patrickmcginnis59 (12/18/2012)
GSquared (12/18/2012)
patrickmcginnis59 (12/18/2012)
I don't see why we can't talk about our social and behavioral responses to technological advances without having to redefine perfectly functional words like the word "technology" itself. Is it really that hard to discuss relationships between areas of interest and how they combine or not without doing this word redefinition?I missed where we redefined that word.
From the editorial:
Ever since reading Neil Postman's book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, I've been interested in broadening out the definition of technology to include far more than computing, and to include things like the various emotions in our register as a species, games, rituals and the like.
That's not actually a redefinition. That's a reversion from a redefinition. Technology = computers/electronics is a very recent redefinition of the word. He's just reverting to a definition that has existed and been in use for centuries, over a definition that's really only been in use for a few decades.
Just like if I call a certain packaged meat product "spam", you shouldn't consider that a redefinition, just because we've adopted (from that definition and a Monty Python skit), a newer definition meaning unwanted commercial e-mail.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon