The term appropriate technology is also used in developed nations to describe the use of technology and engineering that results in less negative impacts on the environment and society.[2] E. F. Schumacher asserts that such technology, described in the book Small is Beautiful[5] tends to promote values such as health, beauty and permanence, in that order.
Often the type of appropriate technology that is used in developed countries is "Appropriate and Sustainable Technology" (AST); or appropriate technology that, besides being functional and relatively cheap (often dough more expensive than true AT), is also very durable and lasts a long time (AT does not include this; see Sustainable design).[6][7]
Parallel to this theory, British architect interested in human settlements and development, John F. C. Turner (co-author and editor of the book Freedom To Build and author of the book Housing By People), has said that truly appropriate technology is technology that ordinary people can use for their own benefit and the benefit of their community, that doesn't make them dependent on systems over which they have no control. This definition focuses on the idea that technology typically creates dependencies and thus to truly be appropriate, technology should enhance the local or regional capacity to meet local needs, rather than creating or amplifying dependencies on systems beyond local control.[citation needed]
Appropriate technology is technology designed for a particular community in order to adapt to the environmental aspects, keetisan, cultural, social, political and economic community is concerned. Must apply the appropriate technology resource-efficient methods, easily treated, and the polluting impact minimalist compared to mainstream technology, which generally emitting a lot of waste and polluting the environment.
The term is usually applied to describe a simple technology that is considered suitable for developing countries or rural areas are less developed in the advanced industrial countries. Form of 'appropriate technology' is usually characterized by the solutions 'intensive' rather than 'capital intensive'.
Although labor-saving devices are also used, it does not mean high-cost or expensive maintenance fee. in practice, appropriate technology is often described as the most simple use of technology that can achieve the desired objectives effectively in a particular place.
In developed countries, the term appropriate technology has different meanings, often refers to engineering techniques or a special view on the ratings of social and environmental rating.
The term appropriate technology began to emerge following the 1973 oil crisis and environmental movement in the 1970s. Usually used in two areas: the most effective use of technology to address the needs of regional development, and utilize technology that is environmentally friendly and socially friendly in developed countries.
Rabu, 28 Januari 2009
Appropriate hard and soft technologies
According to Dr. Maurice Albertson and Faulkner, appropriate hard technology is “engineering techniques, physical structures, and machinery that meet a need defined by a community, and utilize the material at hand or readily available. It can be built, operated and maintained by the local people with very limited outside assistance (e.g., technical, material, or financial). it is usually related to an economic goal.”
Albertson and Faulkner consider Appropriate soft technology as technology that deals with “the social structures, human interactive processes, and motivation techniques. It is the structure and process for social participation and action by individuals and groups in analyzing situations, making choices and engaging in choice-implementing behaviors that bring about change.”[4]
Albertson and Faulkner consider Appropriate soft technology as technology that deals with “the social structures, human interactive processes, and motivation techniques. It is the structure and process for social participation and action by individuals and groups in analyzing situations, making choices and engaging in choice-implementing behaviors that bring about change.”[4]
Intermediate technology
Coined by E. F. Schumacher, the term intermediate technology is similar to appropriate technology. It refers specifically to tools and technology that are significantly more effective and expensive than traditional methods, but still an order of magnitude (10 times) cheaper than developed world technology. Proponents argue that such items can be easily purchased and used by poor people, and according to proponents can lead to greater productivity while minimizing social dislocation. Much intermediate technology can also be built and serviced using locally available materials and knowledge. This intermediate technology is conducive to decentralization, compatible with the laws of ecology, gentle in its use of scarce resources, and designed to serve the human person instead of making him the servant of machines.
Appropriate technology in developing areas
The term has often been applied to the situations of developing nations or underdeveloped rural areas of industrialized nations. The use of appropriate technology in these areas seeks to fill in the gaps left by conventional development which typically focuses on capital-intensive, urban development.[3]
Appropriate technologies are not necessarily "low" technology, and can utilize recent research, for example cloth filters which were inspired by research into the way cholera is carried in water. A type of high-efficiency, white LED lights is used by the Light Up the World Foundation in remote areas of Nepal to replace more traditional forms of lighting that do not cause the health problems associated with kerosene lamps or wood fires.
