In this paper I will  address the ethical challenges posed by the introduction of new technologies as discussed in two readings: Postman’s “Invisible Technologies” and Winner’s “Artifacts/Ideas and Political Culture.”  According to Dictionary.com, ethics can be defined as “a theory or a system of moral values.”  However, this definition can be considered vague because moral values are not standardized between different cultures and people.  Technology is defined as “the human process of applying resources to satisfy our wants and needs and to extend our capabilities.”  It is important to note that this definition does not limit technology to physical objects and tools, but instead expands it to include processes that extend our current capabilities just as reading and writing have done.  To illustrate my ideas I will first take an in-depth look at the two readings’ approaches to identifying the ethical challenges associated with new technologies, and then I will assess both in order to determine which reading has the stronger merit.

            Langdon Winner introduces his article with an enthusiastic mention of the new technologies currently available, but then he warns us of how they will affect our future society.  The theme of cautious acceptance of technology remains consistent throughout the rest of the reading.  Winner describes technology as a very strong force in our lives, denoting tools and instruments as “virtual members of our society.”  This makes us question the acceptance of new technologies and to ask ourselves: Do we control technology or does it control us?  Ignoring how technology is going to be used and how it will affect the environment and the economy, Winner seeks to make readers ask “What kind of world are we building here?” focusing on the social effects with regards to freedom, power, authority, community and justice.

            Winner states that although the industrial revolution had many benefits, such as allowing for new methods of extracting coal and making textiles, the impact of the increased level of technology on society during this revolution overshadowed these benefits.  The effects of technology, in a political and social sense, are very important because the lines between technology and culture, society and politics are becoming less distinct.  This melding is clarified in the Maevon Garrett story, which shows how changing perspectives have resulted in technology clashes with cultural beliefs.  A new computer monitoring system that analyzed the productivity of telephone operators conflicted with Garrett’s own feelings of social obligation to talk to lonely and elderly people, and therefore Garrett refused to cut a call short in order to meet a phone company’s hourly quota.  Should we take an ethical standpoint in the workplace to help our fellow man or should we compromise our beliefs to avoid being labeled unproductive because of a new piece of technology?  Thus, it is important to consider the trend of new emerging technologies and their ability to change our own beliefs and. 

Technology may have a hidden meaning that is not obvious to most at first glance.  The example of “el cortito” explains that the handle of a hoe was designed to be short so that a foreman would have the ability to tell at a glance if workers are digging by their posture.  A worker who is standing up obviously isn’t working and would be identified and disciplined quickly.  The length of the handle on a hoe “expresses a regime, a regime of power, authority and control.” To hide such political ideas in an object is a questionable practice.  For fear of lessened productivity, the employer’s ability to discipline is traded with the worker’s quality of the work environment.

Winner believes that the innovations presently being developed and deployed create various concerns as to how they change our cultural environment.  The problems associated with technological developments include the possibility of controlling peoples’ thoughts, limitations on privacy, the destruction of community life, dependence on energy systems (fossil fuel), and the elimination of human initiative and creativity.  With the introduction of any new technology, we must question its acceptance based on its violation of these concerns.  If a new drug was created that had the ability to allow people to read minds, would it be correct for governments to use the drug to prevent terrorism?  For individuals to use it for self-defense?  For blackmail?  Where do we draw the line?  If a new technology intrudes on any of the points listed above, we should raise a warning flag that we might be compromising our way of life or that we might be making a bad ethical decision.  We must take note that in creating new technologies we also shape the people who use and are affected by them.  Do we want to create people who have no respect for privacy or have no sense of privacy themselves? 

            “No innovation without representation”, “no engineering without political deliberation”, and “no means without ends” are three guiding maxims listed by Winner.  The first maxim declares that all groups to be affected by a technology should be allowed to help define what the technology will be.  Secondly, all projects should be analyzed for possible “covert” political conditions in which engineers should be more prepared to evaluate the political aspects of their work.  The last maxim expresses that tools should not be created if they are not needed within our society; the Star Wars project is a great example of a useless tool.  These maxims, according to Winner, are needed to help in guiding technological choices to ensure an attractive political future.  Analysis of the ethical ramifications of the introduction of new technology in the early stages of development is a very important aspect of innovation, and thus it must not be ignored.

            Neil Postman believes that we live in a technopoly, a society that treats technological progress as a religion that overwhelms and dominates all other alternatives.   The name “Invisible Technologies” alludes to the general theme of the paper, as technologies can be in disguise and we have to see through this disguise to learn more about the technologies.  Many examples of invisible technologies are discussed in this reading, including language, statistics and polling.

            Language is a very powerful tool used to describe thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals.  English has a vast array of signals at its disposal, making it one of the most descriptive languages in existence and giving us the ability to describe objects with amazing detail.  Postman makes the argument that the form of a question can block us from seeing alternate solutions.  The example of the village in Lithuania in which the questions “How can we make sure that we do not bury people who are still alive?” and “How can we make sure that everyone we bury is dead?” give two dramatically different answers.  The first question generated a solution whereby the coffins would be stocked with water and food and a small air vent would be created, but the latter question led people to suggest that each coffin would have a twelve-inch stake affixed on the inside of the coffin so when the lid shut it would drive through the heart.  A simple rewording of a question can cause bias, thus manipulating people in a society to “change” their ethics on a particular subject.  Assuming that Lithuanians do not wish to commit murder, we see that the people who were asked to make sure that the people buried were dead were unable to reach the more humane solution of stocking coffins with food and water. 

