Kerry I mean Hawthorne vs. Bush

Hawthorne vs. Bush
John Edwards


Nathaniel Hawthorne and Vannevar Bush have very differing views of technological advances. Hawthorne cherishes the simpler, more naturalistic times before technology changed human nature. Vannevar celebrates the advancement of technology as an important step in the advancement of humanity. Hawthorne's essay dealt with the invention of the air tight wood stove. He argued that an open flame was a more natural and pleasing method of heating a home, that also served as a central point in the home for the family to gather around to socialize. He feared that a wood stove would allow people to segregate themselves and be loners, ultimately destroying the family bond. Bush describes an early vision of what would become the internet. His vision is of a machine that we would think of today as outdated technology. He had ideas of a loud card sorting machine that held all the world's useful data. He had no way of knowing that digital storage methods would arise that would not only eliminate the need for a loud machine with moving parts to sort cards, but would also allow for all the world's useless data to be stored as well (try MTV.com if you don't believe me)! In opinion, Hawthorne's fears are unjustified. While people did gather around the fireplace for conversation, more efficient and safe heating technology has not eroded the family bond. People not only still socialize with one another, but we still have fireplaces. Its what economists call "the market deciding". When people recognize a value in something, they keep it. Many of us still have fireplaces, and most of those who don't do at least occasionally gather around a camp fire. Technological advance and simplistic pleasures are not mutually exclusive. We have an "all of the above" option.
Bush's viewpoint is the correct, and exciting one. Technology enriches our lives. Advancements lead to saving lives, saving money, making money, and simple enjoyment. We can all envision where we think technology might go, but what is more exciting is that we can't. Just like Bush couldn't envision digital storage which would make his machine smaller and quieter, or Google which would making searching all the data more efficient, we can't really fathom what is to come. Research at Cern with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) could change everything. We don't really know what we will learn from LHC, but some hypothesize that it could produce miniature black holes. Obviously, creating black holes on Earth is not a positive result, but the power to do so is very exciting. We could be on the verge of rewriting the laws of physics.
I have no idea where computer technology will go. Clearly things like speed and memory will go up, and the size of the machines will shrink, but by how much? How small could a computer be? We may have something as small as a quarter that projects an interactive hologram in front of the user. We may have some kind of chip in our brain that transmits data directly into our thought process rather than needing a monitor. I honestly have no idea. If the laws of physics are going to change, who can know what is coming? What kind of discoveries would those discoveries lead to? And what would those discoveries lead to? It's certainly exciting to think about.