Effects on Our Society.

We've already discussed the existence of effects on a global level, so now I'm going to talk a little bit about how technology and globalization have effected our society. Technology first.

The existence of technology within our society is evident everywhere. There isn't a day where we don't use technology. Most of us have developed a dependence on it. Even when Ted Kaczynski moved into the wilderness in an attempt to be in solitaire, he likely still used some aspect of electricity, and definitely benefited from some forms of technology like pens and materials that were produced using technology. This dependence is generational, us and those younger than us clearly being the most 'victimized'. The overuse of technology is everywhere you look with our generation. People keep their cell phones on the table in front of them during lecture; groups of people at social events all simultaneously maintain visibility of their devices to ensure constant communication; they talk on the phone while driving and text while they're on dates; they check their facebooks, twitters and emails numerous times a day. I could go on. It's not questionable the presence of technology in our every day lives. What does need to be discussed though, are the effects that this is having.

I mentioned earlier the effects on 'intimacy'. This, to me, is a huge issue. It is evolving the way relationships work and the way the sexes interact. People get to know each other via text messages, they fight with typed words and make plans in abbreviated form. This is taking away from the interaction and degrading our social skills. With decreasing face to face interaction every day, people will likely become awkward individuals in social situations. This could potentially lead to depression and even dependency issues. I make this argument because alcohol, for example, is already an easy fix for people entering social situations that are not comfortable, and this 'solution' may be one that becomes more popular with decreasing interactions.

The role of technology may also, in my opinion, influence divorce rates. People are getting married with previous interactions partially if not completely rooted from social media or electronic communication. People are meeting in different countries and meeting to marry. They are not getting to know each other as they did in the past, where you had no choice but to meet face to face if you wanted to get to know each other. This false sense of awareness of another individual's personality, values and tendencies is misrepresenting.

Speaking of misrepresentation, I would not be able to talk about my personal dislikes for technology if I did not mention the misrepresentation that is inherent in these varying modes of communication. How many times have you read a text and, due to lack of tone or punctuation, complete misinterpreted it? I may not be speaking for everyone when I say this, but I believe that this has facilitated the female act of over-thinking. There are so many ways in interpret a message and women become obsessed with exploring all options so that they can react accordingly. Sure, this happens in real life, but not nearly to the extent that it happens when written communication is involved. And this goes without mentioning the inherent 'typos' that further the tendency to be misrepresented. For humorous purposes, I recommend http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com. These are extreme examples, but they are quite funny.

Also on the topic of marriage, I must mention that I cannot deny the convenience that technology has added to our lives, and this can prove as an argument against my previous statement. Technology reduces our stress and does at times provide us with the ability to communicate when we otherwise would not have been able.

I came across an idea (http://www.quora.com/Jake-Selner/feed) that technology is now at a point where we are advancing it in the effort to minimize these implications. Face to face interaction is now being facilitated and encouraged with technological developments like facetime and skype. Though this does not solve all of the issues, it's good to know that society is still demonstrating a desire to interact with others, even if it is by way of technology.

Other societal effects: compromised work ethic. I'm not sure if this issue is because we are simply overexposed to distractions or if its because technology makes us lazy. Probably both. Either way, the compromised generational work ethic cannot be denied. Every generation becomes lazier and lazier as technology allows them to do so. I think that this comes from a number of things, one of them being the difference in recreational activities. Our parents would go play outside and learn things by trying them, whether it was setting things on fire, exploring new areas of the forest or playing sports, there was nothing to do inside so they went outside. Sure, this might have been more dangerous, but they definitely had more fun and had the ability to learn from their own mistakes and be adventurous and spontaneous.

Imagine if there was a '30 years ago' column. It would be even more different than the two eras currently shown.

Global Effects.

Technology has definitely assisted globalization in its international expansion. With different technologies from information systems to transportation mediums to communication methods, technology may be the main, if not the only, reason as to why globalization is occurring.

The effects that technology has had on our society are countless, and involve our finances, our jobs, our families, our relationships, the knowledge that we have access to, our education, transportation, communication, health care and our government, to name a few. But what effects has the globalization of technology had on undeveloped countries? Without technology, can globalization really affect these other nations?

I think that the answer is yes, but the consequences are not on an individual level but on a political level. Because these undeveloped countries still possess technology on a corporate and political level, the implications can be realized by the citizens indirectly.

