Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 13 page Study Guide was uploaded by tophomework Notetaker on Sunday November 15, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to a course at a university taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 24 views.
Reviews for LAS432_Week_5_Tech-Society-and-Culture_Mid-Term_Set-2_Just-a-Guide_Need-to-be-reworded
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 11/15/15
1.Â (TCO 1) In the Neolithic Revolution, the growth of communities was a result ofÂ (Points : 5) the use of steam as an energy source. farming and the domestication of animals. conquest and settlement. new trade routes to the East. 2.Â (TCO 1) Francis Bacon argued that scientific method differed from logic and mathematics in that (Points : 5) science begins with general theory then moves to phenomena. logic begins with phenomena then moves to general conclusions. mathematics moves from the specific to the theory. scientific inquiry starts with the phenomena and ends in theory. 3.Â (TCOs 2 & 8) Edgerton counters the theory of distinct successive technological revolutions by explaining that (Points : 5) the expansion of agricultural production has coincided with the growth of modern services. the revolutionary nature of each leap forward was rooted in political instability. the information highway has replaced shipping in importance in the Chinese economy. the decrease in agricultural production has coincided with a decrease in industry. 4.Â (TCOs 2 & 8) The introduction of four uniform time zones in the United States was a direct result of (Points : 5) the widespread introduction of mechanical clocks from China. the loss of influence of the Catholic church. the impact of a fully integrated railroad system. the growth of commercialized farming in the 20th century. 5.Â (TCO 4) Which of the following is NOT a characteristic of Wiki art?Â (Points : 5) It is dynamic and everchanging. It is collaborative. It can involve music, poetry, video, and stories. It relies on the talents of trained professional artists. 6.Â (TCO 4) According to Winner, the use of computer technologies to supervise workers is (Points : 5) an inevitable consequence of technical changes. a reflection of a political relationship. necessary in a modern world. preferred by workers over a human supervisor. 7.Â (TCO 8) The termÂ LudditeÂ refers toÂ (Points : 5) investors in industrial society. church leaders who supported child labor. workers who rejected new technologies. politicians who resisted factory reforms. 8. (TCO 11) Which of the following is considered a scholarly resource?Â (Points : 5) Chicago Tribune Journal of the American Medical Association Dr. Phil www.nbc.com 9.Â (TCO 12) The three technologies that Bill Joy states are the greatest threat in the 21st century are (Points : 5) nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. nuclear power, genetic engineering. and weapons of mass destruction. genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. Luddites, cyborgs, and robotics. 10.(TCO 12) The unintended effects of email are(Points : 5) social isolation. blurring of our public and private lives. increased threats to privacy. All of the above 11. The intended reader of a scholarly resource would be A. students. B. academics. C. professionals. D. All of the above 12. During the Protestant Reformation, the printing press created a new desire for books. A. became popular in Muslim countries. B. was used by the Catholic church to fight heresy. C. helped to satisfy a growing demand for vernacular books. 13. Winner argues that some technologies have become so fully integrated in our society that they have actually taken on social roles. An example of this would be A. a telephone answering machine. B. a computerized surveillance system. C. 'el cortito'. D. All of the above. Essay questions (TCOs 1 & 2) Why does Cowan believe it is important to examine technologies in the context of technological systems? What advantage does this broader perspective give to planners? Give a specific current technological example (not it the reading) in support of your answer. Ans: Ruth Schwartz Cowan examines technologies in the context of technological systems. As per him, Largescale technological systems are linked with one another, often in relationships of mutual interdependence; for instance, if we look at today’s urban transportation systems, they heavily depend on the power generating company, steel industry, Infrastructure sector for roads and bridges. If we just look at internet, we find there are vast numbers of computer networks creating a sort of matrix where the data is being transmitted through this complex network. These are all can be termed as technological systems in the words of Cowan. Technological systems can best be understood by understanding its several distinguishable but interacting aspects: (1) skills, techniques, human activityforms, or sociotechnical practices; (2) resources, tools, and materials; (3) technological products, or artifacts; (4) ends, intentions, or functions; (5) background knowledge; and (6) the social contexts in which the technology is designed, developed, used, and disposed of. These six aspects are present in every technology. Human activityform Today, there are complex ensembles of techniques for doing just about everything from planting and harvesting crops to figuring out the orbit of a moon of Jupiter, from