Dear colleagues, I think that technology is so appealing because it seems to work, although not so many people know how to use it to its fullest. It hides the materiality of things, so reality is dispersed in its "elements". It seems to make life better for us, but then it distances us from daily chores that give order to our lives. It is a financial perk we can show off before others, as it becomes the most illustrious object in our daily semiology of objects. Instead of browsing Google Earth for hours, I ride a bicycle and go to real places. I like my archive system, and Adobe Illustrator, and 3D rendering, but I still draw, file and make models in balsa wood without a laser cutter. My hands are getting more dexterous. That makes me happy. My body and I are getting along better and better...

There has been no answer to this question. I wonder whether the question is too trivial (stupid), or too difficult to be answered. It may also be that we have been conditioned to accept all that technology (power-holders) bestows upon us, without questioning anything. An ancient sage used to say that the aim of education is to free people from the truths of their time. This seems a difficult task.

because Tech seldom pose moral dilemma... also it is ubiquitously available by  the insidious design of predominant marketplace?

Technology, especially information technology, do not pose any dilemma, indeed. You just follow the trend (use properly machines), and you do not need to care about what you do ... Regarding the design, technological devices are usually appealing ... Besides the design, communication devices are a sort of oracles, from which we always expect some "good news" (which seldom come) ... I travel to work once or twice weakly by bus; the landscape is nice, but most people watch their mobile devices; I prefer to watch the landscape, although I have seen it many times. Those who do watch through the window, often do this to record the environment, rather than to watch it. Anyway, technology is mostly good & useful, but the way we use it is often dubious.

Depending on the type of technology, some people use technology because it makes their lives better. Many home tech can do a lot of home chores, so they may be appealing to those who can afford them.  In some societies, the type of tech one possesses is a status conferral. So this is another reason why tech can appeal to people.

Dear colleagues, I think that technology is so appealing because it seems to work, although not so many people know how to use it to its fullest. It hides the materiality of things, so reality is dispersed in its "elements". It seems to make life better for us, but then it distances us from daily chores that give order to our lives. It is a financial perk we can show off before others, as it becomes the most illustrious object in our daily semiology of objects. Instead of browsing Google Earth for hours, I ride a bicycle and go to real places. I like my archive system, and Adobe Illustrator, and 3D rendering, but I still draw, file and make models in balsa wood without a laser cutter. My hands are getting more dexterous. That makes me happy. My body and I are getting along better and better...

The sheer joy of trying something "New", could be the first catch point

In Globalization current,technology is appealing to many people. 

In my opinion, technology is predominant tool to overcome the challenge of modern world.

In my view, the appeal of technology gathered force and took root from the 1920-1960's movement where technology was associated with progress and promise of better living standards in a "democratized" way due to mass production and its promise of more affordable prices.This led to associating technology with an Utopian society in which man would be free from the toils of work while technology "magically" solved the problem. even though this also led to movements against technological determinism, it still lingers in much of society.

My two cents

As it make the social life more comfortable.

George says: " ... I don't have ... even a cell phone."

This is nice, indeed. I graduated computer science almost forty years ago, and I teach computer networks, but I got slightly tired of all these "advanced devices" around me. However, I do have a cell phone (with the tone switched off), because I spend most of my time in the woods. So, people (from  the Department) can always "contact me"; I usually call them back at 8 pm, or the next day. This is not so bad "response time", in my view. ... I once wrote: Those who live in hurry do not live at all.

Dear Mario, I see here quite a few interesting answers. Maybe they are not what you expected, and maybe some of us do not agree with the way you pose your question, but that is the purpose of ResearchGate: debate. My favorite answer: Arturo Geigel's. It reminded me of Roland Barthes's short essay on "Plastic" in his book "Mythologies". Throughout the ages, there has been a strong mythology regarding the importance of technology: language, the roll, the codex, the book, the printing press, the dictionary, the encyclopedia, the school, the university... all of these are "technologies". In the 20th century, after the industrial revolution, we have embraced the machine as the only technology (see Leo Marx's excellent book titled The Machine in the Garden) worth its name. Well, no, human thought has its own technologies, the human body has its own technologies, ways of doing things, much like virtual search robots. We should not say that we have more technology than the people before our time. Every period of history has had its own "advanced technology".

