MELBOURNE GRAMMAR SCHOOL
Dr Felicity McCutcheon, Head of Philosophy and Religion
YEAR 9 EXAM
‘KEEP TABS ON TECHNOLOGY’
Part One: All questions are compulsory – (20 marks)
1. Identify and write out the 6 questions the author thinks should be asked about the development of new
technologies. (6 marks)
2. For each of the 6 main questions, the author gives examples to illustrate the meaning and importance of the
question. Choose 3 of the 6 questions and explain how the example works to illustrate the issue being explored
by the question. (6 marks)
3. a) Who were the Luddites? (2 marks)
b) Why is the author sympathetic to them? (2 marks)
c) Why will there always be winners and losers with regard to technology? (2 marks)
4. Look back over the original 6 questions. Which one do you think is the most important? Why? Give your reasons.
(2 marks)
Part Two: Choose 3 of the following questions and develop a sustained and thoughtful response. All
questions worth 5 marks. (Total 15 marks)
5. “The more we become immersed in technology, the more difficult it is to be patient with the natural unevenness
and unpredictability of living”. What do you think is meant by this remark and do you agree?
TEXT BOX TO SIDE
Student response to Q5: This means that the more we live in a technological world the less patient we are with the
original way of life before the technology was here and we are less patient with things that don’t go the way we think it
should. I fully agree with this and this is shown really by our generation. In our generation, people or kids are so impatient.
If something doesn’t go their way, they get angry and frustrated. It their computer breaks down they get angry. The
reason why people act like this is because of technology. It brings on the message or idea of speed and perfection so
people think the world is going to be perfect. But the world is not perfect. A great example of the unpredictability of living
is death. We can’t control whether someone is just going to suddenly die from a heart attack. Life is full of
unpredictabilities and technology encourages us to think of them as bad.
6. “Technology…the knack of so arranging the world that we need not experience it”.
a) What do you think is meant by this remark?
b) Can you give examples?
c) What are the dangers of humans losing their experience of the world?
7. At the end of I, Robot, Sunny asks Spooner what he is to do. Spooner tells him that he will have to work it out like
the rest of us. A defining feature of human beings is that we are not ‘programmed’ but are able to make choices
about what we think is important, what we think we should do, what we think makes life meaningful and so on.
Our freedom is both a blessing and a burden. Why?
8. “We prefer to do things comfortably’, said the Controller.
‘But I don’t want comfort. I want God. I want poetry. I want real danger. I want goodness. I want freedom’.
‘In fact’, said the Controller, ‘you’re claiming the right to be unhappy’.
‘Alright then’, said the Savage defiantly. ‘I’m claiming the right to be unhappy’. (Brave New World)
“In the act of courage the most essential part of our being prevails against the less essential. It is the beauty and
goodness of courage that the good and the beautiful are actualised in it. Therefore, it is noble”. (Tillich, The
Courage to Be)
Describe a situation in which you (or someone else) displayed courage. Explore the connection between the
human capacity for courage and the meaning of the above quotations.
Keep tabs on technology by Neil Postman
How can we remain sane in
a furious, speeded up
technological society? I
have six questions, the
answers to which can
provide insights into the
way technology intrudes
itself into culture.
The first question needs to
be addressed when anyone
tells us about a new
technology such as
interactive television,
virtual reality, highdefinition TV or the
information superhighway.
What is the problem to
which this technology is a
solution? The technology
writer Nicholas Negroponte
envisages a time when we
may speak to a doorknob so
that it opens. It is certainly
possible; but you have to
ask what is the real problem
that this technology solves.
Politicians are spending
billions of dollars to create
an information
superhighway, to give us
access to 1000 television
stations. But is this a
problem that most of us
yearn to have solved? Is
access to 40 or 50 stations
inadequate?
Whatever it is, we are
entitled to ask about it and
even be sceptical about it.
Such scepticism can be
helpful when applied at the
political level. Take, for
instance, a question raised
some years ago as to
whether or not the United
States Government should
subsidise the manufacture
of a commercial supersonic
jet. The British and French
had one, and a serious
debate ensued in Congress
and as to whether or not we
should have one . So the
question was asked: What is
the problem to which the
supersonic jet is the
solution? The answer, it
turned out, was that while it
takes six hours to go from
New York to LA in a 747,
with a supersonic jet it
would take only three.
Most Americans did not
think that was a sufficiently
serious problem to warrant
such a heavy investment.
Besides, some asked, what
would we do with the three
hours we saved? Their
answer was, we would
probably watch television.
So the suggestion was made
that we put television sets
on the 747, and thus save
billions of dollars.
Yet having answered the
question, “What is the
problem to which a
particular technology is the
solution?” one must ask:
“Whose problem is it?” In
the case of the supersonic
jet, the problem of getting
to LA or London faster than
747s was largely a problem
for movie stars, rock
musicians, and corporate
executives.
And so this question,
“Whose problem is it?”
needs to be applied to any
technology. Most
technologies do solve some
problem, but the problem
may not be most people’s
problem. We need to be
careful in determining who
will benefit from a
technology and who will
pay for it. They're not
always the same people.
But let's say that we do find
a technological solution to a
problem that most people
have, then we now come to
a third question. “What new
problems might be created
because we have solved the
old problem? The motor
car solved some important
problems for most people,
but in doing has poisoned
our air, choked our cities
with traffic, and damaged
our natural landscape.
It's doubtful that you could
think of any single
technology that did not
generate new problems
having solved an old
problem. Benedictine
monks invented the
mechanical clock in the
13th century to be more
precise in performing
prayers seven times a day.
Had they known that the
clock would be used by
merchants to establish a
standardised work day, and
then a standardised product
- as an instrument for
making money, instead of
serving God - the monks
might well have kept to
their sundials.
We cannot afford to move
into the future with our eyes
closed. We need to
speculate in an open-eyed
way about the negative
possibilities. But it’s not
sufficient to reflect in a
general way on the costs of
new technologies. We have
to ask: which people and
what institutions might be
most seriously harmed by a
technological solution?
This question gave rise to
the Luddite movement in
England from 1811 to 1818.
The Luddites were skilled
manual workers in the
garment industry. They
knew what advantages
mechanisation would bring
to most people, but they
also saw how it would ruin
their own ways of life and
especially harm their
children, who were being
employed as virtual slave
laborers. So they resisted
technological change by
destroying industrial
machinery.
The word Luddite has come
to mean a person who
resists technological
change, and it is usually
used as an insult. Why this
is so is a bit puzzling, since
new technologies always
produce winners and losers,
and there is nothing
irrational about loser
resistance. Bill Gates
knows this, and as he is no
fool, his propaganda
continuously implies that
computer technology can
bring harm to no one. That
is the way of winners. They
want losers to be grateful
and enthusiastic and
especially to be unaware
that they are losers.
The fifth question is: “What
changes in language are
being enforced by new
technologies and what is
being gained and lost by
such changes?” We have to
be careful in considering
how words are being
changed. Consider, for
example, how the words
“community” and
“conversation” are now
employed by Internet users.
To me, e-mail is not a
conversation: it is two
people typing messages to
each other. Likewise,
“community” on the
Internet has exactly the
opposite of the usual
meaning - a community not
of people of shared interests
but people of different
interests who must negotiate
with each others’ interests
to achieve harmony. The
final question is important.
“What sort of people and
institutions acquire special
economical and political
power because of
technological change?”
The transformation of a
technology into a kind of
product always realigns
economic and political
power. A new medium
creates new jobs and makes
old ones obsolete. A new
medium gives prominence
to certain skills and
subordinates others. Ronald
Reagan, for example could
not have been president
without television. Reagan
rarely spoke precisely and
never eloquently, yet he was
called the “Great
Communicator” – as he was
magic on TV. His televised
image projected a sense of
authenticity, tradition,
intimacy, and caring, and it
didn't much matter if
citizens agreed with what he
said or even understood
what he said.
Television gives power to
some while it deprives
others, and that is true of
every important medium.
This has always been
understood by intelligent
entrepreneurs who see
opportunities emerging
from the creation of new
media, which is why media
entrepreneurs are the most
radical force in culture.
Entrepreneurs like Morse,
Edison and Disney created
the 20th century, as Gates
and others are now creating
the 21st. I don't know if
much can be done to
moderate the cultural
changes they will enforce,
but citizens ought to know
what's happening and keep
an attentive eye on such
people.
Neil Postman taught at New York University and was one of America’s leading cultural critics. His books include Teaching as a
Subversive Activity and Amusing Ourselves to Death.
This article is extracted from Issue 7 of Lapis, a magazine of essays on both the outer world of society and the environment and the
inner world of soul and spirit from the New York Open Centre. The extract first appeared in The Age and has been reprinted here
with the permission of the New York Open Centre.
For the full article see: http://www.lapismagazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7&Itemid=59