designing a house to conducting a leveraged hostile takeover, from cooking lasagna to programming a computer to sort sales data. Such complex techniques represent what is called procedural knowledge, or more commonly “knowhow,” and is contrasted with propositional knowledge, or “knowthat.” Resources, tools, and materials One of the main consequences of technology is to increase our capacity to do things. Technologies, techniques, and tools extend, enhance, and sometimes even replace our natural powers such as sight, hearing, muscle, and even memory and thought. Ends, intentions, or functions The fourth aspect concerns the ends or functions of an artifact or technique. Most artifacts have typical or intended uses, but artifacts can in fact be embedded in multiple contexts of use or can serve multiple ends, a property that Richard Sclove calls polypotency. Background knowledge The fifth aspect of technological systems is knowledge or factual knowledge about what the universe consists of and how it operates. To employ our technologies, we need background knowledge of various kinds: what resources to use and where to find them, what techniques to employ to fabricate various artifacts, the ends and purposes that are typically served by various techniques and objects, and how all these elements fit together in a systematic way. Social contexts in which the technology is designed, developed, used, and disposed The sixth aspect of technology is the social context or organization in which technologies are developed, distributed, and employed. A division of labor in which different individuals perform different tasks or occupy different roles to accomplish common or coordinated ends characterizes technological societies. The schemes that we use for organizing human labor represent a kind of technology that can be applied to the most important resource of all— ourselves. Complex schemes for organizing human activities that have become more or less institutionalized can be called social artifacts. The social and psychological aspects of technological systems are the most important. Technology is a human social construction. This is true in an obvious and straightforward sense when we speak of large technological structures such as bridges, buildings, or dams, which obviously came into existence only by the coordination of the activities of numerous individuals. If we look at today’s Construction and infrastructure technologies and the technologies used in building structures for building, industries and societies, we find that there are multiple interacting aspects that create this technological system such as: (1)skills, techniques, human activityforms – Construction workers, project managers and Corporate/industrial builders (2) resources, tools, and materials – Construction tools, Earthmovers and Excavators, Building materials such as cement, stones and sand. (3) Technological products, or artifacts – Transportation involved, Power/energy required for construction (4) Ends, intentions, or functions – This is supposed to create building where individuals can live or businesses can be run (5) Background knowledge Construction material knowledge, Construction knowledge, Project Management Knowledge (6) Social contexts in which the technology is designed, developed, used, and disposed of – Labor/Human Resources used in the construction, Project managers and Top management, Infrastructure experts, Organization and creation of roles/responsibilities to complete the construction project on time. References: Morton E. Winston and Ralph D. Edelbach. (2012). Society, Ethics, and Technology. 4th Edition. Belmont CA: Wadsworth Group/Thompson Learning. (TCOs 4 & 8) Explain in your own words your understanding of Wajcman's critique of technological determinism. How does her reasoning compare with Winner's argument that technologies can actually reflect political relationships? Provide examples. Ans: Technological determinism leads us to believe that technology is the sole purpose in social evolution. This means technological advances causes society to adapt according to it uses and characteristics. Wajcman views the relationship between technology and social change as a symbiotic relationship wherein technology and society coevolve with each influencing the other. She believes that technological change is shaped by the social circumstances within which it takes place. She takes many examples to illustrate how common technological artifacts have evolved as a result of various social factors often in ways not envisioned by their designers. She provides several examples of how familiar artifacts, such as the microwave oven and the VCR, have been shaped by social values of the users of these devices. Technology can be used for multiple purposes good or bad. Facebook is a great social media tool but the same can be used to propagate false beliefs and propagandas. There are numerous example in our society where technology can be counterproductive e.g. computer virus attack, using technology to develop weapons of mass destruction. economic growth and social developmentappeared to be determined by scientiﬁctechnical progress. science could no longer be understood as simply the discovery of reality. Its central premise is that scientiﬁc knowledge, like all other forms of knowledge, is affected at the most profound level by the society in which it is conducted. ocial interests construct knowledge. A