Impact of Science & Technology on Understanding the Body

Science and technology can challenge our understandings of the body by providing new evidence, through observation and experimentation that disproves outdated concepts. As humanity progresses we come up with new ideas to explain how things Work, but over time new information arises that either clarifies a picture or paints an entirely new one of what we think we know. Science and technology are the tools we use to learn more and correct ourselves on many subjects including bodies of not only ourselves but such objects as robotic bodies.

All personal observations are done in first person and because individuals are the ones making the judgments, our understandings and feelings of and towards bodies are directly connected to the chemistries of our own bodies. In simpler terms, understanding ourselves and otners requires us to understand what physical changes in our bodies make us behave in specific ways. In the case of Turkle's writing, love felt by children interacting with Furbies affected how they viewed a Furby's body.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Advantage Of Science

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Altermatively, scientific studies disproved the idea that a chemical in human bodies has a direct link to depression. These two discoveries, exemplified by Watters, Turkle, and Fredrickson, are prime examples of how science and technology challenge our understandings of the body. When it comes to our understandings of bodies, the field of robotics is pushing forth new ideas more than ever before and for us to understand all these changes, we need to examine our own bodies and how they react to interactions with robots.

Robots like Furbies have been made to resemble living beings such as owls or hamsters and by replicating organic properties such as fur and eyes, the robots achieve a visual appearance that, unlike masses of electronic parts, seem to be "real". That "real" is closer to "real enough" as while people won't deny that Furbies are diferent than conventional pets, they still have bodies of their own that demand a certain level respect. The level of respect demanded is exemplified by the cry, "The Furby is going to die!" (Pg. 473) proclaimed as the toy's outer layer was damaged.

In Turkle's writing, it is stated that, "If a Furby is simultaneously biological and mechanical, the operation in process, which is certainly removing the Furby's skin, is not necessarily destructive." (Pg. 473) suggesting that children playing with the Furby do not undoubtedly consider it to be artificial. That is, to the children, the Furby's body is closer to that of an animal's body than to the "body" of an alarm clock or some inanimate gadget. To them the definition and understanding of what a "body" is likely differs from that of an adult that will clearly tell you that a Furby is a robot, and not in any way biological. The key interest here is the reason why children are more prone to accepting a Furby's body as "real" than adults. Obviously a child can tell you that undermeath the skin of a Furby is plastic, and so it is clear that the divergent perception has an emotional cause rather than a logical one. Adults, always touted as being more logical and mature than children, would then not be as affected. The emotional attachment created uniquely in children with Furbies can be strongly attributed toa certain chemical in the human body along with its special properties.

Fredrickson talks a lot about this biochemical called oxytocin, which is nicknamed "the cuddle hormone" due to its ability to positively infuence emotions, specifically social relations. As she says, "The clearest evidence that oxytocin rises and falls in synchrony between people comes from studies of intants and their parents." (Pg. 116) These fluctuations are apPparently not limited to human infants as lurkle makes it clear that children have no problem forming caring relationships with robotic babies. Now, if there's anything we know about growing, up it's that we gain new responsibilities and if we remember back to our childhood days, all we wanted were more responsibilities and to show that we were mature or "grown up". Taking into account children's yearning to mature, their shown desire to take care of something more dependent than them, and adults' saturation of responsibilities, it makes sense that children would be far more willing to become caretakers. Furbies: cheap, cute, and simple to care for, make ideal subjects for love and the intent to nurture. Because children care for the Furbies and form, through interaction, a relationship, they raise their oxytocin levels and "love" their Furbies.

Now, as a human parent, you wouldn't want to think of your baby as a mass of fat, flesh, and bones, and with that sentiment, a child would rather not think of a Furby as a mass of plastic and wires. As children are close to their Furbies and want to treat them as living, feeling, creatures, they redefine what a body is to include whatever a Furby is. The technological creation known asa Furby challenges our, and especially children's, understandings of the body. Depression by any definition is very far from an ideal state to be in, and the treatment of depression requires understanding of the human body at a molecular level; understanding that we have already put great effort into gaining regarding other human feelings such as trust. Scientific discoveries and studies done by researchers provide data and evidence to support new theories about depression such as one mentioned by Watters, that depression might be caused by lowered serotonin levels.

Companies like GlaxoSmithKline benefitted from such scientific misunderstandings of the human body as it helped them make their drug, one which would "restore natural serotonin level", more appealing to the public. By 1970, it had been determined that "no lower levels of serotonin or "imbalance of the neurotransmitter have been demonstrated in depressed patients." (Pg. 529) Science challenged an assumption we had about the human body, specifically the cause of depression. While this discovery was made well known, drugs that alter serotonin levels are still heavily relied on, but these drugs may be similar to the chemical compound oxytocin mentioned by Fredrickson in her writing. That is, similar in the sense that they have effects that can achieve desired results under certain conditions. Oxytocin, the "cuddle hormone" is naturally occurring in the body just like with serotonin, and heightened levels induce changes in how we feel. The critical relation is that these changes are not guaranteed.

To quote Fredrickson, "We also know that oxytocin does not induce trust indiscriminately." (Pg. 115). Through the use of science, we now know that chemicals in our brain are not so simple that we can just increase their amounts to get exactly what we want. The original and less informed understanding we had of the human body led us to believe that depression could be solved so simply, The average cosumer will want to fix their problem in the simplest way possible and that could be a big reason why drugs that alter serotonin levels are popular. If a person who has trouble socializing could get along well with others by taking a whiff of oxytocin, it's realistic to imagine it as a medical option that would be marketed in a similar fashion to GSK'S drug.

Depression is seen as more threatening than being shy though, and that iS why more research is done into howit affects the human body. T he efforts of companies like GSK to infiuence our understandings of ourselves is additional proof otf that. Ihey can t sell medication to tixa problem that we, and especially the Japanese years back, didn't acknowledge. The science was skewed and while it is true that studies were done to support the alleged benefits of GSK's drugs, it is plainly stated that "studies that failed to show a connection could simply be ignored." Both Watters and Fredrickson show that scientific research can challenge our understandings of the body. While some scientists, like those hired by GlaxoSmithKline, may influence our understandings for the sake of monetary profit, it is evident that some, like the ones who studied oxytocin, simply seek to futher understanding of the body.

Over our lives we are introduced to a lot of information and we learn about both our bodies and others'. More research is always being done to further that knowledge and our understandings are constantly modified by the influx of new info. Technology also plays a big part in how we see bodies by creating objects such as robots that push us to redefine what a "body" is. Together, advancements and new discoveries in both science and technology challenge and develop our understandings of the body. Watters references serotonin and its possible correlation with the body in the form of depression. Turkle discusses robots and children's interactions with them, leading to their perception of bundled plastic and metal asa "body". Fredrickson debates the meaning of love in the context of oxytocin and how the body forms emotions. All three readings incorporate instances where a scientific or technologic advancement has altered our thinking. As time goes on, even more discoveries will lead us to continually modify our understandings of bodies.