Does technology ensure progress? Essay

Does technology ensure progress? Essay.

In this essay I will argue that technology does not ensure progress. The first main concept that needs to be clarified is ‘technology’. This paper acknowledges the concept ‘technology’ as being the application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives. The other key concept ‘progress’ in this essay is defined as a steady improvement, as a society or civilization. I am arguing that the concept of technology does not ensure the concept of progress because there are certain technologies that have hurt society in various ways.

Furthermore, not all technologies ensure progress.

Scientists have created various technologies for various reasons. It is evident that not all of these technologies are for the steady improvement of a society or civilization, but rather for personal gain. If a certain technology was invented to give a farmer a greater yield of crop, but this particular technology leads to the death of an ecosystem, then it is not progress in the sense it brings steady improvement to a society or civilization because it destroys the delicate balance of life and its biodiversity.

The loss of biodiversity will hurt civilization in the long run because the foundations of life depend on it.

Some people may think that certain technologies are the correct path for humanity, but certain technologies can manifest into things that people do not expect and hurt society by doing so. For instance, if scientists could predict that aliens would take over the earth if they invented a spaceship that could reach them, even though the scientists had not planned on finding earth invaders; surely they would have thought otherwise. This is an extreme example that has obviously not happened, but the birth of atomic energy is an example of technology that’s intended purpose of giving houses and industries power manifested itself into a bomb for the military. Some may argue that the atomic bomb ensured progress for the American’s and allied forces, yet surely the Japanese society where the bomb was dropped during the Second World War did not find progress with this technology because it killed many innocent people and destroyed infrastructure.

Certain technologies are seriously destroying the natural world. This ultimately does not lead to the improvement of a civilization, but rather is causing it harm. If technology keeps generating harmful gases and toxic chemicals which poisons the earth, then it is of no good to civilization because humans need to earth to survive.

Some readers might object to me answering that “technology does not ensure progress”. Perhaps they believe if it wasn’t for technology humans may never have succeeded in being a dominant figure on earth and we would never have evolved enough to even ask the question in the first place. There are animals that are stronger, bigger, and faster then humans and external elements that can kill humans at ease, so by humans using technology to build defensive mechanisms or shelter for warmth it has ensured human survival in a world that can be unforgiving by natural things. If my concept of technology remained the same (the application of science, especially industrial or commercial), but the concept of progress changed to (development or growth) then one could answer ‘yes’ to the question; “does technology ensure progress”.

This is evident in the manufacturing sector of our society where technology has enabled humans to build factories and warehouses to ensure development and growth of economics. The same could be said by keeping the concept of technology constant, but changing the definition of progress to (movement, as towards a goal). Scientist’s movement to create technology can be motivated by achieving goals. For instance, a certain product has to be on the market by a specific due date, otherwise the project will be terminated, so by scientists using technology and ensuring they get the job done they have moved forward and reached a goal.

It is apparent that there are particular technologies that can help humans build a better society by keeping us warm and ensuring food to survive. However, certain technologies have manifested through the evolution of man that have unquestionably uninsured the progress of humans because it has brought harm to civilization through destruction and death. Perhaps scientists and the general public need to think long and hard about inventing certain technologies. This is all the more difficult because nobody can predict the future and certain technologies might seem like a great idea at the time, but turn out to be a serious danger to all life on earth. This paper by no means is an indicator of which technologies are good for the betterment of society, but hopefully it will open the dialog between people to ask the question; which technology is ensuring progress?

Does technology ensure progress? Essay

Susan Griffin Essay

Susan Griffin Essay.

Susan Griffin compares and contrasts cellular life and weaponry as she writes her essay, Our Secret. She uses these ideas together with characters and events, to help explain causes and effects in the essay. She alternates from the cell’s function to the history of weaponry throughout the essay. With both these ideas, she starts at the elementary level, with a cell’s life and with the Vergeltungswaffe missile, and tells how they progress. In this essay, I will describe how Griffin uses cellular life and weaponry to tie together the lives of the characters.

Griffin starts “Our Secret” by describing how the nucleus of a cell is derived and the meaning of it. She states that “like the stone in a cherry, it is found in the center of the cell, and like this stone, keeps its precious kernel in a shell” (Our Secret 404). This statement marks the basis of cellular structure. These italicized fragments are used throughout the essay, although cellular function statements alternate with weaponry statements.

Susan Griffin relates these concepts to the relationships that are found in “Our Secret”.