range of social factors affect which of the technical options are selected. These choices shape technologies and, thereby, their social implications. In this way, technology is a socio technical product, patterned by the conditions of its creation and use. the design of this kitchen ‘white good’ was also shaped by the postSecond World War spread of singlefamily houses with correspondingly smallscale appliances marginalization of women from the technological community has a profound inﬂuence on the design, technical content, and use of artefacts innovations that would simplify some tasks, like cleaning and ironing, have not been developed. While there may be limits to the mechanization of household labour, it seems that a laboursaving ‘selfcleaning’ house did not even feature as an objective. directly or trough mediating agencies. The application (the use) and the expectation (the pictured use) are both strong driving forces for engineers to work on new technologies, which they express in the properties of the artefact. They do this through routinized processes, or by Societal values, beliefs and debate around use of nanatechnology, genetically modified organisms and robotics are surely going to shape the next genre of technology. In that sense, it is not just the technology shaping the society but society also has a vital role in the choice and development of technology. She also argues against that the technology has led to the mencentric society where they derive power form the usage of technology. She counters this point of view by taking examples of various women technology writers such Donna Haraway and Sherry Turkle who embrace technology and Wajcman sees the social shaping of computing and biotechnology as means for women’s empowerment. Winner on the other hand argues that technology can be used by people to affect the political relationship in the society or the work place. He points out that humans use technology to control others' actions. Technology is emerging and to a great extent controlling our actions and relationships to others in the society and the way we relate to others in the society or the workplace. This can be seen in our workplace where technology is used to control people behaviour e.g. in various companies, technology has been used to supervise employee’s actions, his work activities during the office hours. He raises the question if this is right usage of technology. As our modern political culture has evolved, it is important to be aware of the ways in which advancing technology has affected our common experiences of “freedom, power, authority, community, and justice.” Has the development of digital technologies democratized the art of photography? How has this affected our appreciation of the photographer as artist and photography as an art form? Explain using specific examples. digital technology allows for photo manipulations through software like Photoshop. Such manipulations allow anyone, particularly media outlets, news organizations, and governments, to change the meaning of photographs, and to present "truths" that are more fabricated than real. Because the manipulations are so often flawless, many viewers do not know they are being deceived.Look at Instagram because it is a space in which non photographers are creating amazing photography. These nonphotographers have 10′s of thousands of followers, followers that love their work. People don’t care if the person they’re following is a photographer or not. People simply love to see great photography and anyone is capable of creating it. If a follower loves this photography, created with an iPhone, imagine what they could do with a DSLR. Even better, the follower could be so impressed with the photography feed that they request this person for photographic services. Your social presence and continuous sharing of photography can have a great impact. we have a convergence of photo technology and Internet technology that has given the talented both the tools to express talent and the almost no cost means to distribute the works of their talent, while removing the technical challenge Technology has liberated still photography from the media institutions and political agendas (video is the preferred tool for propaganda today), not to mention the hold of organizations who set unwritten rules in regards to how photos should like like, such as National geographic, Magnum Photos and certain fashion magazines. photography as a craft have been democratized to a point where it does impact heavily on the profession. It surely happened to copyist monks after printing have been invented by Gutenberg. I saw it happened at the (late) business of my parents who, in the 80's, where preparing, for good money, presentations and slide shows for big corporations on huge computers (Genigraphics) until powerpoint happened. Every new available technology, specially available to all like we see (video editing, book printing) surely jeopardizes lots of jobs. With the internet and growth of web, digitally interactive media began has started influenicng various works of art including photography. intersect with other areas of digital culture, including computer animation, computergenerated imagery (CGI) feature film, digital gaming, and virtual reality. Crucial in these arts was the notion of “contextual reciprocity”; that is, the context of the experience enabled the viewer to alter the experience of object and event (Kac, 2005, p. 111). Wiki art allows anyone and everyone to create and recreate, recombine, remix, reposition, restore, recolor, reshape, rearrange, and reimagine songs, stories, videos, images, photos, poems, entire books, and so forth. Collaborative and interactive, it abolishes the unidirectionality that characterizes the fine arts. Wiki art is ephemeral, everchanging, dynamic, potentially incomplete, inchoate, and infinite. There is no single artist and no single art object, but a collective whole in which every work of art is raw digital material for the next person who has a computer and connectivity. What is commuted is changed, rechanged, and exchanged. With no clue about the identity of the creator(s), collaborator(s), and collector(s), who is responsible for the object or event? Who or what is acknowledged, censored, rewarded, and imitated? Does it matter who the artist is or who decides when, why, and how the work is combined? Is the real artist—the master of the masterpiece—a human who makes these decisions? With the exponential growth of technology in the photography industry, many professional photographers are worried about how easy photography is these days. Plus with the help of Photoshop, their concern is that someone with a half decent camera can put their camera on AUTO and just shoot without thinking about the meaning behind each shot. The recent emergence of digital photography has made the marginal cost of taking and viewing pictures rather trivial; despite this democratization of the technology, photography as an art form is still alive, present in large museums and taught in art departments in prestigious universities. The blessing is that more opportunities for artistic creation are available. The curse is that more people have access to it. It is a curse because issues of craftsmanship tend to be less important, and a work of art may now have to be distinguished from its look alike by another dimension than craftsmanship. The internet and the possibility of digitalization of works of art have magniﬁed some of these aspects, in particular the possibility to distribute at a rapid pace digital works, to reproduce or even modify existing works, and for artists to bypass current gatekeepers.photography, video are other prominent examples of works of art being distributed or created on the Internet. The issues of copyright protection, incentives for creation, the tradeoﬀ between market expansion versus competition eﬀects are common to all these works of art. Artists because the technology of production of works may be readily accessible and craftsmanship may no longer be a deﬁning characteristic of art. Intermediaries because their rents were linked to entry barriers in the distribution market. This curse of new technologies may be a blessing in disguise since it also increases the possibilities of production, of distribution and the emergence of new works of art. Content should continue to be made available online, art institutions and businesses should continue to promote online content, and copyright laws must adapt to protect works, but at the same time promote creativity and innovation week 3 ( TCO 4 AND 12) 2. Both Winner and Joy explore the issue of technology and control. How would you compare their two views of current technological development? Focus the comparison on a specific technology, such as genetically modified organisms. Bill Joy, cofounder of Sun Microsystems, has warned of the impending dangers from the emergence of selfreplicating technologies in the fields of genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics, or “GNR.” His concerns include genetically altered designer pathogens, self replicating entities created through nanotechnology, and robots whose intelligence will rival and ultimately exceed our own. When the potentials of contemporary biotechnology and nanotechnology are examined, Joy thinks we face the prospect of enabling the creation of weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the very existence of life on earth. While contemplating these dangers, Joy recommends that we approach these twentyfirstcentury technological possibilities with a degree of humility and that we learn from the experience of the twentieth century, particularly with respect to nuclear energy, how difficult it is to control the technological genie once it gets out of the bottle. In a personal and almost confessional style, Joy struggles with the question of what kind of future we humans want for ourselves. After having devoted a career to the pursuit of material progress through science and technology, he is now having second thoughts about whether this is the path that we should be taking. The cause of many such surprises seems clear: The systems involved are complex, involving interaction among and feedback between many parts. Any changes to such a system will cascade in ways that are difficult to predict; this is especially true when human actions are involved.Given the incredible power of genetic engineering, it's no surprise that there are significant safety issues in its use. Genetic engineering promises to revolutionize agriculture by increasing crop yields while reducing the use of pesticides; to create tens of thousands of novel species of bacteria, plants, viruses, and animals; to replace reproduction, or supplement it, with cloning; to create cures for many diseases, increasing our