by To the public eye, technology is an object, tool, or mechanism that is powered by electricity, which can help us in daily activities. However, scholars such as Melvin Kranzberg acknowledged the polar nature that the term technology can have itself. Being born after the end of WWI and experiencing rapid progress in the disciplines of science, he sought to define technology into laws. After three decades, these 6 laws of technology are still widely agreed among contemporary scholars as an oath that questions the truth of human creation. However, those who oppose the absolute nature of these laws fail to understand how they can be supported using multiple historical events and examples. Specifically, I believe Kranzberg’s 1st law must be examined under a lens that is all encompassing of multiple perspectives in order to be fully understood.
“Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.” Kranzberg’s 1st law states that any development of technological progress is bound to have repercussions that are both good and bad for society– though the natural order of technology is inevitably neutral. Alternatively, some academics may argue that there have been multiple technological advances that have caused human society a significant amount of harm rather than benefits. I am sure you can think of some as well, such as weapons and narcotics. However, I believe Kranznerg’s argument can be expanded to two different interpretations to clarify the polar nature of technology.
First, biases and the failure to do basic research leads people to only believe one side of the argument. For example, the current debate on abortion laws seems to attract the extremes of liberal and conservative political parties. I see only a handful of those who develop strong arguments on either pro-choice or pro-life while sympathizing with the other end of the spectrum. This logic can be applied to Kranznerg’s 1st law of the neutral nature of technology. Being a STEM major, I have been told by professors and high school teachers about how harmful certain biological chemicals are for human health. Kranzburg uses the pesticide DDT as an example to further support his 1st law. DDT is a cheap chemical used to kill insects but in turn has a relatively high risk for exposing humans to carcinogens. The majority of academic researchers in developed nations advocate for the international ban of the chemical. On the other hand, in developing countries, the pesticide continues to protect millions of lives from malaria because they cannot afford a healthier alternative. Who is to value the lives of today over the well-being of those in the future? Taking a side based on face value is easy because it requires less work than weighing the significance of two different outcomes. Without doing this investigation on Kranzburg or DDT, I would have continued to believe that those who were against the ban of DDT to be ignorant and lacking scientific knowledge.
Second, more extreme cases of technology such as bombs or guns are more difficult to build a polar narrative around. Simply saying, ‘one lacks this perspective or research,’ is sometimes not enough to understand the true neutral nature of technology. I would like to use the Japanese film “The Wind Rises” to explain such extremes. The movie follows the protagonist Jiro Horikoshi who is a designer of planes. His nearsightedness prevents his lifelong dream of flying planes but instead his family members and mentors encourage him to design planes for the Japanese government. After a life-long journey of failed designs, his first successful plane, “Zero,” is unfortunately used as the primary plane for fighting the Allies and is responsible for the death of many innocent people. After the war, Jiro expresses his regrets of his dreams. He would never imagine that his dream of filling the sky full of airplanes, like birds and dragons, would cause such them to become killing machines. At the end of the film, he has a vision from his mentors who explains how his dream was still fulfilled. Even though the technology Jiro developed caused mass destruction, his developments ultimately led a big precedent for helping future aviation technology that could not be imagined. While the film has been criticized by many for lacking acknowledgement of Japanese war crimes, I think the film brings a good point on how ‘harmful’ technology could lead to technological and societal advances that we cannot see today. This definition of the neutral nature of technology takes into account the evolution of design and how society adapts to learn how to eventually use technology in the respect to its demands, as David Nye explains. Just like how Jiro’s war planes helped set a precedent for commercial aviation, we currently do not know how ‘bad’ technology, such as narcotics or chemical weapons, may help make us adapt in the distant future.
Kranzberg’s 1st law must be looked at using both a multi-perspective evidence-based and hypothetical approach. With the rise of artificial intelligence and genomic editing, technology is evolving every day. We will inevitably start to see a shift in society as we try and adapt to these changes in the future. Overall, rapid progress may make it more difficult for the public and law-making officials to make decisions on how to regulate the accessibility of technology. Understanding its neutral nature, as Kranzberg describes, may be a helpful resource later.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Kranzberg#:~:text=Kranzberg’s%20laws%20of%20technology&text=of%20technology%20state%3A-,Technology%20is%20neither%20good%20nor%20bad%3B%20nor%20is%20it%20neutral,precedence%20in%20technology%2Dpolicy%20decisions.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-6-laws-of-technology-everyone-should-know-1511701201
https://www.sustainability-times.com/environmental-protection/decades-later-ddt-pesticide-is-still-a-silent-killer/
https://ghibli.fandom.com/wiki/The_Wind_Rises