The End of Technopoly, finally

When I began this book, I thought it was interesting but as I read more, I realized that the theme of Postman's Technopoly was getting repetitious and boring. Yes, there are many ways that we are dependent on technology these days, yes, technology can be defined by any innovation through the millennia, but to write for almost 200 pages on how it could and should be redefined seemed an exercise in futility. We can recognize some things should change and maybe even have a dialogue but I would hazard a guess that there is no going back. We aren't going back to a time where classes aren't graded and numbers are not used as benchmarks nor where psychologists and social scientists do not exist. His rant uses examples from many works from history, philosophers, religious and "scientists" and discounts what they have done and studied but understands that those same people have made positive contributions to our world as we know it today.

Postman writes, "...language itself is a kind of technology-an invisible technology-and through it we achieve more than clarity and efficiency. We achieve humanity-or inhumanity."(142)  This statement is true, yet it applies to anything, technological or not. Humans can use an invention of any means to suit their will to influence towards good or evil. Language is particularly malleable because it is our means of communication and is the primary way to express ideas but it is not language's fault or responsibility that the creatures that use it, use it properly. That thought would extend itself to anything. Fire can be interpreted as technology. We need fire to heat ourselves, cook our food and numerous other ways that I won't list but fire can also cause immeasurable destruction and pain and suffering. Shall I write a book about the pros and cons of fire and argue its merits and demerits and how it has infiltrated all aspects of our lives? I think not. But it might be a great topic for Postman's next book.