The struggle to understand if technology truly provides benefits or inflicts damage is strongly debated among many critics. Mark Taylor and Killian Fox are two authors with contrasting opinions regarding how technology effects globalization. Fox 's articles provide examples of benefits and Taylor claims harm manifests from the technology. However, technology is a tool rather than an entity, so blaming it for development issues is just beginning the blame game. I think the real problem comes from the perspective that we choose to view technology and the effects it generated. Rather than looking at it from a physiological point of view of developed and developing countries, I believe technology should be examined from an undivided platform.
…show more content…
These authors argue for different sides because they are looking at technologies effects from two different perspectives. Taylor bases his argument singling out developed countries, whereas Fox focuses toward developing countries. Fox illustrates how technology in Africa through mobile phones has benefitted villages by means of security in money transfers, as well as the increase in efficient farming. She gives a perfect example of how technology is implemented to help alleviate some of the daily struggles that these people encounter. Taylor disagrees and says that technology, “now enslaves us, networks that were supposed to unite now divide” (Speed kills). He later points out that technology has created a world of mass production rather than fulling its purpose of making our lives easier. His opinion implies that technology harms its ' users. Fox’s argument would say otherwise. The answer is that they are both correct. The reasons for the use of technology in the Fox’s claim are for improving the conditions of life, Taylor’s is greed. Technology, whether it 's a cell phone, car, computer, or robot are all inanimate objects and cannot act on their own. This means that the way they impact our lives comes from the way that humans utilize them. The ability to do harm and to solve problem are both possible. Similarly, technology is a tool that can …show more content…
If something is broken or can be improved, a tool is used to promote a positive change. Personal values that strive for selfish gain cause the tool to be manipulated for its intended purpose. To prevent this manipulation, the current primary values that govern our lives need to change. “These primary values have become work, efficiency, utility, productivity, and competition”, says Taylor, which I agree with (Speed Kills). Technology has allowed humans to attempt and work independently and as long as possible or like machines. Humans are not designed to work that way because we are social animals that feed off of interactions. Later in the article Taylor mentions the new primary values must include “community, cooperation, generosity, patience” (Speed Kills). These descriptions describe how the African incorporation of technology influences farming in this country. Just as Moyo describes China as a rising model nation, it appears that Africa may be a model nation for technology. The pattern of application of the cell phone exemplifies the qualities that are need to promote sustainability in technology. Working together as a community has lead to a collective global growth and thus is more sustainable then a small number of individual
These authors argue for different sides because they are looking at technologies effects from two different perspectives. Taylor bases his argument singling out developed countries, whereas Fox focuses toward developing countries. Fox illustrates how technology in Africa through mobile phones has benefitted villages by means of security in money transfers, as well as the increase in efficient farming. She gives a perfect example of how technology is implemented to help alleviate some of the daily struggles that these people encounter. Taylor disagrees and says that technology, “now enslaves us, networks that were supposed to unite now divide” (Speed kills). He later points out that technology has created a world of mass production rather than fulling its purpose of making our lives easier. His opinion implies that technology harms its ' users. Fox’s argument would say otherwise. The answer is that they are both correct. The reasons for the use of technology in the Fox’s claim are for improving the conditions of life, Taylor’s is greed. Technology, whether it 's a cell phone, car, computer, or robot are all inanimate objects and cannot act on their own. This means that the way they impact our lives comes from the way that humans utilize them. The ability to do harm and to solve problem are both possible. Similarly, technology is a tool that can …show more content…
If something is broken or can be improved, a tool is used to promote a positive change. Personal values that strive for selfish gain cause the tool to be manipulated for its intended purpose. To prevent this manipulation, the current primary values that govern our lives need to change. “These primary values have become work, efficiency, utility, productivity, and competition”, says Taylor, which I agree with (Speed Kills). Technology has allowed humans to attempt and work independently and as long as possible or like machines. Humans are not designed to work that way because we are social animals that feed off of interactions. Later in the article Taylor mentions the new primary values must include “community, cooperation, generosity, patience” (Speed Kills). These descriptions describe how the African incorporation of technology influences farming in this country. Just as Moyo describes China as a rising model nation, it appears that Africa may be a model nation for technology. The pattern of application of the cell phone exemplifies the qualities that are need to promote sustainability in technology. Working together as a community has lead to a collective global growth and thus is more sustainable then a small number of individual