It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity." misses a crucial point. Our technology is in fact a consequence of our humanity. Technology comes about only because of the human, thinking, rational mind. The human mind is the essence and core of our humanity. Without the human mind, there are no life-saving comforts that we can take for granted. Without these life saving comforts, all of civilization as we know would collapse.

Think about all the concrete examples we take for granted as "technology": automobiles; life saving medicine and surgeries; factories which give us all
kinds of modern conveniences such as cellular phones, fax machines, and computers.

Perhaps the best way to grasp the power of technology is to go to an impoverished country that never had a technological revolution. Most people who look at the misery and mediocrity in these countries ask themselves, “Why do the developed nations have so much?" The real question to ask is: "Why do they have so little?"

An important, fundamental part of the answer is the fact that reason, and the human mind at its best, never became valued in certain societies; Nor did freedom. As a consequence, such societies stagnate and slowly, painfully die. Without humanity properly defined, there is no technology in the first place.

Computer and telecommunication technologies have been the more remarkable and transformative of the new technologies emerging over the past many years. Technology's impact on culture can be viewed in two primary symbolic ways: one is empowerment, the other is disintegration.

The empowering aspect of technology is that it gives us the benefits of scientific revolutions and discoveries. Infrastructures such as power systems, health care, industrial production, scientific farming, transportation, telecommunications and many other technological necessities increasingly free us from the uncertainties of nature. One has to marvel at technologies employed in supporting a million people or more in a major city, or to use a computer to communicate with people almost instantaneously on the other side of the world. Technology, viewed in this way, enables and amplifies human potential.

Disintegration, as an opposing symbol, is the other side of the technological coin. Watching on television the aftermath of a plane crash, losing power or water supply, having a computer network crash, are just a few examples of how we are at the mercy of the technologies and systems that are supposed to serve us. Just as technology can be empowering, it can also
be disabling when it begins to disintegrate. And disintegration can be internalized as a sense of helplessness amid huge systems over which one seemingly has no control. These social implications do not account for an even larger issue. We are only now beginning to realize how nature can be adversely affected by technology. Are we in danger of disintegrating our place in the natural world as well?

Both empowerment and disintegration are equally valid symbols. The now tired phrase, "high tech, high touch," is an attempt to gain the benefits of technology without losing a sense of humanity in the process. Disintegration, however, is a much deeper issue.

Whether we conceive of technology as empowerment or disintegration, it is important to step back from the issue to examine exactly what do we mean by the term technology. The meaning of technology tends to be viewed in three primary ways. First, technology is the aggregate of technique, human artifacts, tools and systems throughout the ages. Second, technology is the aggregate of all technical activities including invention and discovery, research and development, manufacturing, design and planning, and so forth. Third, technology is the aggregate of all technological knowledge, from the most specific techniques to the most sophisticated theoretical systems. The point is that, depending upon one's perspective, technology can be viewed in very narrow terms or in the very broadest sense as well. Just as the meaning of technology might be viewed differently, it is not surprising that philosophers and people in technological fields vary in their approaches to making sense out of it.

Despite the pervasiveness of technology in culture some philosophers hold a neutrality thesis that claims that technology is neither good nor bad, significant or insignificant. Human intention and use of technology make all the difference. This position is somewhat akin to the notion that "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Philosophical criticism has a long history in civilization, which tends to beg the question about its neutrality. The consensus is that technology does impact society and culture in profound ways. Technology's autonomy can be viewed in terms of determinism. Some people argue that we are no doubt influenced by technology, but we can selectively choose to use and participate in the technologies that we deem beneficial to a good quality of life. Others argue that we so rely upon technology that we cannot help but be affected by it, and even determined by it. Are we not concerned about our privacy being eroded by technology, or the time it takes out of our lives to have our machines and systems repaired, or the all-consuming drive toward increased productivity at the expense of leisure? Supposed laborsaving technologies, in some ways, have increased the amount of time we spend working. On the other hand, a case can be made for increased quality of life and life expectancies because of technology. Moreover, a case can be made that technology helps to promote quality of life for ever-greater segments of the population. Yet, others claim that it favors the dominant socio-economic segments of society. One may persuasively argue either side of the issue.

Incredible amounts of newsprint have been spent on the winners of the Information Age. But very little attention has been focused on the fact that majority of the world population has never used a computer. What impact will this have on world culture? Will information technology widen the existing gap between the rich and the poor? Can something be done before it is too late?

The writer is Senior Engineer (Data Transmission) Etisalat/PTCL and can be reached at irfanzafar@msn.com