Appropriate technologies are not necessarily "low" technology, and can utilize recent research, for example cloth filters which were inspired by research into the way cholera is carried in water. A type of high-efficiency, white LED lights is used by the Light Up the World Foundation in remote areas of Nepal to replace more traditional forms of lighting that do not cause the health problems associated with kerosene lamps or wood fires.
Philosophy of copyright
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The philosophy of copyright might be said to include several philosophical issues which are fundamentally linked to copyright policy, and other jurisprudential problems that arise in legal systems' interpretation and application of copyright law.
Probably the most profound and widely debated philosophical issue amongst scholars of copyright law, is its purpose. Some take the approach of looking for coherent justifications of established copyright systems, while others start with general ethical theories, such as utilitarianism and try to analyse policy through that lens. Another approach denies the meaningfulness of any ethical justification for existing copyright law, viewing it simply as a result (and perhaps an undesirable result) of political processes.
Another widely debated issue is the relationship between copyrights and other forms of "intellectual property", and material property. Most scholars of copyright agree that it can be called a kind of property, because it involves the exclusion of others from something. But there is disagreement about the extent to which that fact should allow the transportation of other beliefs and intuitions about material possessions.
There are many other philosophical questions which arise in the jurisprudence of copyright. They include such problems as determining when one work is "derived" from another, or deciding when information has been placed in a "tangible" or "material" form.
Jump to: navigation, search
The philosophy of copyright might be said to include several philosophical issues which are fundamentally linked to copyright policy, and other jurisprudential problems that arise in legal systems' interpretation and application of copyright law.
Probably the most profound and widely debated philosophical issue amongst scholars of copyright law, is its purpose. Some take the approach of looking for coherent justifications of established copyright systems, while others start with general ethical theories, such as utilitarianism and try to analyse policy through that lens. Another approach denies the meaningfulness of any ethical justification for existing copyright law, viewing it simply as a result (and perhaps an undesirable result) of political processes.
Another widely debated issue is the relationship between copyrights and other forms of "intellectual property", and material property. Most scholars of copyright agree that it can be called a kind of property, because it involves the exclusion of others from something. But there is disagreement about the extent to which that fact should allow the transportation of other beliefs and intuitions about material possessions.
There are many other philosophical questions which arise in the jurisprudence of copyright. They include such problems as determining when one work is "derived" from another, or deciding when information has been placed in a "tangible" or "material" form.
Sabtu, 24 Januari 2009
Opposition to copyright
Opposition to copyright
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008)
Critics of copyright as a whole fall broadly into two categories: Those who assert that the very concept of copyright has never been of net benefit to society, and has always served simply to enrich a few at the expense of creativity; and those who assert that the existing copyright regime must be reformed to maintain its relevance in the new Information society. The French droit d'auteur ("Rights of the Author"), which influenced the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, must also be noted as a significant alternative to the usual Anglo-Saxon concept of copyright.
Among the latter group, there are also some who continue to agree with copyright as a way to grant authors rights, but feel that it "outlives its welcome" by granting copyright for too long (eg, far beyond the lifetime of the author), and is therefore of little direct benefit to him or her. The prolongation of copyright term is commonly attributed to effective corporate lobbying, based on a desire for the continuance of a profitable monopoly. In the US, this is often phrased as a conspiracy to 'control the Mouse' (meaning Mickey Mouse, a trademarked character controlled by the Disney Company whose early works would have moved into the public domain save for such an extension).
To many critics, the general problem is that the current (international) copyright system undermines its own goal.[2] The concepts of the public domain and the intrinsic freedom of information are necessary precepts for creators to be able to build on published expression. But these are gradually being eroded, as copyright terms are repeatedly extended to last beyond the lifetime of the audience which experienced and knows of the original work.
Another effect of the repeated extension of copyright term is that current authors are shielded from competition from a wide public domain: by the time current works enter the public domain, they will have almost always have become obsolete. This reduces the risk of commoditisation of topical non-fiction - which might reduce the profitability and thus diversity of works. Out-of-copyright publishing, such as classic literature where margins are very low, generally offers only the best of each genre.
