"I asked one of the key developers what motivated him. He said that, unlike scientists who carve out truth claims, he prefered inventing good things to have. In this, I think he headlined a core shared idea of our new age. Tens of millions of us go to work everyday to create, make sell, and service good things to have" (On Value and Values Douglas Smith 125)
I came across this quote when reading for my Realm of Values class and it perplexed me. The author is describing how a scientist describes how he no longer is searching for scientific truths, but instead creates good things to have. This idea bothers me especially when Smith claims this is headlined a shared idea of our new age. Smith is stating that many individuals seek things that are "good to have" this materialism bothers me. I know we all enjoy our ipods and own laptop computers, but what about the environmental damage mining for lithium to have batteries? Is our own materialism leading to environmental damage (There is an article in the National Geographic that talks about the damaging Environmental effects of Gold if anyone would be interested in further reading, i know it does not deal with lithium, but the idea of drastic enviromental effects for greed is illustrated). I understand that with new technology there are two sides to every coin. For example, new technology has allowed us to develop purses that can charge a cell phone or ipod based on solar power. However, how many of those purses do you see these days? Does the quote illustrate how materialistic our society has gone that we only think about the things that are good to have and do not think about their implications? Does it show that the average american cares more about material status then discovering scientific truths?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the "good things to have" often take precedence over the discovery of scientific truths because people can relate to and appreciate those "good things to have" without having to invest much effort or thought. The instant gratification provided by a material good is much more tangible, much more real to people than a development for the greater good, than a transcendental cause. People like what they can understand, what they can see, touch, and reap visable rewards from. I don't think this tendency is neccessarily automatically detrimental, but I do think that the frequency with which it takes precedence over the simple gratification in knowing that the world is better off, is unsettling.
ReplyDeleteOur culture hasn't exactly provided an environment that fosters in its children a desire to discover for the sake of discovery, but rather to use discovery as a means to an end.
Sometimes people just don't take the time to think big enough.
I think that our minds have been "programmed" since birth by commercials. If we think about it advertisments have flooded us visually and auditorially since before we knew how to talk. We have been programmed to think that we need this now, have it better, bigger, and in the end the marketing methods have worked. Society does not automatically think about the fact that a purse that plays the ipod will one day be obselete and become garbage b/c we won't need ipods anymore one day.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both the statements. Do you think there is a way to change the actions? Can Americans stop looking at good things to have and start looking for the good things?
ReplyDelete