life span and our quality of life; and much, much more. We now know with certainty that these profound changes in the biological sciences are imminent and will challenge all our notions of what life is. References: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html Langdon Winner has explored the further hypothesis that the entire ensemble of modern technological systems—including the background conditions required to keep them operating —tends to promote centrally coordinated, technocratic social administration. Hence there are numerous examples in which technologies affect societies or states in ways that have macrostructural implications. Technologies function politically and culturally as social structures by coercing physical compliance; prompting subconscious compliance; constituting systems of social relations; establishing opportunities and constraints for action and selfrealization; promoting the evolution of background conditions; affecting nonusers; shaping communication, psychological development, and culture generally; and constituting much of the world within which lives unfold. Considering all of the preceding functions and effects together, it would be fairer to say that technologies do not merely affect society or states, they also constitute a substantial portion of societies and states. Although technology usually offers us a bright and rosy future, Langdon Winner suggests that we should be considering what type of technological future we want to build and the extent to which it will be kind to human society. As our modern political culture has evolved, it is important to be aware of the ways in which advancing technology has affected our common experiences of “freedom, power, authority, community, and justice.” Even though the artifacts and processes associated with technological systems are taken for granted or thought to be politically neutral, this article examines technology as a major force on our lives, changing relationships between people in subtle but significant ways. This is evident in secondary influences from inventions of the Industrial Revolution, which created an entirely new society that continues to evolve today, even though we might not be conscious of the change. Whether these changes are for the better will be determined by our commitment to building a society in which more people share in the benefits. GMO foods have been literally forced down our throats by big business, with little or no way for the public to opt out of this uncontrolled experiment whose ultimate effects on human health and the environment remain unknown. GMO contamination is causing mounting economic losses, as farmers lose their markets, organic producers lose their certification, and processors have to recall food products. The contamination is even beginning to affect property values. Consumers are eating GMOs, whether they know it or not, and even GMOs not approved for human consumption have shown up in our taco shells. New “biopharmaceutical” crops used to grow drugs have leaked into the human food supply. And across the nation, hundreds of open field plots are growing transgenic corn, rice, and soybeans that contain drugs, human genes, animal vaccines, and industrial chemicals, without sufficient safeguards to protect nearby food crops. It’s not only food and farming that are affected. Part of what makes GMOs such an environmental threat is that, unlike chemical contamination, GMOs are living organisms, capable of reproducing and recombining, and once they get out, they can’t be recalled. Now that there are genetically engineered fish, trees, insects, and other organisms, there’s no limit to the kind of environmental surprises that can occur. The widespread ecological damage discussed at Asilomar is now a reality. In just one example of what can happen, a study found that when just 60 transgenic fish were released into a wild population of tens of thousands of fish, all the wild fish were wiped out in just 40 generations. And what will happen when there are plantations of transgenic trees, which can disperse GMO pollen for up to 40 miles and over several decades? Without physical or regulatory restraints, GMOs pose a very real threat to the biological integrity of the planet. As GMO activists say, it gives “pollution a life of its own.” A quick acceptance of GE foods without proper testing could show corporate profitability to be very influential, but a thorough debate and informed public participation would ensure that real social and environmental concerns are factored into decision making. And this pattern would probably indicate to us how other major issues in the future ought to be dealt with. Another issue that needs to be raised is whether we actually need GE food, given that agriculture in small farms is actually very productive. Economics and politics at all levels (international, national, and local) and not a lack of production have often prevented food from reaching hungry people. These same causes have also created or contributed to deeper poverty, preventing people from being able to afford food in the first place (Ackerman, 2002). Though often overlooked by casual observers, there is a complex institutional ecology involved in the production and distribution of food within the United States (Schlosser 2001). Because American regulators treat GM foods as equivalent to those produced through conventional means, food