Postman's Technopoly Ch. 1-3

Is the judgment of Thamus rational? Can we predict cost and benefit of technology?

As I began reading Postman and his discernment of Thamus I found myself in a philosophical draw. On one hand, Thamus had genuine concerns and postulated his ideas that the cost of new technology (writing) would be detrimental. So I found myself asking, “What if we never learned to write?” On the other hand, I know that history has taught that even early humans created drawings in caves as means of communication and almost all cultures have some form of drawings to record events and legends. Hence my deductive reasoning lends me to believe that writing would be an inevitable development.

In my opinion, there is no way to effectively evaluate the cost of and benefit of a technology. For instance, Postman states that Thamus was worried that people would write- not what people would write. Was he worried about the oral traditions? Would you not worry about people changing the traditions told from generation to generation? I also understand the same possibilities may exist with writing. Who knows who is writing the truth and with what accuracy is it being told?

Technologies have exploded over the last few decades. I have seen growth I could not conceptualize as a child. I understand that some of these technologies have come at a cost. I see children texting and messaging instead of picking up a phone to communicate. I never write a letter to friends but rather an email. I can see some inadvertent and negative ramifications to this explosion but I also see the advances in the science fields and life improvements.

One point I found interesting and highlighted in the reading was Postman’s statements about “a psychic battle” and “children who can’t or won’t learn to read”. This struck a cord within me as I deal with young children not wanting to learn to read. They do not see the importance in it. I also thought about the growing number of children that are being diagnosed with ADD and ADHD. Although I am not blaming technology for this, but rather environmental factors (parenting, prenatal drug use, chemical imbalances) I did find it intriguing that Postman made that leap.

Do you agree with what Postman says about the rise of technocracy? Does it really divorce faith and intellect?

I did follow and be in the same mind as Postman for most of what he wrote about the rise in technocracy. I agree with Postman that many cultures/civilizations could be classified as tool-using cultures, technocracies or technopolies. I would concur that tool-using cultures are becoming extinct and give rise to technocracies. However, I was surprised when Postman stated, “tool-using cultures were not impoverished technologically” but may be sophisticated. I immediately thought about the Egyptian pyramids and how they must have been built. I then thought about the Tower of Babel and how God confused the speech of man.

This gives rise to the next question dealing with faith and intellect. Postman gives examples of men with advanced thinking for their time and their personal struggles in dealing with their intellect and the time in which they lived. Most advanced thinkers were thought of as crazy, fanatical or even irrational. Some were so scared of being persecuted they kept their ideas secret. Postman felt that the advances in technology were embedded so deeply that they began to define a culture choking the moral and spiritual beliefs from society.

In my opinion, faith and intellect can coexist. One can hold fast to their beliefs and still embrace technological advances. In my opinion, I look at intellect as God given and it should be used for the good of man.

How do you see technopoly? Is it inevitable? Does it subjugate culture?

I see the United States today as a technopoly- rising from the historical advances from a tool-using culture to technocracy to present-day technopoly. The emergence of technopoly is inevitable given the human desire to invent. From the early invention of the wheel or lever to modern-day machinery, humans have always yearned to make improvements to make life easier. This is not always the case and opinion of some, those who believe that the advancements bring confusion, chaos or even making life more difficult.

In my opinion, technopoly does not subjugate culture. I do not see advancing technologies as an enemy to culture suppressing it into submission. Postman did propose some ideals that opened my mind. He made some interesting points and made me think how technology ‘could be’ used to suppress a culture. I can see in some countries today how government to suppress and control a culture can control technologies, such as television and news media. In addition, I can see how dependent a culture can become on technology, thereby crippling them when the technology is absent. I can personally speak from experience of this dependence as most people in America can. For instance, most would not think of electricity as a technology, however today electricity is very much a life source of many technological advances. Without electricity most modern-day technologies would cease to operate.

I believe a technopoly could enhance and promote a culture. Today, with the advances of the Internet and media cultural ideas can spread like wildfire. For instance, the recent revolts and uprising in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Bahrain were substantially helped through the Internet and social sites like Facebook. The liberties won in one country sparked the unrest and desires of others. Through the technology that is now available, attention was drawn to the peoples’ plight and their voices were heard and actions taken for a better society and culture. I would say technopoly improved and offered freedom. In my opinion, if these uprisings were to have happened twenty years ago, victory would not have been won but rather squelched and silenced back into submission by the ruling governments.