The lesson here is that now technology is concentrated in gadgets, objects that become obsolete in a few days, and that, for us, stand for Technology with capital "T": mere commodities that another Marx (Karl) had in mind when criticizing our replacing the use value of things for their exchange value. These gadgets are fetishes rather than useful tools, subservient to our desire for better social status and not for the better life of humanity. A 1956 collage by British artist Richard Hamilton comes to mind when you speak of the "appeal of technology", and I have attached it below. Maybe "appeal" is not more important than pertinence and usefulness...

Best regards, Lilliana

Lilliana,

I consider Leo's work essential in this discussion. Thanks for bringing it up.

Lilliana, thank you for your answer and explanations. Let me make one remark in this regard. I am not inclined to call "technology" (or "technics") nearly everything. Lewis Mumford calls ancient societies "megamachines", because they were authoritarian, so that the behaviours of people was strictly determined. Jacques Ellul loved to use the word "technicque", which Wikipedia describes as "the totality of methods rationally arrived at, and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity". I saw debates about "what Ellul actually meant" by this concepts. I do not like such concepts & definitions, because they are too wide and vague. By technology, I mean primarily physical devices and systems, mostly those of the modern age.

Anything that is new, useful and will make life easier is appealing to many.

For individuals of a newer generation technology gives some identity. Hence the prominence of social media!

A sociologist wrote that people love social networks because people have an inherent need to communicate and to belong to a community. This is basically correct, but social networks offer more than that: they give people the possibility to present themselves to the world in the way *they wish* to be seen by others. The internet makes each of us visible to the entire world, so that we can all feel like "world personalities". ... The bad news is that each individual has a rather small chance to be noticed (by many) in this jungle of images and voices.

Dear Mario, technology must include much more than physical objects because there are many technologies that should not be omitted. I understand that is your preference, but this limitation would limit the discussion to gadgets, and that if not fair, in my opinion. I will give you an example: some years ago UNESCO was forced to widen the scope of "heritage" because a tribe of nomads from the north of Russia proposed to the World Heritage List a horse-riding game that required horse-riding and horse-taming techniques that were singular to their community. UNESCO accepted this proposal in 2013. Please check the link below.

http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/USL/chovqan-a-traditional-karabakh-horse-riding-game-in-the-republic-of-azerbaijan-00905

For more information you can go directly to UNESCOS's Intangible Heritage List: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/

We have inherited intangible technologies for all aspects of our lives. If we can have intangible heritage, we certainly can have intangible technologies worth that name.

I want you to know, Mario, that this discussion is excellent, deep, diverse, and useful. Do not take me wrong.I am happy to be here. I am learning a lot. :-)

Best regards, Lilliana

Lilliana, your discourse and insight is comprehensive and interesting. On the other hand, my intention is simple: to make concepts clear. I do not want to call "technology" too many things, because what means everything, tells nothing.

You say: "UNESCO was forced to widen the scope of "heritage" because a tribe of nomads from the north of Russia proposed to the World Heritage List a horse-riding game that required horse-riding and horse-taming techniques that were singular to their community." - Nice, but I do not think that *all heritage* should be called "technology". Or, let me put it in this way: I do not think that all that can be described as a "technique" is necessarily "technology". We can call "technique" nearly everything, from the primitive art of hunting to the art of preparing meal.

