Upon reading “The Question Concerning Technology” by Martin Heidegger I was very confused to say the least. Like any other philosophical work there is many confusing analogies and examples that seem to go full circle almost nowhere. I decided to pick the concept “standing-reserve” initially because of the somewhat easy-to-follow example Heidegger used. From what I got from the essay I believe that “standing-reserve”, according to Heidegger, is grounds for concern. Standing-reserve takes the subject out of objects like humans or the plane (which will be covered later) and makes them exists only for their future potential. Something in standing-reserve is technology ready to be used in the future. I will now try to delve into the subject of standing-reserve to better explain what Heidegger intended the meaning to be.
The first time Heidegger mentions standing-reserve he clearly distinguishes it from a stock, he says: “We call it the standing-reserve. The word expresses here something more, and something more essential, than mere ‘stock’.” (pg. 105) It is important to notice the difference between stock and standing-reserve; the difference seems to appear in substance of the object and its makeup. It seems that Heidegger would consider stock to be something that is like a food item sitting on a shelf at the supermarket. It is not necessarily technology and was not ordered the same way that standing-reserve is. He says before the quote above that standing-reserve is ordered, “so it may be on call for further ordering.” (pg. 105) The example that first game to my mind was what goes on for my job. My boss will call me to be on call to cover a shift because the person originally scheduled may or may not make it to work that day. There...
... middle of paper ...
...like a sci-fi movie of an apocalyptic scenario where robots take over the world but essential it could happen minus the robots part. We are losing our worth and importance to modern technology, when we are no longer the subject and instead are put on the back burner we, the human race, need to be concerned.
From what I gathered from Heidegger’s essay on the essence of modern technology I believe that he used the subject standing-reserve to show the difference between technology as the standing-reserve and humans as the standing-reserve. To put the findings in a short summary I would say that it is okay for technology to be the standing-reserve but when humans take that role we need to step back and analyze what our relationship with technology. Heidegger does not say this in a fashion to scare his audience but instead he took a more laid-back approach to warn them.
Ilya Varshavsky’s “Perpetual Motion” is the story of humanity’s relationship with technology. During a human council meeting, where humans superficially decide how their world will function, Class A robots demand equality with humanity. The human council is initially appalled, but after these robots explain they will supplement their labor with the labor of a new race of robots humanity grants their wish. Twenty years later, during a Class A robot council meeting, the topic of equality for Class B robots is introduced in a similar manner to the way Class A freedom was discussed. In order to grant equality to Class B robots, the Class A robots discuss the need to teach humans how to survive without them. They resolve to teach humans how
I agree with Ray Bradbury, humanity is doomed. Technology has created so many problems, so rapidly, that humans cannot respond to the changes. Technology has become a tool that makes our lives easier, but the negative effects are far too overpowering, making it almost impossible to stop it before it is too late. Examples from “The Veldt,” and “There Will Come Soft Rains,” show the potential dangers that technology could bring. It may seem unbelievable, but just as George Hadley said, “This is a little too real, but I don’t see anything wrong,” (Bradbury 1). Humans cannot see the problem, only past it. Global warming, antibiotic overuse, overpopulation, and modern warfare, are just a few of the threats technology bestows upon us.
Technology has been around as long as people have and has been advancing ever since. It is the reason that we have access to the miraculous tools that we do today. From the forks that we eat our supper with to the cars that get us from place to place technology is everywhere. However, with technology advancing at such a rapid pace, it could pose a threat to our future society. In the short stories “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut and “By the Waters of Babylon” by Stephen Vincent Benet, the authors describe how bleak society could become if we do not take precautions when using technology.
Movies and literature alike have often served to villainize technology. These topics survive and persist, perhaps because we are morbidly fascinated with our own predicted downfall. Many people will admit to being concerned, as cummings is in "of all the blessings which to man," that the world will one day be run by machines. This potential future governing force is "without a heart" and "couldn't use a mind," and that may scare humans most of all (25, 28).
Albert Borgmann follows the general project by Heidegger to see how technology has harmful effects on humanity and to determine how it can be reformed. Borgmann shares Heidegger’s view that modern technology is starkly different from premodern technology in its pattern of disclosing the world to human beings. Borgmann agrees that a sort of ethical reform must be undertaken to limit technological ways of living from dominating the lives of individuals and to keep technology in its place. His proposal for a direction of reform first takes cues from Heidegger but then asserts the need for different tactics.
