How Much Is Too Much In Science And Technology? (Answered)

I will explain below How Much Is Too Much In Science And Technology? When the hands-on component is removed, or visitors can no longer claim “I do, and I understand,” as Confucius once advised, a scientific center has too much technology. Technology should be used to promote creativity and meaningful interaction if it is to be engaging.

How Much Is Too Much In Science And Technology?

Poor design is frequently to blame for good technological examples gone wrong. Does an interactive layout encourage social interaction, or does it lead to visitor isolation? Does a mobile app’s design draw visitors’ attention away from an exhibit, or does it heighten their appreciation of that particular moment in time and place?

We can never completely ignore how engaging or distracting digital media can be. That fight cannot be avoided, especially when guests are allowed to bring in their technology. However, we can assist visitors in using technology with intention and in mediating their experience to engage them with the exhibits and the surrounding social and physical settings. Technology is a tool, and the right tool must be matched for each particular job.

Given that I have experience developing exhibits, I view the hands-on, minds-on, visceral immersion into an experience as sacred: Technology-based diversions that rob visitors of their opportunity for exploration and discovery lead to problems that must be fixed.

However, visitor-accessible resources that allow them to delve deeper into a phenomenon or experience have the potential to improve the experience. In particular, opt-in technologies enable customization of the experience through more in-depth explanations, games, challenges, consideration-provoking questions, tools for investigation, at-home activities, extra resources, real-world examples, etc.

Therefore, I would propose that rather than making a general judgment about whether technology improves or distracts from the museum environment, we should consider whether each unique technology deployment improves or detracts from the visitor experience.

Science And Technology: Is It Too Much For Us?

There are numerous scenarios for how our hyperconnected future might appear. The shiny-techie-future-vision theme is packaged in innumerable variations daily as marketing teams use it liberally to highlight their most recent product and lubricate the wheels of consumption.

The problem is that these stories of bright futures don’t hold our attention given that they are mediocre fiction. The way technology is used and how it is already interacting with and affecting social institutions is much more fascinating. And yes, it is conceivable to infer certain potential futures based on those warning flags, some of which aren’t appealing.

One recurring subject is the replacement of humanity with technology. We can debate the number of jobs that technology is destroying. However, that kind of misses the point. The quantity and nature of human employment that is replaced will ultimately depend on us, not technology, as it is a tool that people may use in various ways.

Or, more likely, by businesses that use technology extensively. Consider how supermarkets and big box stores have switched from having several (human) checkers to having ranks of self-service robots, possibly with just one lone human overseer watching silently from the side.

Or Uber might try to hasten the development of driverless cars by hiring the whole robotics program at a university because robots cannot protest a declining revenue share. Because machines don’t share in the profits.

However, who would like to live in a society where every physical store is a self-service facility warehouse and the only sounds are synthesized thank-you from money-harvesting machines and the rustle of a departing plastic bag that is attached to another silent person (if there are any physical stores left in such a technology-maximized scenario at all).

Yes, if your only concern is making a profit, you won’t see any value in the seasonal fabric of in-person interactions. Or the varying hard work of human labor, you’ll try to remove it as a baffling inefficiency.

However, what happens to society when we exchange a person for the touch of a button, or a person to serve as a delivery drone? What happens when we see every contact as nothing more than a tally of dollar signs, allowing “less human” to equate to “lower cost”?

We are also diminished as people and as a society and diminished in personality, color, culture, communication, and cohesiveness. If you extrapolate a tech-fueled future that only considers optimizing corporate profits, there is no lack of collateral damage.

Why then are we able to see that potential future so clearly? Why do we continue to create such dystopian scenarios? Why do we believe technology must capture, control, and do all tasks as if people cannot decide how to use our tools?

Humans are fundamentally social beings with better brains than mine has noted. Still, we are prone to falling for petty scams that would try to sell us an alternative to the social connection we typically yearn for. Emollient services provide a technologically clean solution for our rough, anxious edges. So yes, businesses don’t usually drive a gulf between real human relationships and dazzling technology. Undoubtedly, we also harm ourselves in this way.

Although businesses are aware of our flaws and try to take advantage of them, they have always done. That kind of exploitation is unbelievably scalable, thanks to technology. Mass surveillance, a tech-powered dystopia we are currently experiencing, may violate our human rights and be a huge warning sign to humanity that it is crucial to control our urges to consume.

Final Words

In conclusion I sum up all about How Much Is Too Much In Science And Technology? neither science nor technology have advanced to the point where they are even remotely adequate (meaning the application of science to create solutions to the problems we encounter).

It may be argued that continuing to learn more would be “too much” if we attained the fullest understanding of the world and could solve every issue without generating new ones, yet there was still more to learn. But that might never happen.

Frequently Asked Questions