The recent success of free software projects such as GNU/Linux, Mozilla Firefox, and the Apache web server has demonstrated that quality works can be created even in the absence of a copyright-enforced monopoly rent [2]. Instead, these products use copyright to enforce their license terms, which are designed to ensure the free nature of the work, rather than securing exclusive rights for the holder for monetary gain; such a license is called a copyleft, free software license, or open source license.
Even in more traditional forms such as prose, some authors, such as Cory Doctorow, retain the copyright to their work but license it for free distribution (for example under a Creative Commons licenses). This has the benefit of providing a structured scheme under which authors can loosen some of the barriers that copyright imposes on others, allowing them to partially contribute the work to the community (in the form of giving a general grant on copying, reproduction, use or adaptation subject to certain conditions) while retaining other exclusive rights they hold in it.
Copyright can also be used to stifle political criticism. For example, in the US the contents of talk shows and similar programs are covered by copyright. Robert Greenwald, a director of Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War documentary was refused the right to use a clip of a George W. Bush interview from NBC's Meet the Press. Although the fair use provisions of statute and common law may apply in such cases, the risks of loss in court should there be a lawsuit and pressure from insurance companies, who regard use of almost anything (eg, three words forming the opening of a song, though not actually sung by one of a group of children) without permission as too risky, usually precludes use of materials without explicit permission, and so without a license fee.
Copyright is also conceived by some to be an "artificial barrier" in that "expressions" could be freely exchanged between individuals and groups if there were no copyright or other legal restrictions preventing. Such people believe that as the state does not necessarily possess the moral authority to enact copyright laws, individuals may vary in their observation of such laws. As noted above, others disagree with that, believing that the copyright system, which arises from provisions in the U.S. Constitution, has made and continues to make a valuable even essential contribution to the creation and dissemination of works. They also point out the social dangers inherent in the view that each individual is entitled to judge the "moral authority" of laws and to observe them or not according to individual judgments.
Modern challenges to copyright
Copyright concepts are under challenge in the modern era, primarily from the increasing use of peer to peer filesharing. Major copyright holders, such as the major record labels and the movie industry, blame the ease of copying for their decreasing profits. Other alternatives, such as poor product content, are dismissed as possible reasons.
Public interest groups, major corporations and the like, are entering the public education system to teach the curriculum from their perspectives. The lobbying group for the MPAA provide a curriculum entitled What's the Diff? taught by a group of volunteers called Junior Achievement. The Business Software Alliance also has their own curriculum program called Play it Cybersafe, which is distributed to school children through a magazine called The Weekly Reader. There seems to be a general consensus amongst assorted interests in the USA that there needs to be some curriculum materials for school-aged children about copyright issues. The American Librarian Association will be releasing their own curriculum for librarians to distribute in winter 2004.
Philosophy of copyright
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The philosophy of copyright might be said to include several philosophical issues which are fundamentally linked to copyright policy, and other jurisprudential problems that arise in legal systems' interpretation and application of copyright law.
Probably the most profound and widely debated philosophical issue amongst scholars of copyright law, is its purpose. Some take the approach of looking for coherent justifications of established copyright systems, while others start with general ethical theories, such as utilitarianism and try to analyse policy through that lens. Another approach denies the meaningfulness of any ethical justification for existing copyright law, viewing it simply as a result (and perhaps an undesirable result) of political processes.
Another widely debated issue is the relationship between copyrights and other forms of "intellectual property", and material property. Most scholars of copyright agree that it can be called a kind of property, because it involves the exclusion of others from something. But there is disagreement about the extent to which that fact should allow the transportation of other beliefs and intuitions about material possessions.
There are many other philosophical questions which arise in the jurisprudence of copyright. They include such problems as determining when one work is "derived" from another, or deciding when information has been placed in a "tangible" or "material" form.
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008)
Critics of copyright as a whole fall broadly into two categories: Those who assert that the very concept of copyright has never been of net benefit to society, and has always served simply to enrich a few at the expense of creativity; and those who assert that the existing copyright regime must be reformed to maintain its relevance in the new Information society. The French droit d'auteur ("Rights of the Author"), which influenced the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, must also be noted as a significant alternative to the usual Anglo-Saxon concept of copyright.