Industrial Society and it's Future: The Unabomber Manifesto.

I told my professor about my topic and he suggested that I research the 'Unabomber'. I had heard this term before, but to be honest always pictured a little cartoon ninja from a Nintendo game. Maybe there are two. Anyways, the Unabomber that he was referring to is named Ted Kaczynski. Ted was a 'child prodigy' who was accepted into Harvard at the age of 16 and eventually became a professor at Berkeley University only to resign two years later to become a recluse. Over the years as he witnessed the wilderness around his home being destroyed by industrialization and construction he decided to start a bombing campaign. He sent 16 bombs to different Universities and airlines, killing 3 people and injuring 23. He claimed the bombings were "extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies requiring large-scale organization." This isn't a quote by him, but off of the wikipedia article on him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski). Thought I'd consult this for some general initial information before proceeding. Ted Kaczynski wrote a manifesto which he titled Industrial Society and it's Future. He promised to stop the 'domestic terrorism' that were his bombings if his manifesto were to be published in the newspaper. The full 35,000 manifesto can be found on the Washington Post website (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm). The work was published and eventually lead to him begin caught by the FBI.

The Introduction of the manifesto makes several statements. Here's a somewhat condensed version of the introduction:

"The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation... The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy... the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society..."(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7s6FfqAs9E&feature=related).

Here's another quote from him regarding technology. Here when he refers to the bourgeoise, I consider this to be the our equivalent of corporate actors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtT5CKg0K4c&feature=relmfu).
 
It's relevant to add here that I believe technology and the Industrial Revolution to go hand in hand. Is that common sense? The connection in my head is made by the technology that went into the Industrial Revolution, as well as the underlying concepts which seem to be inherent in both: efficiency.

He did not believe that he was insane, and it is evident in his writing that he is a scholar. But are these really the words of a crazy man? Obviously the extremes to which he took his opinions demonstrated insanity, but his thoughts do not seem insane to me. He is simply another individual who attempted to communicate to the masses his opinions on an issue that he believed needed to be communicated; he wanted to start a revolution.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtT5CKg0K4c&feature=relmfu

In my research I discoverd another individual who is frequently mentioned along with Ted: Guy Debord. He wrote a publication called The Society of the Spectacle. We'll have to look at him later.

I think it's worth mentioning that the Ted Kaczynski's "look" has become an item of pop culture.

 

Guy Bebord, in his book Society of the Spectacle, makes reference to the Spectacle as 'media saturation', among other things. It's been noted that Debord actually defined the Spectacle so many times that it seems as if he did not intend for anyone to actually develop an understanding of the term, but it is well said here: "these words sound less like a philosophy, and more like a straightforward description of the dominant role that profit-driven media spectacles play in the communication flows of public life..." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/02/guy-debord-society-spectacle-protest?newsfeed=true).

It seems to me that scholars are having a difficult time interpretting Debord, so I'll make reference to a link that can explain it better than I ever could, which also makes reference to social media and commodification. There's a relevant audio clip associated with the previous article that elaborates on the modern implication of Debord's work (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/audio/2012/mar/28/big-ideas-podcast-debord-society-spectacle). Guy Debord was concerned with mass media, the degredation of human life, class alienation and cultural homogenization; all issues related to globalization. The term, though it was used by economists at the time, was not popular yet.

Popularlization of the term was through Theodore Levitt's publication, The Globalization of Markets. Levitt was a professor at Harvard and editor of the Harvard Business Review.

Technology: Effects on 'Intimacy'.

According to a video I came across (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAkrl3pMblI), it's a common belief that technology is detrimental to intimacy. Considering that intimacy, according to this video, can be defined by closeness it seems questionable that a large portion of people today believe that their relationships are strong enough to base the decision to marry on these technological interactions. Sure, this video was created by students and has minimal credibility, but I still took their ideas seriously and took this as evidence that the effects on intimacy are more realizable than I thought.

The extent to which technology affects our relationships with our partners, family and friends is becoming increasingly apparent and worsening with every generation. This comes with the tendencies of our youth to become increasingly lazy and socially inept and with the compromise of critical thinking and communication skills. All of these affect work ethic and our relationships, but these are issues that we will talk about later.