“The nucleus of every cell in the human body contains the genetic plan for the whole organism” (Our Secret 441). This idea refers to how people base their actions on what they have strong emotions for. Susan Griffin relates cell functions and its growth stages with Himmler and his life developments. “The shell surrounding the nucleus is not hard and rigid, it is a porous membrane. These pores allow only some substances to pass through them, mediating the movement of materials in and out of the nucleus” (Our Secret 404). This is associated with the way people remember only certain things they want to remember but they can never get the full images or memory out of their mind. All their experiences will always be a part of them no matter how hard they try to forget them. Another idea that deals with this statement is how cellular function and weaponry growth contrast. Again, no matter how hard we try, we can’t control the process of cells.

When discussing weaponry, as humans, we try to make weapons more powerful and more precise year after year; nothing will be good enough for us. In weaponry, there might be many units that we have to control for the weapon to work, but in cellular function, we have no control over all the units that we are made of. The same idea applies to relationships people encounter in life. From this idea comes the concept that people are products of their environment. An example of this is Himmler. He could have left his home or deviated from his father’s wishes, but he didn’t and even if he didn’t like it, he became a product of his environment. All the events and people that were present in Himmler’s childhood had a bearing on his actions. Unfortunately, all of this was magnified as he grew older and this is why Himmler became the person he was in Griffin’s essay. While discussing cells, Griffin states how threads of RNA act as messengers. This affects everyone because even if you didn’t fight in a war or grow up around it, you were impacted by it. Griffin puts it best when she says that we are all part of a complex web that is full of connections and relationships.

All the details of the war, the people and the actions are written down, studied and talked about. So there is always going to be people (RNA) carrying this information and sharing it with others. This means there will always be a sources of information for an individual to learn about the actions and people of a time period. Near the end of the essay, she states “as the fertilized egg cell starts to divide, all the daughter cells have identical DNA, but the cells soon cease to look alike, and in a few weeks, a number of different kinds of cells can be recognized in the embryo” (Our Secret 450). She tells how newborns develop many unique cells required for him/her to survive. This happens without human interference. This essay deals with human relationships, and these can be compared with cellular development.

In conclusion of cellular development I would like to state, again, that cells which have DNA and RNA and that eventually evolve into humans, can not be controlled. Weaponry starts with the creation of the Vergeltungswaffe or V-1 missile. From there Griffin continues telling about the advancement of weaponry. This applies to Himmler as well; Himmler starts out weak like the weapons as time goes by the weapons start to become bigger and stronger along with this Himmler grows stronger with time, too.” The missile is guided by a programmed mechanism. There is no electronic device that can be jammed. Once it is fired it cannot stop” (our Secret 405). After the war started, there was nothing that could be done to stop the war. Just as the missiles can’t be stopped, the war was in progress and even if people wished it to stop, there was no way to jam the advancement of it.

This essay could very easily be broken down into three stories: one about the original essay, another about the advancement of weaponry, and finally about cellular function and development. All these concepts are tied together with relationships. She also does a magnificent job in comparing and contrasting weaponry and cellular development. The effects of the weapons used during the war affected all humans; but humans are the people behind these machines making them work. Weaponry and cellular function and development are ideas Susan Griffin understands and uses very carefully so her readers can better understand the development of human relationships.

Susan Griffin Essay

Anti-nuclear movements Essay

Anti-nuclear movements Essay.

During and after World War II Australia began supplying uranium for the US and UK’s weapons programs, and this is how Australia got involved. British weapons tests in South Australia and Western Australia 1952-63 left a long line of health problems for Aborigines and armed service personnel, as well as significant environmental damage.

Let’s face it. We don’t want safe nuclear power plants. We want NO nuclear power plants —A spokesman for the Government Accountability Project, an offshoot of the Institute for Policy Studies, The American Spectator, Vol 18, No.

11, Nov. 1965The Atomic Energy Commission which was created in 1953 wanted to initiate nuclear power, to push towards nuclear weapons and to make plans to use peaceful nuclear explosives for civil engineering projects.

Contesters of nuclear energy used the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of 1968 to strengthen the associations between the international export and expansion of nuclear power technologies and the production of nuclear weapons.

Eventually the coalition between US and Australian imperialism developed into a stronger one.

In 1951, The ANZUS treaty was signed and the building of military bases at North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar constricted Australia to the US nuclear war-fighting machine in the 1960s and ’70s.

During the 1960’s, due to the obvious weakening of the natural and inner-city environments the environmental movement grew. Some environmentalists saw nuclear energy as a way to decrease pollution even though the majority of the people who joined the movement by now had anti-nuclear attitudes, and all the way through that time the anti-nuclear movement was chosen within the environmental movement, although a huge portion of the people who identify themselves as environmentalists, favour nuclear energy.

