Technology, Humanity, and the Illusion of Easy Solutions

Introduction: The Myth of the Technological Fix

Things would be so easy if there were a solution to every problem — if for every affliction there were a logically traceable cause that could be remedied in as straightforward a fashion as possible. Many people would agree with this sentiment, and many more actually believe that technology is a cure-all for just about any ailment in contemporary society. This concept is readily demonstrated in both Sherry Turkle's essay "Alone Together" and Lauren Slater's essay "Who Holds the Clicker." In the former, the author explores situations in which people rely on technology to the exclusion of conventional emotions and the conventional ways of fulfilling them — many of which involve robots. In the latter, Slater details situations in which people depend on the artificial insertion of chips into their brains to regulate emotional and physical responses, a tendency largely illustrated through a man named Mario.

The underlying motif found in both works is that if there is a problem, the easy solution is to turn to a technological application and press a button so that, fairly instantly, the situation goes away. But what the people depicted in these essays fail to realize is that life does not work that way. Nothing in any of our lifetimes can be assured or guaranteed. Therefore, when people are offered technological innovations to provide a much-needed sense of security and comfort, they are in fact merely alienating and isolating themselves from the full complexity of human nature — while simultaneously making themselves into something less than human.

Control, Power, and the Transfer of Human Will

Several problems can be found in the underlying concept of Slater's text, in which she rather impartially advocates surgical implants into people's brains as a cure for everything from mental illness to a lack of creativity. What will actually occur if people begin to adopt such a procedure in large numbers is that they will merely transfer power over their own lives from one human — themselves — to another — conceivably the doctor performing and regulating the implants. And just as human nature was at fault in the original patient and something went wrong that required a solution, the same thing will inevitably happen, at some point or another, with the doctors who hold that power. The following quotation is indicative of this fact:

"By the late 1960s, implants appealed to those in the medical and law enforcement communities who believed that urban riots were born not out of poverty or oppression but of 'violent tendencies' that could be monitored or altered" (236).

The transfer of the burden of human flaw — from a person who feels subjugated by it to a technological innovation supposed to "correct" it — can be found in Turkle's work as well, as the following quotation makes apparent:

"Anne… confided that she would trade in her boyfriend 'for a sophisticated Japanese robot' if the robot would produce what she called 'caring behavior.' She told me that she relied on a 'feeling of civility in the house'" (268).

In both quotations, the people seeking technological solutions are themselves part of the problem. Anne wants a relationship she can manipulate and control — one that can be switched on and off at her whim to produce her preferred feeling of "civility." Similarly, the law enforcement and medical professionals of the 1960s wanted to regulate others' behavior by magically controlling their violent tendencies. Life, however, does not operate that way. No matter how much civility we depend upon, there will always be moments when it is absent. In Slater's example, manipulating people's wills to suppress their tendencies would not correct the racist and oppressive policies that characterized 1960s America and provoked violent reactions. Likewise, Anne herself almost certainly has habits or mannerisms that are not conducive to harmony with her boyfriend. By seeking technological solutions, neither of the individuals in these quotations is actually confronting the problems that most likely reside within themselves. Technology, in these cases, does not resolve the difficulty — it merely redirects accountability.

Conclusion: Choosing to Remain Human

There are in fact many ways in which technology can make people less than human. It can make us overly lazy, reliant on the application and labor of someone else rather than our own efforts, and it can isolate us to the point where we both fear genuine human contact and desire some perverse, assimilated substitute for it. But this outcome only occurs if one allows the trend to continue — if one permits this decidedly unnatural state of affairs to become the default.

The contrasting perspectives of both authors allude to this. Turkle's essay largely warns of the dangers of technology overcoming humanity — of human desire, emotion, and need becoming subservient to machines. Although cautionary notes appear in Slater's work as well, her generally encouraging tone and endorsement of technology as a potential enhancement of human life are easy to detect. Both essays, however, allude to the fact that a choice still exists, one which many people may not even realize they are making. As scholars of technology and society have long observed, the tools we adopt shape the lives we live — and reclaiming that agency begins with awareness. If we choose to retreat into a technological, virtual world, we may do so. But if we choose to remain in the sensory, vivid, natural world of emotional highs and lows, we had better make that effort now, and embrace both the triumphs and the terrors of what it truly means to be alive.