manufacturers rarely handle them differently (U.S. Food and Drug Administration 1992). As such, the commodity chain of industryrelated firms is the same for GM and nonGM crops. . Technology often embodies and expresses political value choices that, in their operations and effects, are binding on individuals and groups, whether such choices have been made in political forums or elsewhere…. Technological processes in contemporary society have become the equivalent of a form of law—that is, an authoritative or binding expression of social norms and values from which the individual or a group may have no immediate recourse. Sometimes technologies shape behavior and relationships less through brute compulsion than via subtle, psychological inducement. For example, social scientists have shown that the physical arrangement of chairs and tables strongly influences the kind of social interaction that occurs in schools, nursing homes, and hospitals. Yet the staff in those institutions had previously attributed behavior (including their own) entirely to the mix of personalities and psychological capabilities. They were surprised to learn that simply shifting the furniture could, for instance, help reanimate a seemingly moribund group of mentally impaired hospital inmates. (TCOs 3 & 4) 3. How have changes in technology affected the recording industry and our understanding of what it means to be a professional musician? How have changes in technology affected our access to recorded music and the control exercised by traditional distributors? How will all these changes affect cultural trends and our expectations of music as an art form? Provide specific examples. As our modern political culture has evolved, it is important to be aware of the ways in which advancing technology has affected our common experiences of “freedom, power, authority, community, and justice.” Even though the artifacts and processes associated with technological systems are taken for granted or thought to be politically neutral, this article examines technology as a major force on our lives, changing relationships between people in subtle but significant ways. This is evident in secondary influences from inventions of the Industrial Revolution, which created an entirely new society that continues to evolve today, even though we might not be conscious of the change. Whether these changes are for the better will be determined by our commitment to building a society in which more people share in the benefits. The use of digital technology in the musical industry is not new. In fact, more than 10 years ago, the recording industry began utilizing digital systems for the recording of sounds in products widely known as CDs. The quality of the sound offered caused an increase in the consumption of sound productions: not only for new productions but also for resources old recordings, which were offered for the first time in digital form. This revitalized the consumer potential for these old recordings. Therefore, industry's profits have doubled in the recent years, and the highest sales figures corresponded to digital formats (CDs). Technology, particularly recording technology, has for more than a century threatened the copyrights of composers, publishers and performers. Users armed with this technology have been given the means to record, copy and distribute the works of others. The response of rights holders has been to advocate the reiteration and expansion of their copyrights. The increased copyright regimes while going someway to protect the rights of composers, publishers and performers has also swept material from the public domain, so making it unavailable to other artists and followon creators. This process is referred to by Lessig as the locking down and appropriation of culture, a process that some argue will lead to a lack of diversity and choice. The folk song The Legend of Tom Dula (Dooley) is one of the best known examples of this appropriation. This song had been freely available to generations of folk singers until it was captured in a recording. The recording was transcribed and copyright was claimed, the song was no longer in the public domain. Whereas technology provides the reason to expand copyright, information technology and particularly the internet has spurned a number of initiatives that may lead to the freeing of content. The open source movement has been very successful in freeing and generating content; this movement has itself led to other related initiatives. One of these, the Creative Commons, provides a broad based solution which through a series of alternative licensing contracts allows rights holders to lessen their control on their content making it more available for others to use. This paper considers the interplay of music, technology and intellectual property. It considers how developments in information technology can now be used to offset the expansion of copyright. After reviewing some of these developments, particularly the Creative Commons, and considering evidence now analysed from a European wide survey of musicians and publishers completed in 2008, the paper concludes that these fixes, rooted in intellectual property, unfortunately offer little by way of solution. However technological solutions not so closely tied to intellectual property may offer more appropriate and workable solutions. References: Jones, Richard. (2009). Technology and the cultural appropriation of music. