive ideas expressed above. I will be focusing one the industrial age in the 1700's and comparing it to the modern day industrialization in China. Using that example I will explain how the Information age has influence the industrialization overseas.
The Industrial Revolution, which began in Great Britain in the 1700's was a time when new methods and approaches to production of goods were formed. As our primary source explains, these new approaches were brought about because the increase of raw materials was creating a surplus of materials. At this time there was a surplus of wool and cotton. Since there was a need to increase the production of product from the material, the Flying Shuttle was invented. This sped up the production time and created a need for more material. There was also the invention of the steam engine which brought upon the need for coal to be mined. There was less of a demand and need for women to weave because of improvements in technology so they were forced to do other jobs such as mining coal. As times changed and tasks became more technology dependent, less people were needed to complete the same task. As Plato said, Necessity is the mother of invention. Where there is a need, something will be created to meet that need. I believe that this is one of the progressive ideals of the west.
I think the modern day example would be the surplus of food that the US has. This has allowed us to change our focus from agriculture to a more technology oriented society. As the psychologist Abraham Maslow describes, we must eat first before we can work For a civilization to advance to the next level several conditions must be met or exceeded. Among these are the food surplus levels and the complexity of the division of labor. A strong food surplus allows for "other work" to get done (pp. 370-396). Bill Gates, perhaps the biggest name in the Information Age, realizes this priority by donating millions of dollars into improving health of developing countries before donating computers. Doing this give billions of people around the world the opportunity to enrich their lives. This follows the ideas of the "Hierarch of needs" by Abraham Maslow. People cannot hope to excel when basic needs are not met. This is a very basic, yet very powerful idea.
Unfortunately the most prevalent want or need for western society is the pursuit of power and money. The first thing that comes to mind is the outsourcing of I.T. jobs to overseas countries. The simple fact is that this is done because of corporate America’s thirst for more earnings at any cost. It only helps the big corporations and of course the company where the jobs are being outsourced to. It does not help the people who have lost their jobs in an effort by corporations to lower operating costs.
The same thirst for money and power is the same ideal that is currently keeping the US from joining 141 other countries in an effort to slow down the greenhouse effect. This effort is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The US is currently the largest contributor to the world pollution. (BBC, 2005) The reason for this in my opinion is the large interest the US has in oil. Many would say that the war overseas is at its core about oil. There are too many people in power that have interests in oil that the change to a better fuel will be slow to come. To me this is holding back progress in general. We, as the west seem to only care about what is best for us in the present and do not seem to look ahead to see what will be the best for us in the long run. If we are going to try to be righteous and teach other country democracy and try to show by example how can we not sign this amendment to the Kyoto Protocol? To me that just seems hypocritical. Especially since we are the single biggest contributor to world’s pollution. We should be the first ones in line to sign up. Again, the reason we are not is because the people with the most power have the most to lose.
This reminds me of the presentation I did in class in regards to the condemnation and recantation of Galileo Galilei. In this document, we were presented with the documents that explained Galileo proved that the earth was not the center or the universe. This heliocentric viewpoint directly contradicted the catholic basis that people are the center of everything (Ptolemaic system). This finding was able to be proven through the use of a telescope, which was a new invention in that time. Upon further research, I was able to find out that originally the Catholic Church gave him permission after it was reviewed by Catholic censors. After he actually published the document he was condemned for his findings. He was put on trial and condemned to prison. During this time he was threatened with torture and ultimately he gave in and was forced to formally recant his ideas and finding. In this situation, the people in power, which at this time was the Catholic church, forced Galileo to recant his findings even thought they had merit. They were threatened by what his findings would or could mean. If one doctrine was thought to be untrue, it would cast doubt on the rest of the doctrines and threaten all that the church had become. People would lose faith in the church.
I feel that these two examples relate to each other because they are an example of western societies thirst for money and power. In both cases, past and present, the powerful keep the population from progressing if it threatens their way of life. In the case of Galileo, technology helped him prove his theory, whereas in the present day, new technology seems to be held back because it threatens the oil industry. It seems as though throughout history, you are able to speak your mind unless your ideas or findings are contrary to the wealthy and powerful.
This brings up another interesting topic of conversation. Does technology, specifically the information aspect of technology cause a social divide in society? Does it take away from our lives in respect to the benefits of social interaction or add to it? One viewpoint by William J. Mitchell says that through the use of the internet, we are able to be more open in our social interactions. The internet provides anonymity for people who wish to remain anonymous. You are able to express your opinions without fear of being physically attacked or persecuted. The internet also allows you to reach more people, even though this may not be face-to-face. People that you would have never had a chance to interact with are now brought closer together through the use of the internet. Products and services that you may never had thought could help are now available to everyone, assuming they are able to afford the technology to get online (Egendorf, p.48).
The opposing viewpoint by Andrew L. Shapiro is that the internet lessens our social ability. The internet disengages us from public life and helps us to forget the value of face-to-face interaction. In his views this leads to isolation and depression. He explains
…the more time we spend online, the less time we will have to interact directly with our families…(Egendorf, p. 60)
I recall one debate in class in regards to Phyllis and her son. She explained how she was upset that all her son did was stay in his room and barely came out to spend time with the family or get out into the real world and spend time with people or play sports. Ryan on the other hand made the statement that he should be able to stay in his room if that is what he decides to do. In this instance, you can see that both sides have valid points. Why? Because people should do what makes them happy, but at the same time, spending your life in your room will dramatically affect the way your integrate with the public. One needs to find a balance between the two.
In conclusion I would like to review my thoughts that I have presented throughout the previous pages. The main theme is that technology has its benefits and drawbacks to western society. Ultimately we as people need to be proactive and moral when it comes to how we both develop, and as I have explained in the example regarding global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, holding back technology. Throughout history we as people tend to look and the small picture most of the time. We only see what can benefit us and not what will benefit everyone.
Technology itself is not biased. Technology can only be used in the way that we apply it. Whether it be by creating bombs and chemical weapons to “defend” ourselves or create cures for illnesses and procedures to help those who need it, human nature plays its part. Again…history repeats itself. Maybe not with the same specific events as before, but our way of thinking will either be progressive or digressive depending on who you are referring to.
References
BBC News. (2005, February). Kyoto Protocol comes into force. Available:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4267245.stm
Egendorf, Laura K. (Ed.). (2004). The Information Revolution: Opposing Viewpoints.
Farmington Hill: Greenhaven Press
Spacey, Kevin (Actor). (1994). Swimming with Sharks [Film]. Los Angeles: Trimark
Pictures
Thatcher, Oliver J. (Ed.). (1901). The Ideas that have Influenced Civilization in
the Original Documents, Volume V. Boston: Roberts-Manchester Publishing Co.
Post a Comment