more than just historical

back to my earlier point on social media influencing society. so instead of tech shaping society as a whole, new media influence social conditions on a smaller scale

makes me think of the chicken and the egg - did technology propel society into the next stage of evolution or is technology the product of our response to society?

social media is interesting because in many ways, at least at the surface, it seems to be shaping society (a means of expression/connection, FOMO and "pics or it didn't happen")

now that I've read through 5.1.7, I see technology as relating to nature because it is shaped by nature and shapes nature back. However I don't believe technology would exist without people (or animals since snimals also have ways of making their interactions with nature more efficient/lucrative). Therefore it is not just nature. But since nature plays a large role in technology, technology can't just be a cultural phenomenon (as asked at the end of 5.1.7).

If technology is the means by which we act with nature - emerging to make those interactions more efficient and lucrative - then it's not isolated from nature.

sort of definition of cyberculture - shows its importance

Showing how technology has evolved like humans kind of makes one question how to view the origins of technology.

I think this concept is important because it illustrates a fundamentally human concept - to recognize the difference between life and death and to want to create life

In the final sentence where they state technology is not nature, this of course begs the question of what is nature. I could support this point by thinking about the origin of tech vs the origin of nature. As humans we did not create ourselves, nor did we create the nature around us. Yes, we interact heavily with nature and modify it with our pursuits (agriculture, development, etc.) and anyone can easily see our effects on it. But nature didn't start with us. Technology however may be the product of our interactions with nature, so arguably created by us (and by means of its origin, it is not nature).

new media as the next stage in evolution

This could look like asking who made the tech, how it was made, why it was made, etc. to understand where it came from. Then it could be examined what the technology was intended to do, what its actual capabilities were, its strengths/weaknesses.

really technology should be seen as something that we shape and in turn shapes us when we alter processes to respond to new technologies: either to utilize new innovations or to counter negative side effects.

It is important to think about how society/human factors allow technology to emerge and take hold in people's lives. If we look first at how society is evolving, this can help us think about how technology will evolve in response. That's not to say only technology is reactionary - I think in order for social media to become pervasive, people had to recognize what the effects were of not participating. If all your close family and friends were sharing life updates online, you'd feel like you were missing out on important interactions with people who matter. The same could be said for innovation that improves efficiency or quality in manufacturing, for example. If one company adopted a techniquie which allowed them to decrease their costs and thus reflect that in prices charged to customers, the rules of competition would force the other companies to catch up (either by employing other innovation or adopting the same technique).

How do we determine what factors to measure? It seems like a holistic study of the inputs/outputs of farming is needed to measure progress. Perhaps more importantly is determining which factors are important to recognize. What if cost of energy decreases and the energy being used is renewable? In that case, perhaps the fact that grain output per unit of energy consumed decreases wouldn't be something to worry about.

so maybe progress should be measured by the impact on human activity (how many more people were reading? how many more books/other printed materials were created AND sold? how were jobs affected/how much time was saved by workers who could use the printing press?)

To what extent is the developer of a certain technology to be held accountable for the impact of what they develop? If the snowmobile was not developed with the needs of the Eskimos in mind, should it have been marketed to them? Should marketing have included lessons on how to adapt the product to their needs?

important aspect of the culture of technology - the ability to exercise power to influence the use/development of tech (goes back to the CS Lewis quote in the paragraph above)

Focusing on the technical aspects rather than the consequences of the technology in how it's produced/used

"desirability" of products

some fears (like potentially destructive social media/cell phone usage by teenagers) the authors state will be assuaged overtime, but what about this fear?

key words "human technology" - subjective, biased humans create the algorithms, so why shouldn't they ultimately be biased? Algorithms are procedural - they follow a certain set of rules. If the input is A, do X. If the input is B, do Y. That comes off as neutral because it's very black and white. What's not neutral is deciding what those inputs should be to warrent X or Y outcome.

goes back to what was said in 1.2 about new media. information is distributed and thus accessible by many people through a variety of media/devices. If personal computational devices weren't so accessible or widespread (suggested by the # of internet users and the statement that technology is only noted in absence), the distribution of info wouldn't be so significant

the novelty of personal devices such as smartphones/laptops/tablets - sort of an "all in one" where you can do things (communicate with people, look up directions, search the internet) from one device - and you can do some of these things simultaneously

the process of adjusting attitudes, beliefs, and lifestyles to accommodate a new medium

reminds me of the idea that "everything is a remix" - any art/creation that is viewed as "new" is just a remix of an old idea or built off existing platforms, just as the author claims that "new" media are different forms of old media (such as analog media that has been digitized)

An example of pervasiveness. We expect technology to be there for us when we need it. It's hard for people in my generation to imagine how people used to get around without smartphones - unable to call or text anyone while at home or on the go, unable to look up digital maps/directions, etc.