The Nature of Technology - W. Brian Arthur (2009)

W. Brian Arthur is a leader in the fields of technology, economics and complexity science. He has served as a Morrison Professor of Economics and Population Studies at Stanford and as the Citibank Professor at the Sante Fe Institute. He currently is in residence at the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC).

In The Nature of Technology, Arthur examines how technologies evolve within the economy. Arthur contends that the economy is an expression of its technologies. This, he points out, runs counter to the perspective of some economists who believe that the economy drives technology. Arthur supports his argument by providing extensive examples of how technologies have evolved over time and have transformed the economy.

Arthur observed that while technology may evolve relatively quickly, its adoption sometimes takes decades. He suggests that this is due to man's inherent relationship with nature. Man seems himself as part of nature and, therefore, he trusts nature. On the other hand, Man places his hopes in technology. He looks to technology to make his life better. He does not, however, trust technology, especially when it seems to be in conflict with nature. Arthur cites the reluctance of some societies to accept genetic engineered crops as an example. Thus, man places his hope in something that he does not entirely trust. This leads to significant dissonance.

Arthur also discusses the process of innovation that is so closely tied to the evolution of technology. He states, "The type of mastery you find in a Maillart bridge does not come out of 'genius.' More than anything it comes out of an accumulation of knowledge and expertise slowly gathered over years." He goes on to say, "experience with different solutions and subsolutions steadily cumulates and technologies change and improve over time. The result is innovation."

I found Arthur's explanation of the reluctance of society to accept some technologies because of their apparent challenge to the natural order to be insightful. He also noted, however, that this does not fully explain why some innovative technologies are resisted. In some cases it is simply because accepted practices become "locked in" due to resistance to change.

I found Arthur's description of innovation as a cumulative process which builds over time to be consistent with other innovation theorists. He notes that this cumulative process leads to a generative and robust economy. It is dependent, however, on the ability to see connections among disparate technologies.

How are we preparing our students to become the generative thinkers required by a generative economy?

Idiot America - Charles P. Pierce (2009)

Charles Pierce is a staff writer for the Boston Globe Magazine. He also contributes to several other publications including Exquire, American Prospect and Slate.

According to Pierce, he became motivated to write "Idiot America" after visiting the Creation Museum in Hebron, Kentucky. What struck Pierce most profoundly was a display in which a dinosaur wore an English Saddle. Another display depicted Noah loading his Arc. Again dinosaurs could be found among the herd of animals seeking refuge from the Great Flood.

As the title suggests, "Idiot America" is a humorous look at a very serious topic. Pierce discusses how knowledge and expertise have been devalued in American society today in favor of religious and political dogma. While the Creation Museum provides a somewhat humorous example, Pierce also highlights other examples that have much more serious implications for America and the world's future.

The author describes a visit that he made to a Shishmaref, Alaska, a village of around 500 on an island in the Chukchi Sea. The island is disappearing due to the melting of the permafrost and rising of the sea. The state of Alaska is already making plans to evacuate the village, which will take years. In the meantime, the residents are building sea walls to stem the inevitable.

Pierce notes that evidence of the impact of climate change is clearly visible in such places as Shishmaref. He also points out that the scientific community has reached consensus on the fact that much of the change is due to human activity. Yet, a large segment of the US population chooses to ignore or deny these facts.

Pierce contends that America has always been a society that tolerates "Cranks" well. By Cranks, he means people with outlandish ideas based on little other than there own imagination. He cites examples such as conspiracy theorists, UFO chasers and others with fantastical beliefs. The problem, Pierce maintains, is that these "Cranks" have now begun to command mainstream prominence. Rather than serving as outliers on the border of serious thought, modern day "Cranks" have harnessed the power of technology to disrupt respectful discourse, discredit expertise and frame radical views as rational.

Pierce states, "In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a scientist, or a preacher, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert." Pierce identifies "Three Great Premises of Idiot America:" 1) Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings or otherwise moves units. 2) Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough. 3) Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it.

I have read several authors who contend that technology has given rise to a Meritocracy, but has it? These authors suggest that the anonymous nature of the Internet, for instance, allows amateurs to compete with professionals and the only thing that matters is the quality of the product, information or idea. But what happens when we have no real way of judging the quality or validity of an idea? Does the final determiner simply become who shouts the loudest or with the most passion? If this is the case, clearly it poses a great threat to America's future? As educators, what is our role and responsibility to ensure that our students are able to examine issues critically and to engage in rationale discourse?