Quoting from the "Victorian Internet" epilogue in regards to the hype created from the birth of the Telegraph and the Internet,
"They are direct consequences of human nature, rather than technology." (212)
I read this line once, twice, and thrice and found that this statement the author proclaimed is deeply thought-provoking.
The world we live in right now is only shaped towards what we humans make it to be.
I.E. A "chair" is a "chair" because we have defined the object in such a way that we understand it to be, well, a chair.
We humans are biased to the symbols we arbitrarily choose to create meaning to an object; but to a further extent, we also create a sort of preference of how we use the object.
When we give preference to how and what objects should be use, what can you call this? Anthrocentrism?
This idea of Anthrocentrism is hard to imagine because, we (our species) are at the top of the food chain. There is no one on the same level with our species. Consider however, if they were another species who are similar to the human species that co-exist with us today..
How would they use the Internet had it been new technology to them? How would the world be?
What we create the world to be are the reflections of our own human nature.
Can we say we are anthropoligically biased then?
I wonder then...what other factors in the world are dead obvious to us if we weren't human.
~Ej Cruz (Student)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Interesting post, EJ, and thought-provoking! Certainly, the design of certain tools and objects is determined by our biology to some extent. However, I hesitate to apply a concept of "human nature" to these phenomena (perhaps this is my own anthropological bias, or some sort of deep-seated Marxism... hmmm...). It seems to me that "human nature" isn't natural at all; it is perceived as such, but really isn't it the product of culture? In that respect, I think that Standage underestimates the cultural implications involved in developing new technologies.
Post a Comment