I do not have any specific preferences beyond making the discourse precise. That is why I am trying to limit the concept of technology. However, it is not easy to do this in a coherent way. The concept "technology" was introduced in the seventeenth century, but its meaning has gradually changed. At the beginning, this concept referred to practical arts (crafts); during the nineteenth century this concept became associated with the *application of science* to practical arts; its meaning later included the performing of specific activities with the aim to produce specific effects. The present meaning of the concept "technology" is imprecise or very wide. Various definitions of technology have been given, but they are not god. We can say that "technology" refers to the *means*, *skills* and *activities* that are involved in the achieving of a goal. But such definition is too wide: it includes playing tennis, for example. It is difficult to shape a good definition of a very wide phenomenon, but this does not mean that it is not possible to shape a useful definition at all.

You say: "... this discussion is excellent, deep, diverse, and useful. ... I am happy to be here. I am learning a lot." - I am happy that you learned a lot. I have yet to do it; namely, I am working on the text "People and Machines", but I am less enthusiastic about this text than I was at the beginning. Things are more complicated than they looked at the beginning.

Best wishes, Mario

Hello Mr. Mario,

Great day!

I am indeed appreciate for your valuable dialogues.

By the way, technology is just the tool that could use based on our needs. 

For convenient working and living at Information age, technology is appealing.

Regards,

Mario,

I would suggest that we focus first on a possible consensus of how can we frame technology. While you argue that Lilliana's framing maybe too broad,I would also say that framing it as"mean primarily physical devices and systems, mostly those of the modern age" has some possible complications also. The complication stems from imposing a specific time period and therefore negate that technology existed before.  I do tend to agree with you that a good starting point of physical devices and systems. Nonetheless, I would put it up for debate on whether it is a good starting point (maybe we can find middle ground with Lilliana's excellent contribution).

I would also like to encourage you to continue on your journey that you have started with your work. Contributions in this area are greatly needed.

Regards,

Arturo

Dear Mario, I did not say that all heritage is technology or viceversa. I said exactly "we certainly can have intangible technologies worth that name." My position stands. The fact that you want to narrow down "technology" to machines for making your research easier does not affect the definition of technology or its huge variety. The subject will still be complex even if you personally limit your research based on convenience. You write your book as you prefer, but that will not degrade or limit the scope of technology.

Good luck, Lilliana

In my view, attempts to define the concept of technology (known to me) have not been successful. In this context, my attempt to offer something slightly better than that runs like this. The concept of technology refers to (1) hardware (devices and substances) of various kinds, (2) knowledge that controls (runs, uses) the hardware, and (3) the structural features that connect various entities into complex systems, which (4) function in a purposeful way.

Therefore, this was my attempt to "hit" the essence of technology; the attempts to be more precise than that usually miss the essence and lead to difficulties of various kinds. I will consider carefully each suggestion, but I have many things to do (lecture, meetings, administration) so that I currently cannot dedicate much time to this work. Anyway, my aim is to explore the relationship between people and technology, rather than produce a perfect definitions.

I remembered noise! Machines produce all sorts of noise. I dislike noise, but it seems that many people love it. Noise keep them company. Some people have television  switched on always, although they do not watch it. I knew a farmer, whose tractor was working almost always, also when he did not use it. It seems that many people love “machine sounds”. Noise is a sort of "opium for people".

Mario,

I would like to bring to the conversation the work of Brian Arthur, which I have heavily used as stepping stone in developing a proposal for an algorithmic quantification of novelty and non-obviousness in technology (I will hopefully have the final draft for publication within 3 months).

Brain Arthur uses three definitions of technology

1)" A means to fulfill a purpose"(too broad for your target)

2)" An assemblage of practices and components"(more in line with your definition)

3)"Collection of devices and engineering practices available to a culture"(may have some elements which you might find interesting)

What is really interesting about his work are not his definitions, but his postulation of the principles on which technology relies.

1)"All technologies are combinations"- This goes to the concept of combinatorial evolution

2)" Each component of technology is in itself a miniature technology"-  provides a continuity in analysis  and also addresses some of the fundamental problems of explaining non Eureka moments of technology development

3)"All technologies harness and exploit some effect or phenomenon, usually several"- This provides for an explanation of our modern technological advancement based on science.

