This piece was interesting to read, and at times very confusing. In paragraph two of page three the author suggests that our technophilia, or enthusiasm for technology, is merely biophilia in disguise. I felt like I was able to grasp this concept pretty well as I saw it recurring throughout the text making it easier to understand. Being a part of a generation where technology has been prevalent for most of our lives, I can understand how the fascination with living things can translate to an admiration of technology. I think this is especially true now, because the ways that we’ve come to use technology have grown to be so advanced. On page five, paragraph two the author continues with this same line of thinking comparing techno- and biophilia, by saying that the internet is “the technological equivalent of a place that you can get lost in”. I related to this feeling that the author described and I think it’s something that happens to all of us. It’s an interesting dichotomy because the act of losing yourself in social media or the internet in general makes you feel like you’re engaging in real life, when in reality it’s an entirely man made creation.
Another concept that I found myself grasping onto was mentioned on page seven in paragraph one, when the author explains how we ‘rebel’ against the negative costs of technology and its interrelatedness with pollution and global warming, yet we still continue to create and invest in more of it. Even more interesting, technology continues to progress not always because we need it to, but because we find the technium attractive as the author believes. I related this claim to costs-benefits analyses and larger later versus smaller sooner rewards. As humans, we often choose smaller sooner rewards over the former, because it’s what feels good to us at the moment. This framework applies to the concept of global warming as well, a situation in which we know larger later rewards are the better choice but often continue to avoid them anyway.
One question that came to mind after reading this piece was will we really find it easier to admit our admiration for technology as it comes to be less like us and far more advanced? If so, why? I also have questions about the author’s claim at the very end of the piece in which they say that technology wants to be loved. I can see that his claim seems to be in favor of technology and its further advancements but it made me question why he included a counter argument and whether it was just to further support his point. Finally, the inclusion of blastolenes confused me and made me wonder why the author included this section of writing in the piece.
