Taming Technology

“Taming Technology”

Technology moves at a pace that can often be harmful to the earth physically and socially. This excerpt from Alvin Toffler’s “Future Shock” presents several reasons why society as a whole needs to control the quick acceleration of technology. Toffler effectively supports his argument by appealing to personal values, refuting existing claims, and using key facts and examples.

While technology is definitely a key aspect of life, Toffler appeals to the audience’s emotions by using examples of how technology has negatively impacted our planet. For example, he states that “industrial waste dumped into a river can turn up hundreds, even thousands of miles away in the ocean” (Toffler p.312). This is a problem that occurs because the long term effects of toxic waste dumping were not considered until it was too late. Had there been sufficient research on the effects of toxic waste on different ecosystems, we may not have had this dilemma. Toffler also says that “we must stop being afraid to exert systematic social control over technology” (Toffler p.315). In fact, responsibility for doing so must be shared by public agencies and the corporations and labs in which technological innovations are unveiled. This appeals to the audience’s fear of taking charge and it helps us realize that we must do something instead of being scared. In addition to this, Toffler establishes his credibility to make his argument more valid.

Alvin Toffler addresses and refutes several important claims made by the other side of his argument. This lets the audience know that the author is informed about all aspects of the issue and has considered all views. He explains that people are not helpless against the effects of technology. It is quite possible to perform tests on new technology in controlled environments to study its secondary impacts before releasing it to the public. This will help determine the long term effects of a product before it gets let out onto the market. Furthermore, he refutes the typical romantic babble about returning to a “state of nature”. He describes a state of nature as “poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. This further proves that technology is important and we do need it. However, we must simply learn to control it wisely. In addition to this, “controls over technology need not imply limitations on the freedom to conduct research” (Toffler p.315). He makes it clear that the issue is not how quick new technology is being discovered. However, the problem lies in how rapidly these new discoveries are being diffused into society. By all means we should continue to conduct research and simply hold back on releasing the technology until a strict set of tests