Hope this helps

Reference:

Arthur B. ,"The nature of technology".

Arturo, your answer is interesting, and I will try to find time to read the book you mentioned. However, your discourse, as well as the discourse of Arthur, seems more abstract than my discourse wants to be. I spent plenty of time reading various "philosophies of technology" (Heidegger and those who love him), but I am aiming to something more pragmatic, even fun, if possible. Let me illustrate this by a piece of text I wrote today, why I was waiting for something.

Are people rational? Yes, at the level of the means and methods they develop and use. No, at the level of many aims and behaviours. Let me mention an example of common behaviour at my department.

Situation 1: September, the conference room, a meeting, temperature 25 centigrade. We are in short sleeves. Air-conditioning must work, because it is too hot! Temperature is lowered to 20 centigrade. I protest, because air-conditioning makes noise, but I am alone against all others.

Situation 2: October, the conference room, a meeting, temperature 20 centigrade. We are in long sleeves. Air-conditioning must work, because it is cold! Temperature is raised to 25 centigrade. I protest, because air-conditioning makes noise, but I am alone against all others.

Therefore, when it is 25, we want 20; and when it is 20, we want 25. That is a common & constant behaviour at my department. I say to my young colleagues that I consider their behaviour rather stupid, but they do not care for that. Air-conditioning must work, and it works always, every day of the year, entire days.

"People die, and they are not happy", says Albert Camus (in "Caligula"). Hence, they need something - a god or an air-conditioner, or both - to bestow some meaning upon their existence. That is my explanation why people so badly need all sorts of technological devices: because they (we) die and we are inherently unhappy. We need machines & noises to console us for the fact that we were born.

It may be that the above claim is exaggerated, but I tried to indicate how my approach to the issue "people & machines" looks like. I consider your answer interesting and useful, but my intention is to be less conceptual and more practical. (I will be absent for several days.)

Mario,

I certainly understand your approach, but let me tie up why I emphasize these points with points related to your approach.

Technology evolves not in a vaccum but on top of its sub components and their interrelated history.In "The Evolution of Technology" George Basalla argues that Mesoamericans failed to exploit the invention of the wheel. The reason for this he attributes to dense jungles and rugged terrain and also lack of domesticated animals for pulling. This gave these people the burden to carry loads on their backs.

As a second example take anti-virus software which it is a Nuisance and people complain it slows computers down,....,etc. Yet a whole industry has blossomed instead of fixing the core of the problem which is the software "sub component" of the "computer system". While this is hard to attribute a conspiracy theory of making things bothersome, just like the noise of your air conditioner, I will put forth the more "evil" example given by Langdon Winner. According to Winner's "Do artifacts have politics" in long Island about 200 low hanging overpasses were built to prevent bus transit so that poor people were kept off the roads.

Tying down the sub components and systems together in a long chain of historical events gives us explanations as to why things are they way they are. Sometimes as in the case of the overpass example, technology is really made to bother us and drive us to behave the way we do.

Hello Colleagues,

Great day!

I do heartfelt appreciate for your comprehensive dialogue regarding technology appealing.

Thank you so much.

Regards,

It is much easier to change the technology than itself :-))

I am back, but I am leaving tomorrow again.

Arturo says: "In 'The Evolution of Technology' George Basalla argues that Mesoamericans failed to exploit the invention of the wheel. ..."

I thought that they did simply not know for this invention! If they did not invent the wheel, they did not have much possibility to hear for this discovery from others.

Arturo: "... anti-virus software which it is a Nuisance and people complain ... Yet a whole industry has blossomed instead of fixing the core of the problem ..."

That is how (capitalist) business functions: it creates problems, so that it can profit by "resolving" them. There are many things that function on the basis of this principle. Wars sell weapons, and so forth. ... But this is not the same kind of phenomena as the compulsive use of air-conditioning. Viruses and wars are imposed upon people (by power-holders); the use air-conditioning and similar devices is something that people do by themselves.