The effects of technology on relationships seem obvious if you are a member of my generation (Generation Y). Woah. I just double checked that fact and apparently a synonym for Generation Y is now 'The Facebook Generation'. Anyways, young people have developed the tendency to rely upon electronic communication like instant messaging, text messaging and facebook to avoid the (now more than ever) awkward interaction that happens once mutual crushes are typically revealed. My generation will proceed in a different way than preceding generations; they will get to know each other with minimal face to face interaction. They try to get to know each other via text messages, asking personal questions that would typically be asked on a first date. Now what do they do on a first date? They put out. My opinion on how technology speeds up the illusion of intimacy. This role of technology might also be a factor in increasingly high divorce rates. People don't get to know each other as well, which results in their surprise when they find out that their new partner has all these crazy bad habits that weren't evident in typed sentences. Shocker.

When you think about globalization, technology and relationships, it's obviously worth mentioning that there are positive consequences as well. The Internet, for example, aids in facilitating interaction among people who would otherwise not be able to interact cost effectively or in the ways that they are able to today. Skype is a great example of a technology that encourages face to face interaction with its cost effective services which allow people to interact on a global level.

Quotes about Globalization.

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity - Albert Einstein

Technology is like a fish. The long it stays on the shelf, the less desirable it becomes. - Andrew Heller

The greatest danger in modern technology isn't that machines will begin to think like people, but that people will begin to think like machines. - Unknown

Technology is a way of organization the universe so that man doesn't have to experience it. - Max Frisch

Five years ago, we thought of the Web as a new medium, not a new economy. - Clement Mok

It is only when they go wrong that machines remind you how powerful they are. - Clive James

One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man. - Elbert Hubbard

All of the biggest technological inventions created by man - the airplane, the automobile, the computer - say little about his intelligence, but speak volumes about his laziness. - Mark Kennedy

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. - Pablo Picasso

Where is all the knowledge we lost with information? - T.S. Elliot

I think there is a world market for maybe five computers. - IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943

Everything that can be invented has been invented. - Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899
I came across this video about the main purpose I'm trying to convey which actually used a few of these quotes to explain how technology is having detrimental effects on society (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1-iiYRe5KE&feature=related).

Globalization 101 | Technology: A Similar Project

I came across a similar project by some students from Denmark: Globalization 101 | Technology (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obwcKETqv1o). They essentially outlined a number of technological facts. I initially thought these facts were just pointless statements regarding tehnology and did not see the relation to globalization, but then I started to realize that the video was emphasizing how drastic the variances in technology are between different nations across the globe.

In their attempts to do this, however, I noticed that they seemed to be holding technology as a way to measure wealth. With their emotional music and theme, it seems apparent that these students were attempting to make us feel emotional for the people in these countries that do not have the privilege of the Internet or do not have cell phones. Is this the way we should see it? I watched a video (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/26/chilean_economist_manfred_max_neef_on) on the concept of barefoot economics. This video illustrates the concept as barefoot economics as introduced by an economist Manfred Max-Neef. Barefoot economics refers to this very issue; the issue of subjective wealth.

While North Americans have a tendency to view money and possessions as indicators of wealth, it is not uncommon for individuals in other less developed countries to view things like family and free time as indicators of wealth. An individual in this video elaborates on this, claiming that women in Chile that could potentially increase their income by working harder simply do not because they do not have the desire. They make enough money to survive and see the rest of their time as an investment in their happiness as spent with the ones that they love. North Americans might attribute this to laziness, but I think that this is respectable.

Technology's Role in Globalization.

This image gives us a pretty good understanding of the different concepts that globalization covers, and also shows technology's role. Technology has a role in all of these components.