Since power production by nuclear plants was usually centralized and nuclear power has forever been a technology which occupies specialists, some individuals with slight or no scientific training see it as an elitist technology. The public out-look of nuclear power was based on popular political and social awareness rather than in-depth understanding of the technology and scientific specifics of nuclear power.

Opponent to Australia’s nuclear industry and connections was weak and isolated until the 1970s, when the various threads of the peace and environmental movements coalesced into a mass movement.

Early opposition to nuclear power was articulated in relation to environmental grounds: thermal pollution known and assumed reactor accidents, possible release of radiation during deliveries, and ever-developing means for long term radioactive waste storage and disposal. The environmental movement made such fears well-known, whereas the opposition on these matters such as concentration of capital in major engineering endeavors rather than decentralized and less productive energy sources, and production of nuclear weapons, did not attract much attention.

According to anti-nuclear associations, rendering nuclear waste undamaging is not being done satisfactorily and it remains a danger for anywhere between a few years to several thousands of years, depending on the particular nature of the Isotopes.

Part of the radioactive material produced in some types of nuclear reactors has the potential to be used to make Nuclear Weapons by countries equipped with the capability of chemical and isotope separation. Anti-nuclear activists claim that this makes nuclear power undesirable out of concern for nuclear proliferation.

In nationwide coordinated demonstrations, the anti-nuclear movement engrossed up to 50,000 protesters in the major cities by 1976-77. There were active oppositions from the trade union movement, and the state and federal ALP began to adopt anti-uranium policies.

Nuclear accidents are often cited by anti-nuclear groups as evidence of the inherent danger of nuclear power. Most commonly cited by anti-nuclear people is the Chernobyl disaster, which resulted in massive amounts of radio-isotopes being released into the environment which are highly radio-active compounds that accumulate in the food chain.

Popular celebrities such as Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne recorded songs regarding nuclear or alternative power sources. As well as numerous documentary films, the Academy Award nominated The China Syndrome, 1979, and Silkwood movies exaggerated the fears of anti-nuclear activists.

In Victoria, more than 100 local groups resisted to the nuclear industry that had been set up by the end of 1977. The most well-known were the Friends of the Earth, Movement Against Uranium Mining, Campaign Against Nuclear Power, Campaign Against Nuclear Energy, and later, People for Nuclear Disarmament.

Some of the more established groups were also involved, such as the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and the Wilderness Society.

Onlookers claimed to see a substantial overlap between opponents of nuclear power and supporters of the one-sided disarmament during the Cold War. Others link the anti-nuclear movement to currents within the environmentalist movement who want the West to stop using so much energy and reduce the size of its economy.

Many problems were taken up: the connection between the uranium industry and weapons formation; the environmental abominations of nuclear power; the major effects of uranium mining on Aborigines and workers in the industry; not to mention the Cold War nuclear arms spiral and Australia’s involvement to it through the hosting of US bases, culminating in US nuclear warships to use Australian ports and the ANZUS alliance.

By legislation of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, as well as the Arms Control Act 1987, all territorial land and sea of New Zealand was acknowledged as a nuclear free zone.

The anti-nuclear movement stands against expanding nuclear energy to transfer fossil fuels. They challenge that capital resources would be spent more productively on renewable energy sources than nuclear plants. They argue further that the problem of intermittency can be overcome through storage, biofuels, and oversizing the electrical-distribution grid.

Some raised issues were; weapons testing in the Pacific, and the secret history of the British weapons tests. The movement interrupted and put in danger some nuclear projects (uranium mines), and damaged the credibility as well as the authority of the nuclear business and state.

In spite of the successes, however, the ’70s anti-nuclear movement did not really threaten Australia’s nuclear industry and the movement declined during the 1980s.


Websites:Tiscali September 5, 2005, Antinuclear movement, viewed 19th October. < >Morron, Juame. 2005, WISE – Nuclear issues information service. Viewed 18th October <>Clinton, Michael. Dec 2004, Toward Nuclear Abolition Viewed 20th October Martin, Brian, 2005, The Australian anti-uranium movement Viewed 17th October Articles:Vest, Jason. “The army’s empire skeptics,” Nation (3/3/03): 27-30. Officers are raising serious questions about manpower, morale & technology.

Wilsey, Sean. “Peace is a beautiful thing,” New Yorker (4/11/05):52-65. Commitments to world disarmament have come from some surprising places!Zinn, Howard. “A break-in for peace,” Progressive (7/02):14-16. Trial of Camden 28 in 1973.

Alan Roberts, “The politics of nuclear power”, Arena (Melbourne), No. 41 (1976), pp. 22-47.

Audio”From a Distance,” by Julie Gold. Nanci Griffith, One Fair Summer Evening, MCA Records MCAD-42255.

Anti-nuclear movements Essay