Metatech

Meta-Tech: A Humanitarian View of Technology
A silver and orange shimmering flash leaps from the horizon of the desert; beautiful and bright. The glint doesn’t fade; bright just gets brighter until you don’t think it can get any more, but it does. Then the sound hits, and you begin to realize the power unleashed, the power of thousands of brilliant minds working together, all culminating in a white light-white heat inferno straight out of Dante’s mouth. The light that used to shimmer has lost all brilliance and only glows now, a menacingly thick and sticky, toxic glow. Hot and red like hell, a powerful dome expands. The ground melts and explodes along the edge of the dome , and sends a bitter shockwave straight through every particle in your body. As the hot wind presses your face and sends a chill down your spine you whisper “Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
That was a glimpse of the dark side of technology, courtesy of J. Robert Oppenheimer. But can we even consider it technology? We can loosely define technology as the gathering and/or manipulation of resources, usually having to do with survival, such as making living more comfortable or more efficient. Cell phones fit the bill, as do computers. Planes, trains, and automobiles all fulfill their function of making survival easier, or more comfortable, or more efficient. But what happens when that piece of technology is specifically used for the purpose of eradicating human life? When the September 11 hijackers first veered off course with the sole intent of ending human lives, did that plane become something different? Did the plane become the antithesis of technology? The very idea of technology implies its use, and therefore any use of a technological object in a way that does not, or at least does not have the potential to, benefit human kind as a whole, negates its technological status. Furthermore, if a technological object is used solely for the purpose of eradicating or otherwise harming human life, the object becomes anti-technology.

Part I: Technology defined by its use
To begin with a wide definition of technology, imagine a brand new Apple G5 computer. The brushed aluminum case and 19 inch flat panel LCD monitor are the first indications that this computer is about as high tech as it can get. Open it up and you’d find a hard drive, CD/DVD drive, and central processing unit all connected to a mother-board. The computer meets our current definition of technology, as plastic and metal have been manipulated until an object with a function was rendered. In this case the function is to compute information using a logical framework. This is the new philosopher; Socrates for the 21st century.
Socrates has a programmer who has given the protocol to compute the digits of PI. All day and night Socrates computes and reports the digits of PI. Through this dynamic we can see a very simple use and benefit system, where the programmer uses the product of technological thought in order to fulfill a useful goal; the knowledge of every digit of PI.
Now think of the same computer 100 years from now. The programmer has long been dead, but Socrates continues to compute. One by one the computer continues to churn out numbers. However with no one to benefit Socrates is just a random gathering of plastic and metal that happens to have a specific program installed. The computer no longer serves a useful purpose, and therefore is no longer a piece of technology.
Our definition has now expanded to include the beneficial use of the technology in order to define it as technology. Under the new definition, technology is the beneficial use of the ultimate product of the gathering and/or manipulation of resources. The definition is getting more narrow, but there is still a large piece that is missing. The correct use of this ultimate product is what truly defines it as technology.

Part II: Technological Relativism and the Importance of Proper Use
The year was 1942 and the world was caught in a bitter struggle for power. As the bombs dropped, and invasions took place, the world was thrown into a chaotic competition. The winner would be the one most skilled at killing his fellow man. The United States reluctantly joined the Allied Forces after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and American scientists were faced with an uncommon dilemma: they had to choose which side they were on. Polarizing the scientific community, as it is traditionally such an international and apolitical society was impressive, and to the degree it was done, phenomenal. J. Robert Oppenheimer was among those who had chosen their side. The man who would later be known as the father of the atomic bomb became an invaluable figure for the Allied Forces, for it seemed he held the key to defeating the Axis Forces in one fell swoop.
The excitement of the newly discovered theory of nuclear fission along with the constant reminder of the threat the Axis Forces represented, propelled and emboldened the Allied scientists involved in the Manhattan Project to create the most powerful weapon ever created. The US government employed a total of 130,000 people and spent $2 billion by the time three bombs had been developed. The Trinity test temporarily transformed the desert near Alamogordo, New Mexico into a veritable hell storm. When we dropped “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” on Nagasaki and Hiroshima respectively, millions of Japanese civilians died. The power of those two bombs ended the war, and left the world in awe and worry as to whether we had overstepped our technological limit.
We hadn’t, but it wasn’t because of our advanced technological understanding. The reason we had not overstepped our ability to use technology is that the very use of those bombs to kill human beings negated their technology in the first place. Every action and thought from idea to construction was a perfect example of brilliant technology in action, but once the decision was made to drop the bomb with the intent of eradicating human life, the project lost all technological precept.
Inherent to every American, and to most people in the world, is the concept of all lives being created as equal. This belief transcends all physical aspects of life, even time. Historically this has shown itself: our enemies change constantly. Because emnification is relative, to kill your enemy is to kill yourself, becuase the two are one and the same.
Looking at this dynamic simplistically in terms of our current definition of technology we can see that any weapon that is used to kill human beings is not technology. The bombs were wonderful examples of the gathering of both physical and mental resources, but their use was not beneficial to mankind. Instead, the bombs were anti-technological, as their use was actually detrimental to mankind.
As our definition continues to evolve it becomes even more specific. Technology is now defined as the gathering and/or manipulation of resources with the sole intent of benefiting mankind as a whole. Inherent to this definition is the understanding that any piece of technology that is used to harm or eradicate human life in any way, regardless of justification, is by definition anti-technological.

Part III: Technological Entropy and the Waste of Energy – A Recomendation
Nearly 500 white giants, the site of which would make even Don Quixote tuck his tail and run, sit on the Oregon – Washington border. Their thick metal bases protrude from the brown stalks of wheat, which flit in the 18 MPH wind. Each giant has three gargantuan arms that turn in circles. Like some demented modern dance, all 1500 arms wave in unison. This is the site of the largest wind farm in the United States, and is a shining example of technology as the harnessing of energy. As wind blows the blades turn, and as they turn energy is stored. We use every bit of the energy we harness. The demand is so high that controlled energy is now a precious commodity bought and sold around the world.
Entropy exists in every system, and energy harnessing is no different. The ultimate goal is clean fuel with the lowest amount of entropy possible. Nuclear reactions can potentially be at both extremes of the scale, with nuclear weapons at the least efficient end, and nuclear fission the holy grail of energy production. The difference is how we choose to use them. The use of nuclear reaction to destroy human life is detrimental to every human being on this planet, no matter who is directly targeted. The correct use of nuclear reactions is energy harnessing, and if we use our technological capacities to that end, then the brilliant research conducted by the members of the Manhattan Project will not have been in vain.


Part IV: The Definitive Definition
Humans have an uncanny ability to use their brains. Our creativity and resourcefulness are what separate us from the other life forms that inhabit the Earth. However because of our cognitive ability we are very good at rationalizing unacceptable behavior. Because of this, human achievements need to be looked at according to a scrupulous moral code. What I attempted to do within this paper was to define technology using both a pragmatic and a moral code. Through various proofs I made a case for the definition of technology to include only objects with a specific beneficial use. Furthermore I expanded the beneficiaries to include all humans. Through this process I have come up with the definitive version of my definition for technology:


The King Theory for Humanistic Technology:
Technology is the gathering and/or manipulation of resources with the sole purpose of benefiting humankind as a whole. Any object that would otherwise fit the definition of technology but is used for the purpose of eradicating or otherwise harming human life is the antithesis of technology, and can be described as anti-technology.