Light
In 1879, after numerous attempts, Thomas Edison succeeded in producing the first commercially viable light bulb. Following this, developments in electrical energy distribution by Edison and his peers led to entire cities being electrically powered and lit up, the first of which was the town of Roselle, New Jersey on January 19, 1883. Thomas Edison pursued his research on his own accord, and was not coerced or pressured by others into making his inventions. The results (intended and unintended) of his passion and drive have, and continue to change the face of cities, even today.
Today, power is generated by burning fuels and natural gases and main power stations. The electricity is transmitted at a high voltage to smaller substations within cities, and these provide low-voltage power to homes and businesses. The energy can be transmitted through overhead or underground wires. Because underground networks are somewhat expensive, they are often bundled with other utility lines (e.g. gas, water) to form common utility ducts.
When a new technology is embraced by society, the ramifications are rarely, if ever predictable. Its effects embed themselves so deeply into our daily lives that we rarely give them a second thought. I decided to write on this topic after a 3am stroll under the streetlamps in Nanyang Technological University. On reflection, I feel that the three most defining elements of the light bulb (and by extension all technology) are:
1. The unintended functions of technology- The functions of many kinds of technology can be used to positive or negative effect on others. Even when an invention appears to have only a positive function (e.g. medicine), those who control it can either provide or withhold it from the needy in order to exploit them.
2. Symbolic significance of technology- Sociology emphasizes the influence and dominance of society over the individual. In the book ‘Ten Questions’, the author writes that the individual’s ability to make a difference in society is limited (Charon, 2007) (edit). He writes that in order for lasting change to occur, it is likely that an individual first requires a power base in society. However, technology seems to contradict this point because many scientists underwent their research without any significant public demand or support, and yet their inventions and ideas went on to make radical changes in the landscape of society. While some might argue that it was only through a power base that these inventions gained popularity, I would think that that argument ignores the question of why the power base gathered in the first place. It was the charisma, imagination, and virtues in these ideas that compelled people to support them, rather than the people making an arbitrary, conscious choice.
3. Increasing ignorance and accountability for technological function and consequences- Sir Joshua Reynolds had a famous quote: "There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." The average person has no time to learn the mechanics and designs of his hand phone, computer, or microwave oven. This leads to two consequences: The first is that of unintended (often negative) consequences of the use of technology, and the second is that of increasing specialization and interdependence within a community.
I wish to use some examples concerning lighting and electrical power distribution to illustrate points 1 and 3.
The path which the use of technology takes is largely unforeseeable. Analysts may succeed in making one or two predictions, but together with society in general, they often overlook many functions of technology which do not get utilized in a popular fashion until several years later. In the case of light, what seems most salient to me is the way that it has allowed to human activity to continue on a massive scale during night-time.
On one hand this has allowed human productivity to increase significantly. On a personal level, a student like me has the option to study and work on assignments past midnight without any disruptions because of the stable supply of lighting and energy. On a wider scale (and a darker note), this same light provides chances for companies that use extensive manual labor to extend operation hours and coerce desperate workers into working 16-18 hour shifts (Lilley, 2004), in atrocious conditions, for pitiful wages. This takes place in countries that have poor enforcement of workers’ rights, are rife with corruption, and have underdeveloped economies and infrastructure that forces them to rely on cheap labor as a way of attracting foreign investment.
Electric lighting is also the foundation for new forms of global culture. The nightlife of a city is often touted as part of its cultural allure, and all cities develop their own forms of nightlife, perhaps reflecting something about human nature and desire. Whether officially or unofficially recognized, the clubs and pubs in the city serve various functions from supporting the tourism industry to the business industry (businessmen may often try to sweeten the deal with their clients over beer and company with women in pubs or KTV lounges). And could Zouk, the Ministry of Sound, and other nightclubs in Singapore function without the functional and aesthetic uses of different kinds of light? Dancing in the dark would be dim-witted.
Humans have used this newfound time at night for both industry and revelry. Those who do so willingly often do not count the cost to their health of repeatedly staying up so late. Those who have no choice feel their bodies wearing down, but they can do little about it. Either way, it seems that research on the effects of technology on our health and society rarely keeps pace with technological advancements and the lifestyles that follow it. I think it is understandable that research on the effects of inadequate sleep come about only years after the trends take place. However, there is a darker side to this. Companies that produce products such as hand phones for instance, are making something that has a radioactive component to it. Although they are in the best place to research and fix the problems that their products cause to people’s health, the likeliness is that as a group whose predominant concern is profit, they would be willing to overlook these problems even if they had some clues about their existence; if the problem is not easily noticeable or traceable over a few years, it seems economically senseless for them to spend money to account for this externality. For example, the movie Erin Brokovitch was an account of real story about a female lawyer who fought for compensation for a town of people who had suffered severe health problems because of their proximity to electrical power lines; her opponent was the company that built and used the power line, and naturally they tried their best to avoid blame, though they failed in the end. I feel that accountability is one of the key points of conflict between government (and non-government) research and regulatory bodies, and companies that invent and manufacture new forms of technology.
Finally, technology creates increasing specialization and interdependence within a society (Haha, is this what Durkheim means by organic solidarity?). Chains of employment and industry form around a single technology. In the case of the light bulb, the city and its citizens find itself in need of manufacturers, repairmen, packaging manufacturers and packagers, and installers. Considering the diverse array of places in which light bulbs are used, the people associated with their use and production can be said to be an integral (though not celebrated) part of society… I guess I confused the idea of organic solidarity brought up in class to mean that people gain a sense of belonging and identification with others because of their dependence on each other (e.g. I feel a sense of community with my plumber). I disagreed with this idea because I thought it was the opposite: Those with resources to employ these workers are more likely to feel like superiors ‘providing’ employment for them, rather than grateful and connected with them… Now, I understand organic solidarity to mean that people are brought together, and continue to live together in cities and communities simply because they must depend on each other. A feeling of community and belonging is not a necessary part of this.
To me, technology reflects key characteristics of human nature, although I’m not sure how to articulate them. Perhaps it shows the single-mindedness of humans, both in the pursuit of their dreams and their use of technology while ignoring externalities such as the damage to the environment or tiny but consistent damages to their health. Certainly it represents human potential and the power for an individual to change society. I get this feeling that a more cultivated approach to invention and regulation will lead to technologies that are beneficial in every way, rather than acting as a trade-off between quantity and quality, speed and safety, or nature and humanity.
Reference list
Charon, Joel. (2007). Ten Questions. Chapter 8: “Does the Individual Really Make A Difference?”. ThomsonWadsworth.
Lilley, Sasha. (Aug 11, 2004). Corpwatch: Sweating for the Olympics. Retrieved from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11493 on November 2nd, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment