Hi, Amanda and Murali.

Thanks to both for your postings and thanks to SII for the technology workshop (which I attended.) I think there IS a willingness among people to understand and to be in deeper contact with nature and I think a lot of them realize that their proximity to technology is the quickest, most direct way to such contact. I think this is pleasantly obvious in the software-industry boom. Like it or not, programming teaches you a lot not only about the machine that has to use your product but also about some basic properties of nature (and of systems in general.) I think it's nice that so many people go into, and fare well in, this great new industry.

Besides that, there would be a lot more people working on their cars and microwaves if there was more time to spare to curiosity. I know a friend in St. Louis who works for a tree-chopping company. Mostly, they remove road debris, but he has recently enrolled in an auto mechanics class at a college and is boundlessly fascinated. He says he loves seeing the machinery of the thing and how the whole fits together. Kind of like studying the cellular mechanisms.

Anyway, for what it's worth, from over here where I'm sitting, I see a lot of demand not only for the worldview you are putting forth, but also for a liveliness of involvement professionally and leisurely in the greater knowledge of the universe and the systems it creates. Little by little and with simple or rough systems at first. But I think society's connection to the cosmos is increasing. What's more, I think that's natural and was bound to happen. What's more still, I'm very happy about it.
Thanks again.

Thank goodness for far-seeing engineers.
maya

----- Original Message -----
From: "Duncan, Amanda" <amanda.duncan@intel.com>
To: <science@lists.pdx.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Murali's posting> Hi, Murali.
> Thanks for your posting. I wanted to add some comments on a couple of
> points that are related to some of the things that were discussed in the SII
> course on technology that just ended:
> "...This same principle is what makes me not worry about the theory behind
> microwave ovens. As long as a 'system' satisfies a person's utilitarian
> ends he will most probably not invest energy in trying to figure out its
> parts. The abstractions that he deals with is all that is needed. The
> problem with this situation is that unlike olden times, science has advanced
> really deeply in to many fields and the inevitable 'pockets of knowledge'
> have created enormous chasms between 'system creators' and 'system users' in
> terms of knowing how stuff works. In a lot of cases it is virtually
> impossible to 'know' how stuff works because it might need years of study."
> Clearly, one can benefit greatly from technology without having a clue as to
> what's behind it. However, if you do know what's behind it or if you are at
> least willing to think about what might be behind it, technology can be used
> as a tool to increase our sense of connection to the universe that science
> has uncovered. One of the activities we went through in the technology
> class involved looking at a piece of technology and tracing its history back
> to its raw materials and beyond, to the creation of the raw materials
> themselves. In another activity, we brainstormed about all the processes
> and principles of nature that a product of technology reminded us of. We
> talked about the needs or desires that different technologies address and
> about what it says about our universe that those needs and desires exist and
> can be at least partially satisfied by tools that we create.
> Technology can be a valuable tool in science integration, if we encourage
> people to think about what's behind it. Most people's most direct
> interaction with the results of science is through technology. Although
> people may find science abstract and detached from their lives, few people
> in our society would say that about technology. The high tech tools that we
> use in daily life demonstrate that science describes the real world we live
> in and can remind us of the scientific principles upon which they are based.
> We don't need to see technology from this point of view every time we use it
> and, as you said, we can't expect anyone to know how everything works, but
> just asking the questions about what's behind technology ("Where does this
> tool ultimately come from?" "How might it work and be related to other
> things I've observed in nature?") and making an attempt at the answers, with
> whatever background we have, may help us feel connected to nature and to
> "appreciate the oneness of the universe."
>
> Amanda