Technology, Society and Global Dominance; Technology and Human Development

Global dominance

In the last two centuries, we have seen how technology has allowed first Europe and then America to achieve global dominance. Europe's quest for natural resources to feed its booming industries, combined with its superior military technology, led to the successful colonisation of much of Asia. Going further back in history, it was the desire to expand and consolidate their empire (so as to obtain gold and cheap labour) that spurred the Europeans to conquer the Americas. Their superior technology enabled the Spaniards, despite their tiny army, to hold Atahuallpa ransom for so many days and extort a huge amount of gold from him.

The reading, 'The Colonial Holocaust and its Legacy', though rather one-sided, drove home this important truth. It wasn't that the Europeans were more intelligent or culturally sophisticated; they merely had more advanced technology. Their military might enabled them to embark on a programme of mass extermination, and cement their presence in North America.

In the present age, it has been emphasised time and again that innovation is the key for companies to survive and prosper. In other words, corporations must continue to apply knowledge in creative ways, in order to achieve market dominance. The example of mobile phone companies, as discussed in class, is highly pertinent. Things are moving so fast and consumers are always demanding more, so the only way to stay ahead of the game is to keep improving their handsets.

Human development

I still find it quite hard to see a link between technology and human development. The only obvious connection is between technology and improved healthcare, which results in people living longer and having a higher quality of life, as suggested by the Human Development Index (HDI).

Apart from that, I suppose that technology has brought many labour-saving devices, which frees us to pursue other more enriching activities (such as acquiring knowledge, which is another HDI indicator). I'm actually thinking of how women can spend far less time in the kitchen and doing household chores, given how much easier cooking and washing clothes or ironing has become. But apparently, people have become fatter and less fit as a result. No one needed to go to the gym as their daily lives incorporated sufficient physical activity, which is why gyms and those sophisticated exercise machines didn't exist in the past. That aside, technology has undeniably made it much easier to access information. But whether we've become smarter is another matter.

As for the final indicator, income, technology and all that it's brought about hasn't really affected our purchasing power. People always marvel about how things were so cheap in the past, forgetting about inflation.

In conclusion, technology is probably the explanation for the dominance of certain organisations or countries, but I don't think it's done much for human development.

Technology and the rise of civilisations

The ethical dimension

"Why is that you white people developed much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?"

Yali's question is a very simple one - something that even a child might ask - but it struck me as one that must be carefully answered, as the answer will shape human decisions. An explanation based on biological differences between races can be used to justify discrimination and maybe even genocide, in a Brave New World-type of society. Lee Kuan Yew, to some extent, subscribes to these beliefs and this is reflected in some of his policies (e.g. graduate mothers). This makes for an interesting contrast to Diamond's thesis: “History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among people's environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves.”

The nuts and bolts of technology aside, I think that the ethical dimension is something that cannot be ignored. After understanding the changes that technology has brought about, we should ask ourselves how it can be used as a force for good and how we can mitigate any negative effects it might have.

The rise of civilizations

As for the content covered in class, it seems that nearly every region of the world had its heyday at some point in history. I think many historians have already identified the common factors, though of course there will always be disputes about which are more important and whether some should or should not be on the list. These are interesting and worth exploring, as understanding the past helps us to better shape the future

And beyond that, there will always be a specific explanation for each region and for each “technology” revolution (e.g. the Middle East's in the 7th century, which was covered in reading 4). I think that knowing these explanations is valuable, as you need to use these specific examples to illustrate the general factors.

All in all, I look forward to becoming better acquainted with these ideas via the TWC course.