Technology And Democracy Daniel Borstin Analysis

924 Words4 Pages
Gilberto Pena Brent Jackson English 122 19 June 2013 Evaluation Argument Daniel Boorstin in his writing “Technology and Democracy” disputes that the human interest in technological advancement does not always lead to solutions but rather more troubles. As humans our society is always in search of bigger better a newer ways to improve on our standard of living, what we fail to observe is what Boorstin disputes in his article. Boorstin believes that we in fact are actually losing more than we are gaining but fail to recognize the problems that are to be had with new technological advances. As fascinating as Boorstin’s ideas may be suggestive of at first glance, his ideas on technology aren’t all that correct. Yes, we may desire…show more content…
He (Boorstin) makes reference to the Kodak or photography in general and how it’s changed our views on things. Boorstin in a way makes claim that we have become desensitized to many of our surroundings, because what we once dreamed of seeing can now be easy accessible through a photograph. We no longer have to physically go out to these places and actually experience them in person, which Boorstin believes is leading to a dilution in…show more content…
Boorstin disputes all these many things but doesn’t make a claim for medicine, one of our biggest achievements. We are now living longer lives; the man who was once dying of smallpox down the road is living a healthy life. Just the strides that have been made in respect to cancer are astonishing; it was only maybe a decade ago that if you got cancer it was a death sentence. People are now able to live they have been given maybe some more time to do the things they wanted to do. Medicine doesn’t dilute us, if you are dying and you are given the opportunity to either live a little longer or be cured believe me you will start seeing life in a way you’ve never seen in before, you’ll have a greater appreciation for the things you have in life. Although Boorstin makes many claims on technology it’s not difficult to see his bias towards his ideals. His overbearing and constant attack on technology makes it difficult to believe in a way what he is trying to convey. What he is saying makes sense but to discredit technology would be wrong, if it weren’t for technology we wouldn’t have been able to convey his words into writings that could possibly reach people everywhere around the
Open Document