In conclusion, “The Machine Stops” and “WALL-E” both use anti-technological themes to illustrate the dangers of technological advance, in particular our dependence on machines and technology for our survival. They showed that the combination of a dependence on an autonomous and out-of-control machine, a disconnection from nature, and an extreme loss of humanity can have disastrous consequences for us and our society. The question now is whether or not we can learn from these works and works like these and prevent a dark and inhuman future.
In today's world, technology is constantly changing from a new paperclip to an improvement in hospital machinery. Technology lets people improve the way they live so that they can preserve their own personal energy and focus on the really important factors in life. Some people focus their energy on making new innovations to improve transportation and the health of people that may save lives and some people focus on making new designs of packaging CDS. Technology is significant in everyone's life because it rapidly changes what is in the market. But, some new innovations of technology are ridiculous because they serve no purpose in helping mankind.
Even though, the arguments put forth by the author are relevant to the central theme, they lack clarity. He tends to go off on tangents and loses the flow of the article. It seems that the author has a slight bias against our generation’s obsession with technology, but that can be attributed to him being a quinquagenarian. I feel that the author has not covered the topic thoroughly enough. He has not quite explained the topic in depth or covered it from various perspectives.
From my perspective, what really causes these concerns is people’s over-independence on these robots. We tend to think that robots are intelligent and efficient enough that can replace our own mankind, making us too anxious to transfer the important work to the robots, and to accept and serve at a subordinate position. And this situation is really easy to happen. For myself, if something or someone can help me deal with my work, I will be so delighted to give away my work. This may also cause people hard to concentrate and start to lose their abilities since there is no need for people to do it themselves. This may lead to the results above and we will have nothing to do about it ultimately because it is we that first give the initiative to the robots. It is we that let them do so and at that time, we will have no strength to fight against these robots. So if we can avoid being over-independence on the robots, this will be less concerned.
Technology is constantly improving. In the last century, humanity has witnessed technology improve at an exponential rate and society change with the technology. Alfred Borgmann is concerned with explaining whether or not the rapid growth of technology has been good for society. His book, Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life is an insightful work that explores and critiques modern human interaction with science and technology. One of his main concerns was critiquing technology’s effect on society through a moral lens. This is a complicated task because our rhetoric on technology is dominated by science instead of morals, so it does not seek to define right and wrong. Science is also the basis from which technology has come from
... be able to keep a firm grip on the reigns of this technology. “I am optimistic that we will ameliorate these dangers while we overcome age-old problems of human distress”(Kurzweil. Pars 15). Kurzweil’s optimistic view of the humans prospering greatly from the machines is a happy ending, but it is not a completely reassuring one based on some of his conjectures. If the computers are smart enough to assimilate all of human knowledge, then how is man to predict the capability of holding them on leashes as they grow to gain artificial intelligence and awareness.
Today’s world is full of robots that vacuum the floor and cars that talk to their drivers. People can ask their phones to send a text or play a song and a cheerful voice will oblige. Machines are taking over more and more tasks that are traditionally left to people, such as cleaning, navigating, and even scheduling meetings. In a world where technology is becoming increasingly human, questions arise about whether machines will eventually replace humankind altogether. In Ray Bradbury’s short stories, “The Veldt” and “August 2026,” he presents themes that technology will not only further replace the jobs of humans, but it will also outlast humankind as a whole. Although this is a plausible future, computers just cannot do certain human jobs.
Robots Are Taking Over Humans Jobs In the Terminator film series, the Terminator is from a world controlled by robots. Technology got so advanced that Cyber Dyne Systems Skynet took over human-controlled robots and nuked the world. This story is impossible in reality, but robots should not be taken lightly in today’s world. Technology in the 21st century is getting more advanced every day.
According to John Horvat, an author in The Wall Street Journal, " The proper use of technology is that it should be a means to serve us and make our lives easier. A key requirement is that we should be in control." Although, the problem with today`s society, is that we are not in control. Instead of technology serving us, it is now the other way around. Society has been more dependent on its technology in recent years, than it has ever been in the past. Those who are against the up rise of the technology industries, believe that technology has taken away ...
To conclude, robots could be the backbone of the society that will result in a technological revolution. Because of robots various characteristics that do not experience fear, nor exhaustion and they are precisely programmed, which make them able to help in case of need, housework, and factories production. Society needs to put the issue of robots into consideration to satisfy any shortage exists in the world.