BFB: Article 2

Last Friday was my first TA session. Now, campus was closed on Thursday due to snow, so the students only had one lecture from the prof. I tried my best to get them talking and I think I did a pretty good job.

Some background. The class is very comparable to a freshman seminar in terms of what it's about and the wide variety of people taking it. There are maybe 4-5 engineers in the class, a bio major, art major, CS major, history, English, communications, and a lot of business/finance and accounting majors. One of the guys in the class is a Machinist who works across from my lab! I definitely think some people took the class because they needed a science credit, but there are also a handful of people (like the engineers) who are truly interested in the political, social, and economic impacts of technology. I have 2 discussion sections. The first is at 10am and has 6 people in it. The 2nd is at 11am and has about 15 people in it. No one from the 11am would volunteer to be in the 10am section...I can't blame em though.

We really just talked generally about technology. I tried my best to keep the class like a conversation, and I think I did a good job, especially in the smaller class where the students seemed very comfortable. After introductions, I asked them to get into groups to "define" technology. The answers people came up with were something like these:

"Technology is an extension of the senses/body that increases efficiency"
"Anything that does something in a new way"
"Tools that help us get things done more efficiently"

There was actually a really big emphasis on efficiency among most of the definitions, which isn't surprising. One thing that struck me was the first definition. Two groups actually came up with the "extension of the senses/body" idea. I had never thought of it this way, but it really gets at the point of things. When you want to look at the stars, you use a telescope, when you aren't strong enough, you use a lever, and when your legs don't move fast enough, you drive a car. The second definition was made up by a group with no scientists in it. I asked them to explain their definition because I wanted to see how they would consider something as ancient as the wheel. They realized what I was getting at and altered their definition. But it also got me thinking a little bit. Why did this group decide that technology has to be something new? Is the rate of technological change so fast that obsolete technologies are not even considered technology anymore? Who knows...

I was thinking to myself earlier today and came up with my own definition for technology.

"Any unnatural means to end that requires the subject to think about oneself through time"

Let's break this down a little bit.
Unnatural. I think technology has to be made or designed (no God arguments here). A tree that fell over a stream that allows one to cross is not technology, but the bridge is. However, if a tree falls, and someone moves it so that it crosses the stream, I'd say that is now a bridge and counts as technology (though primitive indeed).
Means to an end. I think this gets at the sole purpose of technology. It's obvious, but an important addition. One thing I'm still working on is whether or not this "means to an end" has to be better than a means that we could do without technology. I can't think of an example just yet. If you can, leave it under the comments.
Thinking about oneself through time. I think this is a key part of technology because it gets at its driving forces. To be able to design some technology, you first need to picture yourself in the future as better off because of this technology. If you ever watch Animal Planet, you see the chimps searching for a stick, peeling the bark off, and then putting it through the hole (thats what she said) of a termite nest and eating the termites off the stick. I think this requires the chimp to think of itself in the future as getting utility out of this stick. I'm sure there is a counter argument for this. I suppose dogs could develop technology if they wanted. They're pretty smart, but I think opposable thumbs are a must for most tools.

Interesting fact: The word "technology" was not used widely until the 20th century. Even more interesting for us is that the word was brought to the English language from Thorstein Veblen. He theorized that technological advancements brought about social change (totes true).

I hope this was thought provoking. Comments?