Technophobia

We as Americans (anyone in a developed nation) live in a complex, technologically advanced world. We have equipment that transports us in quick efficient manner, like automobiles and airplanes. We also have information technology such as radios, televisions and computers that transport information almost instantly across the world. Many more technological marvels exist in our world. As an engineer, these tools are magic without any of the deception. What always strikes me strange are individuals who have strange or irrational beliefs about technology. Sometimes, these beliefs are to the point of fear and often the terms technophobe or Luddite are used. I believe three main reasons why someone would reject a form of technology:
1) Utilitarian
2) Ignorance
3) Cultural influence of a potential failed society

Technology exists to make our daily lives easier. It is utilitarian in nature. As with anything in life, we choose whether to bring the useful gadgets into our lives or reject them. It can be argued that too much technology eventually becomes the accumulation of things and is materialistic. The Amish believe that technology disrupts the social order and prevents them from focusing on their cherished beliefs of community, simplicity and religion. As for those of us in mainstream society, this extreme rejection seems ridiculous. Looking to a more common pragmatic view is the selective acceptance and rejection of technologies. If someone accepted all new gadgets when they become available, their house would be filled to the brim with all sorts of things. Several conflicting technologies would be sitting next to each other. Since only one tool would be used as a primary phone or entertainment piece. Clutter would ensue. Significant amounts of money would also be wasted. This would not make our daily lives easier. It really is best if we limit our technology to what is needed. Rejection of some technology on the grounds of simplicity is necessary.

When I was young, they had a movie The Gods Must Be Crazy. The basic storyline is when a Coke bottle is dropped out of an airplane to a primitive tribe in Kalahari Africa. The natives are fascinated with the bottle never before seeing such a wonder and end up fighting over the bottle. They try to get rid of the bottle because of all the trouble within the tribe it is causing. We as individuals in industrialized countries are used to seeing such items. We do not fight over them in the same manner. The Bushman's lack of understanding is a form of ignorance. I am not degrading the tribesman, they just simply do not know what the item is due to lack of knowledge from experience. Being an engineer, I am exposed to high technology on a daily basis. I do not expect people with less experience/education to understand how advanced technology works. I do expect them to become comfortable with a technology after contact. Too often, this is not the case. New technologies come out and unsubstantiated claims immediate appear. The one that quickly comes to mind is nanotechnology making gray goo in people's minds. Note, this is science fiction and not reality. No form of nanotechnology exists that can replicate and turn your brain into goo! The lack of experience in everyday society allowed for the formation of media headlines stating such falsehoods. This kind of ignorance too often extends to common everyday technology unfortunately.

Something that has sort of a mythological place in western culture is the dystopia, the anti-utopia. Several well known dystopia stories are 1984, Brave New World and the Terminator movie series. The world has become an unpleasant, giant dysfunctional society with the technologically armed leaders keeping others in check. The future is an unknown arena. New controlling technologies may emerge, creating a potential dystopia. This is a fear raising idea without anyway to argue for or against. The Man may start watching with his new technology. How do I avoid this? Is this really a fault of technology. I would say no. This is really the product of an authoritarian government using technology to their advantage. It is a negative product of human action. The concept is old as the hills.

Technology can often generate other undesired results creating an unpleasant future, like pollution or various ecological destruction. These are controllable factors, once again by people. It is not a forgone conclusion the entire natural world will be destroyed. Societies have the option of adopting or rejecting a certain technology on the same principle as an individual for the common good. It is not fair to scapegoat all of modern life on the basis of an unknown future outcome. What is even more mystifying is the destructive results are from a minority of technologies. One can not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Truly, I believe prevention of a ecological disaster will come through the development of less harmful technologies and through cleaning up pollution using new techniques. Repealing technologies' march forward will not stop ecological damage.