Arturo: "According to Winner's 'Do artifacts have politics' in long Island about 200 low hanging overpasses were built to prevent bus transit so that poor people were kept off the roads."

This example has been exploited widely, but what if Winner was wrong? I heard that low overpasses were constructed with the aim to prevent poor people (who do not possess car and use buses) to come to good beaches, so that rich people can enjoy these beaches in peace. However, there could have been other reasons for constructing low overpasses: for example, to lower the construction costs. Anyway, what makes Winner's story dubious (to me) is the obvious fact, that if buses were not able to pass under the overpasses, than big tracks could not pass either, and this would harm many activities in the region. Americans have & love big trucks.

Mario,

Basalla documents in his book that Mesoamericans had figurines with axles and wheels. I find his hypothesis intriguing in this regards and put in the context of theories of technological evolution it makes sense that due to circumstances they did not exploit the use of the wheel.

With respect to the air conditioning and computers similarity, I really do think it is the same kind of phenomenon. People do have choice to select and it is not imposed by power holders, it is by convenience, herding behavior, compulsiveness and lack of knowledge that there are alternatives (though less user friendly). There are alternatives to the air conditioning conundrum, though they cost and people do not generally look for answer to this problem (the same happens with computer systems and their security). While lengthy we could take this point further if you would like.

Regarding you final point, it could be true that Winner could have misinterpreted the event. Though I think that given the time frame in which the events took place it is not outside the realm of possibility. I think that your point on economic impact reinforces Winner's argument as opposed to weakening it. From a planning perspective, if there was an economic impact they would have built the overpasses higher and not lower, so there needs to be other considerations(including the need to accommodate those big trucks). In terms of budget height is just one possible alternative to budget constraints. Consideration such as width, materials, construction technique are in my opinion primary concerns and not necessarily height (many years ago I had the need to work in construction for a time).

Thanks for the lively exchange, it is really wonderful to elaborate technology topics in RG

Rightnow, Technology is appealing in line with Globalization age and modernized World.

However, we should take care the negative impacts from it and conserve the Natural Values of our World.   

Arturo: "With respect to the air conditioning and computers similarity, I really do think it is the same kind of phenomenon. People do have choice to select and it is not imposed by power holders, it is by convenience, herding behavior, compulsiveness and lack of knowledge that there are alternatives (though less user friendly)."

In my view, there is a clear difference between what is imposed on people, and what they chose by themselves. For example, I used a laptop for more than ten years as a typing machine, without any upgrading. This laptop has never been on the network; when I finished a text (a paper or a chapter), I made a backup on CD, and transferred the text to another computer (which is on the internet), to send it somewhere by the internet.

On the other hand, at the work, I am compelled to upgrade (software and hardware) rather often; in fact, a special service of the university does this for me, regardless whether I like it or not. Many people love new things, but many (most?) people are compelled to accept novelties even when they do not need them and do not like them, which I consider irritating.

My point about air conditioning is that people use it also when there is no objective reason (need) for using it. The same holds for many other technical devices and systems. Anyway, some things are imposed upon us, other we chose by ourselves, often for psychological reasons. I do not like to use devices & upgrading when they are neither needed nor useful, because they make noise and compel me to learn things I do not need.

Can we add: power of imitating "higher-ranked" people? Maybe the whole issue is relating to imitate more prestigious societies. Ibn Khaldun claimed that lower performer societies follow higher performers.

not as much as soccer games, no? hehe...

Dear S. 澍苍 Ye Laird,

I don't know regarding your cultural perspective, and what are the appropriate behaviors, but your comment is inappropriate in ResearchGate, at least to me. In addition, your comment is not understood; kindly, rephrase it using scientific words.

Thank you

you don't believe FIFA / Soccer employed the 'best' kind of Tech? I beg your pardon then...