Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

Essay 1

The invention and use of tools is considered one of the fundamental steps in the evolution of humankind. If we were to retrace our steps to year one in the history of technology we would find that the tools used were not manufactured or made, but were indistinguishable items found in nature. Objects like sticks and stones were used without being changed thanks to the nifty adaptation of opposable thumbs, to accomplish tasks that we began to undertake as our intelligence grew. So did we merely take these objects out of the environment and assign them a purpose? Or was their purpose already defined by their very nature; did they convince us to use them in a certain way? It is hard to say; even when we, mankind, entered the Stone Age and began to modify tools to suit our needs, the tools just as easily changes and shapes us. The invention of the spear was so that humans could be able to hunt more efficiently. The result was a surplus of food that lead to the creation of the hunter-gathering system and the beginnings of civilization. An invention made to help hunt for food ended up influencing a society and way of living. So what came first, the chicken or the egg? Man or the wheel? In his essay Toys, Roland Barthes argues that French toys recreate adult scenarios for children, training them to complete tasks. An example of such toys he uses are dolls that drink and urinate, which are supposed to train daughters to become mothers (53). He specifically states how this is intentional, that the French toymaker sees the child as a homunculus to whom must be supplied objects of his own size (53). In effect, the children who grow up playing with these toys gain a vocational view of the world. They become what Barthes calls users (54). On the other hand, there are toys that foster a different kind of learning in children. Traditional toys such as wooden blocks allow for spontaneity and imagination. Because they are simple and bland, the constructs the child makes need not have a real world counterpart. Instead it allows them to build their world from the ground up becoming creators, rather than take it for granted (55). We created toys as a lens for young children to view and learn about the world they live in. They are, in essence tools for nurturing youth. By this token they have the same properties tools have that were mentioned earlier. While they may have been created with intentions, even if differing ones, they also in turn affect their masters. The toys that children play with today and the kind of experience they offer for them will affect how they live and view the world as adults. Robert Selzer brings us back to the chicken and egg paradox in his essay, The Knife. In this piece, Selzer takes us on an insiders perspective of the operating room, masterfully making us look through the eyes of the surgeon. The theme he gravitates around is the relationship between the surgeon and his epitomic tool of surgery, the scalpel (hence the title). He holds a great reverence for this object, at times fearful, at others thoughtful: What is it, then, this thing, the knife, whose shape is virtually the same as it was three thousand years ago, but now with its head grown detachable? Before steel, it was bronze. Before bronze, stonethen back into unremembered time. Did man invent it, or did the knife precede him here, hidden under ages of vegetation and hoofprints, lying in wait to be discovered, picked up, used? (689) Selzer mentions how as technology progressed, the blade has become detachable from the handle. The separation of the two parts is profoundly symbolic. On the one hand you have

the blade itself, as like any sharp object you would find in the natural world such as a rock or a branch. It is primitive and it is feral. Then you have the handle, which likely evolved when man began to modify his tools for more specific uses; it serves as an interface between man and machination. There is, in fact, a third piece and that is the person using the knife, in this case the surgeon. It is as Selzer states, so close is the joining between knife and surgeon that they are like the Centaur (688). The surgeon is the top the human half, the half of rational thought. If the human half is the Id, then the knife, the equine bottom half, would be Freuds Super Ego. It would be the half of power, of instinct. Throughout the essay, Selzer describes the blade as a carnivorous beast with a ferocious appetite. The only thing keeping it from running amok is the surgeons hand, taming it. It is a tense relationship indeed. A knife by definition is a lethal object, designed to maim and injure. It is therefore easy to see it as like the sea, in untamable force of nature. Because of its disposition, the surgeon is forced to remain fearful and tense. It makes him weary of the power in his hands and the consequences of any mistakes. And yet we forget what the surgeon uses this cold blooded utensil for. We forget that in using a scalpel the surgeon seeks not slay, but to protect life. In a surgeons hands the scalpel has preserved countless lives on deaths door. So could we not then say that the surgeon has changed its purpose? That the knife is both villain and hero, depending on who wields it? A knife can only cut. This we know is true; when the surgeon travels into the cancer patients body he mercilessly strikes down the tumor. The patient is saved, but what of the tumor? Sure it has been the murderer of millions and it may not be considered sentient but we still have the idea that it must be destroyed for the patient to live on. The fact that for every winner there must be a loser is nothing new to us. The tools essence cannot change but the way it is employed can vary. We have a reciprocated relationship with the objects we make. Although it is not absolute we have some control over it. So that calls into question the responsibilities we have over this relationship. We have seen how big of an effect inventions have over entire civilizations through the innovation of weapons that lead to hunter-gathering societies. In his book, Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You, Eli Pariser gives us a look at the spear of the 21st century: the internet. The subject for his book is about how the internet has drifted away from the purpose of which it was created, which was the democratization and free flow of information. Anyone anywhere could access a wealth of information and retain anonymity. That was how it was, at least, at first. The internet of today is far different because it has become commercialized; it is a now a medium for advertising. Since advertising is the source of revenue for practically every internet website, whether directly or indirectly, it became the central component of the web. Companies also began to realize that the internet was a great way to find out what products individual customers would be more likely to spend money on. This is how the race for personalization began. Most websites use personalization now. Google bases most of its search results based on your internet habits and advertisements on the sidebar of many websites are usually catered to you by monitoring your search habits. Facebook uses this technology in its newsfeed feature, showing you updates of people you talk to the most. This innovation may seem neutral or even necessary in a capitalistic society, but Pariser assures us that it is not. In order for internet companies to accurately target you with ads it needs to gather tons of information about you. What it does with this information is not up to you and most people are not even aware that there are databases that sell their information to advertisers. Often in the news we hear about privacy issues, particularly concerning Facebook. While this

has been the subject of much debate, Facebook has no intention of changing its policies. After all, millions of people use Facebook every day, either completely ignorant of, or not caring about the trade off. According to Pariser, this personalized web leads to another problem, what he calls the filter bubble. Because personalized searches adhere to your interests, they essentially put you in what Pariser calls a you loop, where you are exposed only to the familiar. In a filter bubble there is no room for serendipity. The free exchange of information that was thought to be a major component of the web in its early days has crumbled thanks to capitalistic greed. Here we have a current and ongoing example of the reciprocating relationship between man and invention and the consequences that result. Thanks to its opaque and malleable nature the internet deviated from its optimistic beginnings in order to create profit. The internet now takes up a huge part of modern culture, it is plain simple to see how the guiding principles behind the web affect that of society. Pariser advocates a proactive awareness and approach to the direction of The chicken and egg type of paradoxical question has been the subject of many debates between philosophers, quantum physicists, and even Zen Buddhists throughout history. Y

Works Cited
Selzer, Richard. The Knife. Encounters: Essays for Exploration and Inquiry. 2nd ed. Ed. Pat C. Hoy II & Robert DiYanni. New York: McGraw, 2000. Barthes, Roland. "Toys," Mythologies. New York: Hill and Wang, 1972. Print. Pariser, Eli. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Press, 2011. Print.

S-ar putea să vă placă și