            Postman also states that the field of statistics is currently one of the most powerful technologies in use since it can clarify patterns that are not visible in raw data.  As this powerful tool becomes increasingly technology-oriented, the chance of abusing it becomes more acute.  According to Stephen Jay Gould’s book, The Mismeasure of Man, three major problems exist in analyzing statistics. The first involves reification, in which we treat an abstract concept, such as beauty or intelligence, as something concrete that can be measured.  The second problem addresses the need for a reference point, which is difficult to use in measuring something abstract. The last problem concerns the generation of unbiased questions or tests. For example, an American that completed a section of an IQ test on American history would score noticeably higher than a person of equal “intelligence” from another country.  Thus, it is a challenge to create a test that is completely free of bias from society, religion, language and other cultural discrepancies. 

Another invisible technology that is discussed in this reading is polling.  Very closely related to statistics, polling is used to generate public opinions and provide democracy with a scientific footing.  This system works in theory, because the common people in a democracy are considered the primary source of power and thus the best gauge of public opinion.  However, Postman points out that no system is perfect and that at least four problems exist with polling.  First, the questions asked in a poll usually require have yes or no answers and do not allow people to strongly assert their opinions.  Secondly, the concept of polling follows the assumption that everyone has an opinion and that it can be extracted by asking questions.  However, an opinion is by definition a belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof, and is therefore difficult to discern from a yes or no question.  Third, polling tends to ignore the respondents’ level of education on the subject being analyzed.  Without any prior knowledge of the question being asked, how can one have a formulated opinion on a topic?  Lastly, polling has the power to “shift the locus of responsibility between political leaders and their constituents,” which according to Postman can alter the judgments and decisions of the leaders.  

Keeping these four problems in mind, consider this question: “Do you think the United States should attack the source of terrorism to protect the people?” A large number of people would reply affirmatively.  However, if the question were changed to “Do you think the United States should wage war with Afghanistan?” would people be so quick to answer yes?  In this case, the outcome of the poll depends on what question is chosen. As stated above, language can bias a question and give the false impression that the public feels a certain way on a given topic.

            Winner’s approach seems to revolve around how physical technologies affect the development of society and culture, as compared to Postman’s preoccupation with the “Invisible Technologies” effect.  The feeling of paranoia that is present in Winner’s article completes two different tasks. Firstly, it alerts the reader to some present problems with technology and how it is implemented in society; for example, the ability of an object to carry a political idea would not be noticed by the average person.  Secondly, the article is reminiscent of a farfetched science fiction film in which an alien technology threatens to destroy the social and moral structure of a society.  This causes Winner to lose credibility. 

In reading the Winner article, one must make special note that the views written are those of one man and some of them are poorly proven and backed up.  For example, in describing the three maxims stated to clarify the merger of technology and society, Winner engages the UTOPIA project as an example.  This project closely followed the three maxims, and Winner states that “The result was democratization expressed in hardware, software and, human relationships.” The article did not comment on whether or not the project was a success, and the end result was that the vendor ran out of money before it could be brought to market, possibly due to the longer design process.  With this additional information, the reader may now question whether it was an ethical choice on Winner’s behalf to only use information that reinforces his perspective.  In his article, Postman states that language is a powerful technology that can be used to confuse and distort the opinions and even the ethics of people by putting information in a certain form.  Winner has taken advantage of this application of language by writing only one side of the story.

Postman’s article deals with more practical technologies prominent in our society.  As Professor and Chair of the Department of Communications, Arts and Science at New York University, he is in a position to comment on this subject.  After reading the article, which was based on statistics, language and polling and the ethics behind these invisible technologies, I was surprised to find that the writer had no experience in the social sciences, statistics and polling.  The points that Postman makes are very general observations, some of which being just analysis of the work of others, such as Gaulton and Gould (both very respectable sources).  Postman also solidifies his claims with personal experience in polling.  His story of being in the presence of a group of United States congressmen who gathered to discuss an important topic related to the people of America reveals that Postman’s opinions are formed not on an academic level but on a research and personal level.  This encourages trust in the opinions posed by Postman.

The ideas that Postman contributes to the reader are very easy to understand, and he defends his claims with good examples.  The ethics of language, statistics and polling that I have absorbed from this reading have added a touch of distrust in data that have been gathered through polling.  How can one be sure that the information was gathered ethically?  The wording of a simple question can change a group of people to look like caring individuals worried about the welfare of their neighbours being buried alive, to cold people attempting to make sure they are dead.  According to Postman, this biasing of questions permeates into the fields of statistics and polling as well.  Thus, Postman makes the stronger case with respect to the ethical challenges posed by the introduction of new technologies.  His real life experiences and very general explanations of different technologies allow the reader to easily understand the ethical dilemmas that he identifies.  In my opinion, Winner loses credibility due to the incomplete examples (such as UTOPIA), lack of other examples, and an overly paranoid view on society and technology.

In conclusion ethics are a very important part of our everyday life. The invention of new technologies tends to bring many different dilemmas into the lives of the creators and also the people who use them.  Some technologies have been created without choice and we must make sure we fully understand how to use them properly.  Language, for example, has existed since the birth of civilization and without it we would not exist as we do today.  Postman and Winner both recognize that the introduction and use of new technologies require a check against the moral structure of the society and the ethical beliefs of the individuals that will feel the effects of such an addition to their lives.  This belief should be the foundation of innovation so the members of the society can have a strong, viable and ethical solution to satisfy their wants, needs and to extend their capabilities.