Edward Tenner, "Another Look Back, and a Look Ahead"

Questions for Making Connections within the Reading:  

1. First, define and explain one of Tenner's key terms, such as "revenge effects," "intensiveness," "technological optimists," "signal event," "homeostasis," "complex system," "recomplication," "extrapolation," "intensity," or "finesse." Next, try to connect the key term that you have chosen with the other key terms. Finally, develop a key term of your own that names an event or process Tenner describes but does not himself name.  

2. On the basis of your reading of "Another Look Back, and a Look Ahead," would you describe Tenner as a "technological optimist"? How can anyone claim to be an optimist about technology if it is, as Tenner concedes, "extremely hard"-and perhaps even impossible-"to predict the future state of a complex system even without the added imponderables of human culture and behavior"? Is it possible that technological innovation will reach a point of diminishing returns, when the costs of innovation, or the dangers, outweigh the potential benefits? Does Tenner ever consider this possibility?  

3. In what ways does Tenner's discussion of new technologies confirm his belief that progress "comes in by the back door"? To what degree does technological change take place in response to people's needs and their conscious choices? To what degree does technology shape those needs and choices? On the basis of Tenner's examples, would it be fair to say that technology has a life of its own that no one can control, or would such a claim be an exaggeration?  

Questions for Writing:  

1. The last two centuries have brought about technological change on a scale and at a pace that nobody in any prior age could have imagined. In fact, the pace of change has grown so quickly that we expect innovations to outstrip our predictions. Under these conditions, will it ever be possible to say "no" to technology? Many people believe, for example, that the automobile has diminished the quality of American life in many ways-by polluting the air and allowing suburban sprawl to gobble up the countryside, and by depopulating cities and erasing the local cultures of towns and neighborhoods. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about cars is the rapidity of their development-too rapid, perhaps, for anyone to stop and weigh the consequences. If technology now exceeds human control, do we need to rethink the trust we place in it?  

2. How has Tenner's account changed the way you think about technology? Ordinarily, we view technology in a number of different lights: as a neutral instrument or tool; as a miraculous gift; as a specialized pursuit, far removed from human feelings; as a form of knowledge synonymous with science; as a Frankenstein-like monster; as an extension of the marketplace. In what ways does Tenner complicate and perhaps even contradict these commonsense ways of viewing technology? Is it naive to think that we have created technology simply to make our lives better and easier? Does technology express an aspect of ourselves we ordinarily overlook? Other than comfort and security, what satisfactions do we derive from its creation?  

Questions for Making Connections Between Readings:  

1. Tenner assures us, in spite of all the complications, that progress "comes in by the back door." In making this claim he seems to believe that a self-correcting process will usually operate, with "intensity" followed by "disaster," which produces "precaution" and finally "vigilance." Is this argument confirmed, extended, complicated, or refuted by Relman and Angell's account of the pharmaceutical industry's procedures for developing and marketing new drugs? Does the need for regulation and monitoring show that financial considerations can derail technology's usual self-correcting tendencies? Are financial considerations sometimes at odds with the development of scientific knowledge in general?  

2. Both Tenner and Steven Johnson in his essay, "The Myth of the Ant Queen," ask their readers to reconsider the role of technological innovation in the rise of contemporary society. Would both authors agree that it makes sense to be a "technological optimist"? Or would they say that technological optimism is just an expression of wishful thinking-a hope that things will turn out well when they actually might not? Does it make sense to think that the "emergent systems" Johnson describes tend to find solutions automatically, even when the people or life-forms involved remain blissfully unaware? Or is it essential that we recognize and consciously attempt to solve the problems we have created?

More Tenner assignments...