Please please help me in writing essay on technology for the future world
Answers
I don't know what the future holds but I know who holds the future. Days go by and how time flies, seasons always changing. When we contemplate the future we envision mind-warping technology and global warming destroying the Earth. Change is inevitable but it's up to our supremacy what we and our planet Earth change into. Will we help or hinder our future survival? One sentence from America's Declaration of Independence has some relevance to this matter. 'But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security'. In other words if something is wrong, those that have the ability to take action, have the responsibility to take action.
Technology! Yes, it has its positives, but like all other things is also has its negatives. Would we really need hover cars? They would still congest ?air space?. What would be the benefits of splitting the atom more that once (What was the point of splitting it anyway)? Or will ?Little Boy? the World War Two atomic bomb containing Uranium be resurrected from the Japanese city of Hiroshima and be upgraded to wipe out the brain stems of individuals whose unique brain patterns have been programmed into the device? For years technology has been cultivated. Powerful and ingenious it maybe, but in our hands this technology has been used for demoralizing war! If we carry on using these technological advancements for the use of hostilities on Earth (or maybe in space) then both parties will use their own weapons and both will be crushed, ground into tiny pieces and blasted into oblivion.
To think about technology is to think about the future. It is, unavoidably, to speculate and to predict, to imagine how our lives might be affected by new tools, new methods, and new powers. Most arguments about technology are therefore really arguments about the future. They give voice to different sorts of expectations about progress and change, and to different sorts of intuitions about the character of human life. The particular technology being debated is often secondary to these larger much-disputed themes, and the public debate is shaped by different ways of imagining the future at least as much as by the specific technical potential of a new device or technique.
This has certainly been the case in the most prominent set of arguments about technology in America today — arguments about human biotechnology. For at least three decades, but especially since the late 1990s, the future of these biotechnologies has been a hot political issue in this country. Novel prospects for manipulating nascent human life, enhancing physical or mental powers, reshaping the life cycle, or otherwise exercising unprecedented control over our biological selves have increasingly been fodder for public argument. Advocates and critics of these emerging powers tend to agree about one thing: biotechnology will play a critical role in shaping the future of humanity.
But how we conceive of that role has a great deal to do with how we think of the future more generally. At issue are not exactly different sets of predictions. At its extremes, each side in the biotechnology debates may indeed have some specific image of the future in mind, whether of a post-human techno-utopia or of some static nostalgic ideal. But for the most part neither side pretends to know exactly what is coming, and both recognize that the future will not yield any one permanent or stable state but a dynamic and constantly evolving experiment in human living — just like the past and the present. Rather than specific competing predictions of the future, at issue in these controversies are different ways of imagining the future in general, and different ways of thinking about some large and basic questions: What is the future? How do we get there? Who lives there? What matters most about it?
Such questions are rarely taken up so explicitly, of course, but behind the arguments of different partisans in the biotechnology debates there clearly lurk a set of rudimentary assumptions about these very subjects. These assumptions tend to coalesce into two broad schools of futurism: one thinks about the future in terms of future innovations, and the other thinks about the future in terms of future generations. The differences between them explain a lot about our contemporary technology debates. Each is too easily and too often caricatured by the other, but if taken seriously, each also offers a rich and compelling anthropology of progress — a sense of how the future happens in real human terms.