Rachel Brown, How is technology affecting our health?

       One of the central assertions around which Slack and Wise structure “Culture and Technology: The Received View” is that the modern, westernized perception of progress is indiscernibly entangled with changes in technological capabilities. The connotations commonly associated with “progress” are largely positive, a product of the assumption that moving forward toward technological advancement is ultimately ameliorating the human condition. Slack and Wise challenge this view in this section of their book, and I agree with many of the points that they are raising. Technology and the conveniences that it offers can feel like they are saving us time and effort, particularly in terms of the exertion required to communicate with others. But are those technologies implemented in ways that holistically improve human life? Do we as a culture take the time to evaluate the health risks associated with blindly adopting new technology? I would like to further explore the ways in which the technological “advances” that the authors largely condemn have improved and detracted from the quality of human life.

            Slack and Wise make the point that one of the goals of technology is to cope with “the ultimate inconvenience” of death, a limitation of the human body that, as of now, cannot be surmounted. Technological advances have significantly changed the duration and quality of life that is possible. It is difficult to discredit the merits of technology that has enabled people with medical problems to function more normally, such as expanded treatment options and less invasive surgical techniques. However, many of these advances would not have been possible without the preceding development of technologies that initially appeared to be less applicable in the basic sense of fulfilling human needs, a criterion Slack and Wise posit that our culture has departed from in its evaluation of “useful” technology. For example, the discovery and harnessing of radio waves was initially implemented as a medium of communication, and later, for entertainment. Following many years of research, scientists were able to implement radio waves in the medical field in the form of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MRI is an effective diagnostic tool that has saved innumerable lives by providing early diagnosis of brain tumors, strokes, and many other medical conditions that can have a serious impact on a person’s ability to meet their basic needs. While the technological discovery of radio waves in itself may not have directly assisted in human survival, later technologies founded on that advancement have benefited people in meeting their basic needs.

However, some technology is an active detriment to our health, a risk that we often accept without question for the sake of convenience. When technological “progress” produces a new product that is revered for improving an aspect of life, such as the ability to access information more quickly, our culture tends to neglect the impact that it could have on our actual human needs. As exemplified in the documentary “Digital Nation,” the detriments of technology use can range from social ineptitude to eye problems. Similar problems can also be linked to smartphones, a technology that is widely regarded as a major achievement in convenience; this acceptance is reflected in the fact that 56% of American adults own a smartphone according to the Pew Research Center. But as our culture moves toward technologies that are increasingly convenient, are we sacrificing the foundation of our survival, our health?  No one can be certain of  the extent to which cell phones negatively impact our health. Studies have suggested that excessive light exposure from cell phone use can result in sleep disruption and even an increased risk of cancer. Even if we are measuring success in terms of cultural necessities and not survival, both of those effects will negatively impact a person’s ability to perform at work. Smartphones and other technologies may assist us in exceeding the limitations of time and space, but if we don’t have our health, what use is convenience?

When examining the role of technological progress in our culture, it is impossible to claim that technology has had an exclusively positive or negative affect on the human condition. This is particularly evident through the perspective of human health as an indicator of the fulfillment of basic human needs, which as Slack and Wise suggest in the example of the ancient Greek’s perception of convenience, is simply “meeting the demands of the body.” While modern western culture has altered this definition to value “overcoming the limits of the body,” I believe that it is important to assess whether technology is ultimately helping us become more efficient or undermining the progress we have made by deteriorating our health. When following the progression of technology, it becomes apparent that some advances have had direct benefits in helping humans meet their basic needs and others have a more ambiguous role. When evaluating progress, our culture values newness highly enough that we will risk our health for it, and this is a sacrifice that should be taken more seriously.