The 'spreading of American culture' depends on technology, advertising, and the Internet.
'Increasing cross border exchange' depends on technology, as it facilitates the transfer of funds and information and facilitates communication between these borders.
I'm not sure what they mean by 'decreasing distance', but it has the word the Internet right under it and makes reference to jets, which are quite technological, so we can assume that that's the relationship. If I had to guess, I'd say that due to the increasing border exchanges and the other things I mentioned there, the 'distance' becomes obsolete.
'Increasing instantaneous communications' allows us to communicate on a political, professional and personal level.
'Increasing power and voice' is again facilitated by the Internet and social media, though this time on a broader scale. This demonstrates how technology allows us to organization to become such significant societal actors as Amnesty International.
'Increasing influence of global media networks' is definitely important, though I'd say that I am definitely aware of the negative implications of this. I am recently enrolled in a course called Marketing and Society that demonstrates the inherent conflict of interest in network TV, particularly in the news. Corporate and political influence over these networks do not seem to be working in the interests of society, and are using news channels, advertising and other trusted sources to provide us with biased misrepresentations. I'd recommend checking out this link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428. It's a long one, but very informative. This video with others that I've watched in the class have changed the way I see the news. Or the way I don't I should say; it made me stop watching it.
'Increasing economic links' is obvious at this point.
'Increasing global movement' is a summary of all of these points, and the role that the Internet and technology have played and continue to play in globalization.

Social Media: The Biggest Shift Since the Industrial Revolution.

I previously identified a number of aspects of globalization, all of which I'm rather excited to relate to technology. Here's my thoughts on human rights. 

Thinking back on course material, it seems that protests have been mentioned a lot. Occupy Wall Street, Tahrir Square, Arab Spring, Occupy Oakland. The common factor is human rights and individuals serving as advocates for them. Also, I suppose, is the common factor of social media and the Internet, as this is usually the medium by which we learn about these things and communicate about these things, as did Asma Mahfouz when she recruited her fellow protesters for Tahrir Square.

The Internet and, often more specifically, social media facilitate global communication. The Internet is almost always the medium by which advocates for causes communicate their opinions, organize themselves, create petitions that can potentially be distributed to millions of people, and inform and educate people willing to learn about the issues facing their own society on a local, national or global level.

The advertising industry has removed our ability to make informed decisions, without biased information, independently and knowingly. Because of advertising and the use of it, as encouraged and enabled by Edward Bernays (creator of public relations), the industry developed an ability to manipulate our desires and our purchases. Social media is allowing us to get this power back.

I came across this image in my search. This picture illustrates the significant of social media and the potential that it has to influence us. This illustration has some pretty significant evidence hidden within its content, and also makes it obvious the role that social media allows us, as consumers and citizens, to have in our economy. For example, 14% of people trust advertisements, while 78% of consumers trust peer reviews, which they frequently receive from blogs and other social media sites such as facebook and twitter. So if 34% of bloggers post about products and services, and we are exposed to this content every day through search engines and our involvement with social media, does this mean that the industry of advertising will become obsolete? Or does this mean that The Persuaders (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/) will simply evolve their strategies, as they have already began to do, to influence the communications of these bloggers, or to make their messages appear as if they are "user generated content"? I think so.

So social media is the biggest shift since the Industrial Revolution? That's definitely debatable. However, it's a debate that is over my head. I'll do my best. Let the blabbering begin...

So the Industrial Revolution was essentially the point in history when we became obsessed with efficiency. This movement was drive by mechanization and likely can be pinpointed on that technology timeline that we mentioned earlier. The Industrial Revolution changed everything. Obviously. The Internet changed everything as well. But has the extension of social media to the Internet been a bigger shift? I would argue yes. At the inception of the Internet we were simply given the ability to search information that was presented by those willing and able to invest the money into creating the content. Now, with blogs and social media, everyone can communicate their opinions for free, and everyone can read those opinions for free. This has removed the tendency of information to only be supplied when one party has such a vested interest in the well-being of that idea, product or company that they decided to communicate it. Social media has made this communication so easy that we don't feel it is insignificant to talk about products we tried, places we ate, movies we watched and more significantly, to present greater society with information that it important, affects them, and that they would otherwise have no way of knowing. Companies aren't going to post on the Internet bad things about themselves. Government isn't going to post bad things about itself. Government isn't going to post bad things about companies that are supporting them financially. This brings us to the self interest of government and corporations and to the inevitable conflict of interest that arises when they are allowed to work together.

Without social media, the Internet would be censored.

Blogging.

I just found out that now if you google me, this blog comes up. My picture and everything. I find that super embarrassing. But wanted to mention that Professor Hall specifically created this project the way that he did because he wanted us to make our opinions known, to not be afraid to share, to be brave and to not be cowards. I think that this will serve as a significant learning component to this project. Especially if someone actually reads it. Who knows, I might actually get excited.

