A Comparison of Three Perspectives on the Evolution of Technology

Theories and explanations, like many other things in our day, have been developed to make sense of what is going on. Many times, we do so in order to learn the truth about what transpired, and the process may occur in the future. In the event that there are rumors of an impending crisis, we can respond with the information that we have compiled. Both incidents apply in this scenario. Gerhard Lenski and Leslie White discuss past event analysis, but Alvin Toffler is concerned with the future. However, the purpose of this work is to compare and contrast the three.They have sound and sober propositions but an analysis would only be deserving.

To begin with, Gerhard says that the evolution of human civilization has been hellbent on the progress of technology. The sociologist is so convinced that this is the case to the point that he states that it is human civilization’s driving force. Information is what he claims to be the key to progress and has stated four stages of communication. The first is passing genes from one generation to another, secondly is adaptation to the earth’s environment after we receive understanding, we can handle logic and finally, we have the mastery of language, creation of symbols and writing. At this point, civilization is founded (Elwell, 2013).

Unlike Gerhard, Leslie White is an anthropologist who believed harnessing and controlling energy is the main aim and function of any culture. Like Gerhard, White has categorized the perspectives into stages. The first is that human muscle is the energy source, harnessing of energy provided by domestic animals, agricultural practices and revolution are a surplus energy source, harnessing natural resources like coal is now possible due to the industrial revolution and finally, white suggested that the use of nuclear power was a wonderful way to harness more energy (White, 1943). However, the consequences of using this type of energy seemed to have been scaled down or demeaned. White said that culture evolves in relation to the increase of the amount of energy that is harnessed per capita per year.

Lastly, in exploring Alvin Toffler’s perspective, we can clearly notice that his focus is futuristic. Besides the fact that he is a social critic journalist, his ideas are considered postindustrial (Fretwell, 2015). Unlike the other two, Alvin had the means to publicize, and due to that his reach was far wider. In one of his quotes, Alvin says that in order to handle the shock that the future holds, one must be willing to adapt to its changes because the fundamentals of culture like religion, community, nation, family and the likes are facing turbulence caused by forward progression. Here, Alvin expressed future shock as too much change happening in a very short time. He then categorized his perception to agrarian, industrial and postindustrial stages.

In conclusion, it is only logical that one of the perspectives is more sound than the others. Gerhard for example says that technology is man’s civilization driving force and while on the same page, White says that energy is what makes such evolutionary progress achievable. While the wordings are different, there is the point of force that is driving the progress. In Gerhard’s case, it is information while in White’s case it is energy. Alvin on the other hand talks about a preparation to adapt for the future. I would tend to think that the perspective that White offers is the most logical because it expresses the conquest of energy, however, the Gerhard perspective is what seems to cut across the issue in a substantial manner. His expression of information being the driving force shows that the industrial revolution was something that was thought out and executed. The harnessing of energy in different ways has to be planned and the future shock to be experienced can only be handle with adequate understanding of how to adapt.

References

Elwell, F. W. (2013). Lenski’s Evolutionary Theory. Retrieved from

http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Essays/Lenski2.htm

Fretwell, J. (2015, January 07). The Keys to Student Engagement in the Future Shock

Classroom. Retrieved April 28, 2016, from

https://thebluereview.org/student

engagement-future-shock-classroom/

White, L. A., Energy and the Evolution of Culture. American Anthropologist, Vol 45, July

September, 1943, No. 3, Part 1. Retrieved from:

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/99636/aa.1943.45.3.02a00010.pdf?sequence=1