Do you think the relationship between science and technology (technoscience) and society is....


I think there is a healthy tension between both and this tension is necessary for advancement of both society and technology.

I think it is an autonomous force which has a life of its own and develops and changes happen without much / any involvement from society in general. I believe that the changes then nudge and push the society to adapt. There comes a stage later when it has gained enough momentum and acceptance with the people that impacts and effects are pondered upon. I think that perhaps it is after that stage that some little healthy interactions happen leading to a better synergy between the development of the tech. or sci. and the society in general. Further I thing that perhaps at the early developmental stages greater involvement / consideration for societal effects would lead to more well rounded sci. and tech. rather than going back to the drawing board or worse - resorting to band-aid fixes at a later point when a sizeable part of the society has been affected by the developments to begin with.

Subhrajit Roy

I think at times society demands a technological solution for the problem/difficulties of the real life and also at times the people who adapts to technological solutions to ease their life or enhance their living standards.
I feel that technological solutions which are closed to nature's solution to that problem always lead to better solution.

I am seriosly in two minds. society does seem to "motivate" technological advancements, there can not be any question about it. But after some point, the endless possibilities and our basic nature to explore and refine takes over and perhaps the technology paddlers start pushing it to the society. Once I had VB6 and ASP, did I ask for .Net and then did I ask for Windows XP followed by Windows 7 and what not in between. I have clients who still have applications running on classic ASP and VB6 (they have been safeguarding those 3rd party controls, OCX. DLLs etc with their lifes). But it is still a matter of time before they succumb.

And when you extend the argument, you wonder if it was always an autonomous force. The natural human curiosity would have pushed the boundries anyways, whether anyone asked for it or not. Yes, society helps give it direction (and funding) and so certain areas of studies may grow faster than the others. But then the foundation was layed by a few great minds who I believe were more driven by their own curiosity rather than anything else.

I change my vote to "other". I selected last-but-one "It happens in stages...". I do think it happens in stages, but in the the exact opposite direction.
"Once a certain momentum in technological advancement reaches, society then becomes demanding and gives shape to the future direction."

its certainly not one sided, if it was there wouldn't be unintended consequences. Also there are other factors - such as economics that play a role. I myself feel people who work on developing technologies are well positioned to grapple with these questions in the course of their day- they are generally treated as abstract and overlooked in the interest of addressing more immediate concerns, however not much 'thought' or effort is required.

Initially users don't have much say in the design, once its implemented they don't much say in it and you need to follow it or get left behind

I think it is quite rhizomatic. Trying to understand it in terms of direct causality would be problematic. Science and Tech have increasingly demanded more autonomy in the name of expertise to deny to society its rights and its potential checks and balances. But of course science remains a romantic excess any society indulges in, for the threat it provides in the hands of the neighbour more than a direct need. Society may not be able to control it ever, but it has its way of denying free supplies to certain strands of technoscience.