Also, I have to admit, I am kind of enjoying this whole blogging thing. I'm surprised. Maybe one day I'll actually be good at it! Another potential learning component. Good job Professor Hall.

Globalization and Anti-Globalization.

I am going to proactively address the fact that I am likely going to get off the topic of globalization, at least directly. I do not want this to happen, as the course is Capital, Culture and Globalization, and globalization was one of the only criteria for this assignment. So I figure if I ramble on here for a little bit about globalization, hopefully my rambling will result in me generating some ideas on the idea of globalization and technology.

Is this how a blog works? Is it acceptable to just think online? Because that's what I am going to do...

So. Globalization. My ideas of the topic so far have been overwhelming, if anything. So many things are involved in globalization. Off the top of my head, I'd say that globalization for the purposes of this course has gone everywhere from industrialization, philosophical thought, cultural values, human rights, public relations, corporations, capitalism, socialism, democracy, government, agriculture, the advancement of law, technology... glad that word came up in my mind, or else I would likely be back to off topic.

At this point, I think my previous definition of globalization must be too complex, because I keep having to look back at it to remind myself of which components I can refer to. I remember multicultural, multinational, process, and those are pretty much the only key words that come to mind. So let's look at a not so technical source to find a not so technical definition. The CBC article titled What is Globalization seems sufficient (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/summitofamericas/globalization.html). Woah. My opinions are changing. This article just presented me with a different approach: anti-globalization.

Globalization, according to some and mentioned in the article, "describes the increased mobility of goods, services, labour, technology and capital throughout the world." I had not considered the mobility aspect of globalization, but as I read this article am realizing that mobility is a better word to use than a process. Conversely, another definition, as explained by anti-globalists, is that is "the process of exploiting economically weak countries by connecting the economies of the world, forcing dependence on (and ultimately subservience to) the western capitalist machine."


The article proceeds to work in the interests of both sides with what seems to me like an adequate and fair list of both perspectives. Going over these lists, it's my impression that those in favor of globalization would typically be politically conservative; interested in individual economic prosperity as opposed to equality (this is my perception of the underlying motives of politically conservative individuals, in a nutshell). It seems that advocates of globalization are concerned with independence, choices, and the removal of barriers, while anti-globalists fear that it reduces equality and positive political intervention.


I feel like Darwin would be in favor of Globalization; survival of the fittest, concerned with the benefit of the few. According to this article globalization also seems to be something that would be supported by capitalists. If you're not following, you should really look at the link. The lists are giving me a very good idea of globalization and the perspectives involved; quite beneficial to someone trying to understand globalization. Oh, I just found out how to make that link an actual link! Better go back to the other links and "linkify" them for you. Easy access to encourage you to click it!


Did anyone notice that I obviously named this post after I wrote it? Obviously.

Technology Timeline.

Globalization is a process. To understand the process of technology and how it got to where it is today, it's important to consider the historical aspects of technology. There have been several innovations, philopohers and events that have contributed to the advancement of technology. I came across a timeline of technology at http://www.history-timelines.org.uk/events-timelines/12-technology-timeline.htm. This timeline demonstrates the progression of technology since its inception in 2400 BC. This seems an appropriate starting point, because it is when the abacus was invented. The abacus is a cultural object that signifies that beginning of intelligence as an object; the beginning of math and science as used by humans; the beginning of technology. Few events occurred between the invention of the abacus and the beginning of technology as we know it; the events that did occur are the invention of the mechanical clock, eyeglasses, suspension bridges, etc. The first evidence of computer technology was in 1500 with the first mechanical robot. After this, the advancement of technology occurred at an increasingly rapid rate. Famous contributors, in order of appearance, include Galileo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, James Watt, Eli Whitney, Samuel Colt, Samuel Morse, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Nikola Tesla, Henry Ford and Albert Einstein. Each of these individuals, and the many others, contributed by expanding their knowledge and applying it an area in which they believed could be bettered.

The events that should be noted are the invention of the abacus, the telescope, steam engines, the computer, the electric motor, photography, morse code, the revolver, the typewriter, television, nuclear power reactors, the ballpoint pen, e-mail and finally, the world wide web.