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, Volume 23, Issue 12, pp. 109 122 4. (TCOs 1 & 2) Landes argues that there were cultural differences between the East and Middle East and the West that affected the development and application of some technologies such as the clock. Did these differences also affect the way these cultures approached information technologies such as the printing press? Can you make a comparison with the different approaches taken by Eastern and Middle Eastern and Western cultures today and current information technologies? (Points : 50) Landes believes that how a society encourages and supports the development of technology determines the power and influence it achieves as well as its sustainability. David Landes, Coolidge Professor of History and Professor of Economics Emeritus at Harvard University, explores the role of technology in determining the economic status of three major world regions, Europe, the Middle East, and the Orient, during the second millennium. Landes believes that how a society encourages and supports the development of technology determines the power and influence it achieves as well as its sustainability. Throughout his story, David Landes, an economic historian at Harvard, applies his specialized analysis. He points out that once the clock became a general device, it liberated worker from master; it set apart his private time from the employer's time. Exactly why they alone did so is a nice matter for speculation. Among the contributory factors, which varied from place to place and from time to time, must be rich natural resources, diversity of culturewithin a common culture, dispersal of authority, whether to towns or regions, broad respect for lawand private property (at least with regard to other Europeans)and, above all, an individual and entrepreneurial spirit. Together, they made the European ethos distinct from any other. Landes draws particular attention to the Europeans’ use of water wheels as a source of power; the discovery of eye glasses, which led to spectacles, telescopes and microscopes; the invention of the mechanical clock, enabling time to be measured as never before; the institution of printingpresses whichled to the first information revolution; and the wide applications of gunpowder which gave the Europeans an unbeatable military advantage and changed the nature o warfareExploitation of these technologies had cascades of political, social, economic and financial consequences. They led to the Renaissance, the expansion of Europe beyond the seas for empire and trade, and the industrial revolution which began in Britai some 250 years ago. The ways in which almost everyone now conducts their lives, whether in wealth or poverty, are a product of these extraordinary events in human history. The next question is why the virus of invention did not immediately spread elsewhere. Again the answer ies in culture. Some nations were only too willing to learn new ideas and tricks, and to apply them. Journeys of education (or, ore precisely, industrial espionage often accompanied by personal inducements) were undertaken widely between the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany and, later, the United States. Competition between them could not allow otherwise. More oftenthere was strong opposition from established authority, particularly religious bodies. Steel shutters came down to defend society from subversion, as in Spain, later Portugal, Latin America, the Islamic world, Russia and initially Japan.Elsewhere, the virus could not take; the culture was simply too different. The Chinese had another problem. By the fifteenth century they ere drawing in on themselves. For them, any demand for change implied criticism of the Celestial Empire. Their only dealings were with tributaries.When King George III of England wrote to the emperor in 1793 to propose, among other things, a trading relationship, the emperor thanked him for what he described as his homage, but rejected all his propositions, adding “… we have never valued ingenious articles, nor do we have he slightest need for your country’s manufactures”. Viruses can usually penetrate sooner or ater, but their effects vary enormously. We are witnesses of those changes today. Over time, winners and losers follow each other. The results can be all the more devastating when they are delayed, as in nineteenthcentury Japan and twentiethcentury China, or hen they are disruptive, as in arts of Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Middle East today. ext come argu ments about socalled developed and developing countries, the reasons for wealth in some places and poverty in others, and demands fortechnology transfer, as if everyonehad rights to the benefits of the consumer society. Landes has fun with the ideologues, particularly certain economists, and enjoys puncturing illusions of all kinds. He does not attempt to lay down doctrines for the future, but instead focuses on the practical realities. These include, on the one hand, convergence of culture in the process loosely called lobalization and, on the other, divergence betweenrich and poor, educated and uneducated, employed and unemployed. However much we may wish otherwise, nature’s inequalities are unchanging, and different varieties of culture will continue to resist the homogenization of human society.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'