Summary
Woodhouse uses the
final chapter to reimagine the world as it is today by attacking the root of
the the problems analyzed in the book: a collective insanity, with sanity being
when one is able to understand and anticipate the effects of their actions. He
points to how toxic chemicals are released and used widely without knowing
their effects, how consumers "continue to purchase microwave popcorn in
bags that release PFOAs into our dwelling spaces and bodies" (238), and
how current civilizations steal precious resources with disregard for their
availability for future generations. Finally he argues a “saner” technosocial
future would be one that works for every single person, no ifs ands or buts.
There would be basic housing, food, and shelter for everyone as technology
works against the distribution problem; work hours would be cut for the
overworked and given to the unemployed; undesired or miserable jobs would be
split amongst the working population fairly, or provide ample benefit for the
unfair work.
Analysis & Synthesis
At the beginning of
the final chapter Woodhouse mentions current college students’ generation’s
fascination with avatars, fantasy games, and futuristic/sci fi films, books,
etc. He wonders "if such extraordinary phenomena may represent [their]
intuition that something is missing in everyday life" (233). For me, it is
that the world today is impersonal. In taking this class I have realized the
many flaws Woodhouse described are rooted in the world not addressing human
need and capacity.
My improved
technosocial future would be organized and governed by what the individual
human, human society, and humanity need and are capable of on a basic level.
This does not mean limiting what humans do or need to a basic level; rather,
the pace and type of improvement would be comprehensible and manageable for
each person. A society with this mindset and ruling would have thorough
Intelligent Trial and Error, as each product would need to be directly
addressed in terms of its social contexts and effects and only launched onto
the market if it is what society needs or wants. An example would be for a new
cereal; if there is already a chocolate kids’ cereal on the market, there is no
need for another; if there is no heart-healthy kids’ cereal on the market but
only 20% show they would purchase it in testing, it is not ready for the
market. Of course there would need to be explicit guidelines for what
constitutes a product as different from another and what in testing shows
satisfactory need or desire.
These types of
regulations may not be so straight forward in the nitty gritty details but in
current society there isn’t any. Guidelines within this mindset would be used
for transportation (is it necessary to outsource this to China or would the
local community or product benefit from local sourcing?), education, workplace
environment (what do humans want and need to work happily at this type of task
for however long they are asked to?), working hours, environmental protection,
food standards, etc. throughout the global market. This would eliminate
overconsumption as products focus on needs and universal desires, slow down the
unmanageable pace of innovation too rapid, create more efficient working hours
while providing more leisure time, and more. Progress would be entirely tied to
human need, social effects, and humanity’s physical/emotional/learning
capacities. Innovation would slowly work its way towards being solely beneficial.