It must be asked: is this where it stops? This timeline stops with the invention of digital satellite radio. I imagine the site has not been updated. But what if this is not the case and the site creators simply feel as if there's been nothing else to add. Have our inventions in the past simply been improvements of current ideas? Have they aided in the global revolution, or have they simply served as improvements and ways of making simple things even simpler?

Without any one of these inventions, we would not be where we are today as a society in terms of technology. It would be interested to study technology as a calculation of how the exclusion of any one of these actors in history or their relative inventions would have affected our society and technology as it currently exists. Would it have affected those cultures that currently don't use any of these items?

This thought makes Dr. Nayef's complexity with which he approached globalization significant now; globalization is completely culturally dependent. This is true as well for our studies of technology. We have adopted so many technologies into our society and we use these items and ideas every day. Technology to us, today, is computers, email, the internet, electricty, and covers manufacturing, production and communication. In un-developed countries, what is technology? Is technology still the way that they've shaped their rocks to become efficient tools for cooking and sewing? According to the definitions, this is technology. And though globalization is global, have these countries been affected?

Technology: defined.

I previously defined technology in my own words as "systematic processes and objects being utilized by humans to make current processes more efficient." Given how far off I was on the definition of globalization, it's definitely necessary to seek some alternative sources. There doesn't seem to be any work as extensive as Dr. Nayef's on the definition of technology. This is probably because technology can be scientifically defined and has fewer fields to which it can be applied. I mean, sure, technology can be applied to agriculture, information systems, computer technology, and basically any industry, but the definition seems to stay relatively the same among these fields, even though the application of the definition definitely differs. Webster's dictionary offers several definitions, which I have combined to create the statement that technology is: a manner of accomplishing a task using technical processes, methods or knowledge, and the practical application of that knowledge, in a particular area. This definition differs from my own, but not in any way that's devastating.

Essentially, technology can probably be explained as a manner or accomplishing a task that utilizes technical processes, methods or knowledge. 'Efficiency', though not included in this definition, is definitely inherent in the idea. However, my assumption of this might be due to my knowledge of the history of technology, with the influences of Thomas Edison, Adam Smith, Steve Jobs, and other historical actors that have aided the progression of technology.

We've defined the relevant terms. Now we can look at how they have influenced each other in their accumulation of followers, ideas and progressions. Next time.

Globalization: defined.

Before researching what will define the scope of these topics, I will define how I currently see the two main concepts that we're concerned with: globalization and technology. Globalization, to me, could best be defined as the evolution of societal patterns and philosophical thought as determined by the human population. Technology, on other hand, would be appropriately defined as systematic processes and objects being utilized by humans to make current processes more efficient. This is how I would define these two concepts without seeking any external sources. I am sure I have missed several components of these two terms; we'll find out shortly when I begin my research. We'll address globalization here and create a separate entry for that of the expansion/correction of my definition of technology. Then we can merge the ideas later for the rest of the entries.

Now, to get a more accurate idea of what these two concepts are referring to I will seek to find scholarly or seemingly credible evidence that will define them. According to Dr. Nayef R.F. Al-Rodhan, Director of the Program on the Geopolitical Implications of Globalization and Transnational Security, I underestimated globalization and widely missed several aspects of the term. According to Dr. Nayef in his work intended solely and specifically to define globalization, "[g]lobalization involves economic integration; the transfer of policies across borders; the transmission of knowledge; cultural stability; the reproduction, relations, and discourses of power; it is a global process, a concept, a revolution, and “an establishment of the global market free from sociopolitical control.” This makes it quite evident that globalization is incredibly broad and encompasses so many components that it may be impossible to define holistically. Dr. Nayef makes reference to several definitions and discussions of globalization, and claims that the definition of globalization may be subjective in the sense that different people view it differently based on their geographic location, cultural values, political ideologies, etc. Dr. Nayef's conclusion is essentially that there are so many conflicting definitions of globalization that the Academy has made little progress in making a clear definition of the term that could be applicable to all purposes for which it is sought. Dr. Nayef, who I consider to be an expert on the subject based on his thorough research and demonstrated expertise, proposes that globalization be defined as: “Globalization is a process that encompasses the causes, course, and consequences of transnational and transcultural integration of human and non-human activities.”



So I was off. By a lot. But now that we have a definition, we can continue our discussion about how globalization has influenced technology and vice versa, and further explore the modern implications of these terms.