Among the latter group, there are also some who continue to agree with copyright as a way to grant authors rights, but feel that it "outlives its welcome" by granting copyright for too long (eg, far beyond the lifetime of the author), and is therefore of little direct benefit to him or her. The prolongation of copyright term is commonly attributed to effective corporate lobbying, based on a desire for the continuance of a profitable monopoly. In the US, this is often phrased as a conspiracy to 'control the Mouse' (meaning Mickey Mouse, a trademarked character controlled by the Disney Company whose early works would have moved into the public domain save for such an extension).
To many critics, the general problem is that the current (international) copyright system undermines its own goal.[2] The concepts of the public domain and the intrinsic freedom of information are necessary precepts for creators to be able to build on published expression. But these are gradually being eroded, as copyright terms are repeatedly extended to last beyond the lifetime of the audience which experienced and knows of the original work.
Another effect of the repeated extension of copyright term is that current authors are shielded from competition from a wide public domain: by the time current works enter the public domain, they will have almost always have become obsolete. This reduces the risk of commoditisation of topical non-fiction - which might reduce the profitability and thus diversity of works. Out-of-copyright publishing, such as classic literature where margins are very low, generally offers only the best of each genre.
The recent success of free software projects such as GNU/Linux, Mozilla Firefox, and the Apache web server has demonstrated that quality works can be created even in the absence of a copyright-enforced monopoly rent [2]. Instead, these products use copyright to enforce their license terms, which are designed to ensure the free nature of the work, rather than securing exclusive rights for the holder for monetary gain; such a license is called a copyleft, free software license, or open source license.
Even in more traditional forms such as prose, some authors, such as Cory Doctorow, retain the copyright to their work but license it for free distribution (for example under a Creative Commons licenses). This has the benefit of providing a structured scheme under which authors can loosen some of the barriers that copyright imposes on others, allowing them to partially contribute the work to the community (in the form of giving a general grant on copying, reproduction, use or adaptation subject to certain conditions) while retaining other exclusive rights they hold in it.
Copyright can also be used to stifle political criticism. For example, in the US the contents of talk shows and similar programs are covered by copyright. Robert Greenwald, a director of Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War documentary was refused the right to use a clip of a George W. Bush interview from NBC's Meet the Press. Although the fair use provisions of statute and common law may apply in such cases, the risks of loss in court should there be a lawsuit and pressure from insurance companies, who regard use of almost anything (eg, three words forming the opening of a song, though not actually sung by one of a group of children) without permission as too risky, usually precludes use of materials without explicit permission, and so without a license fee.
Copyright is also conceived by some to be an "artificial barrier" in that "expressions" could be freely exchanged between individuals and groups if there were no copyright or other legal restrictions preventing. Such people believe that as the state does not necessarily possess the moral authority to enact copyright laws, individuals may vary in their observation of such laws. As noted above, others disagree with that, believing that the copyright system, which arises from provisions in the U.S. Constitution, has made and continues to make a valuable even essential contribution to the creation and dissemination of works. They also point out the social dangers inherent in the view that each individual is entitled to judge the "moral authority" of laws and to observe them or not according to individual judgments.
Modern challenges to copyright
Copyright concepts are under challenge in the modern era, primarily from the increasing use of peer to peer filesharing. Major copyright holders, such as the major record labels and the movie industry, blame the ease of copying for their decreasing profits. Other alternatives, such as poor product content, are dismissed as possible reasons.
Public interest groups, major corporations and the like, are entering the public education system to teach the curriculum from their perspectives. The lobbying group for the MPAA provide a curriculum entitled What's the Diff? taught by a group of volunteers called Junior Achievement. The Business Software Alliance also has their own curriculum program called Play it Cybersafe, which is distributed to school children through a magazine called The Weekly Reader. There seems to be a general consensus amongst assorted interests in the USA that there needs to be some curriculum materials for school-aged children about copyright issues. The American Librarian Association will be releasing their own curriculum for librarians to distribute in winter 2004.
Philosophy of copyright
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The philosophy of copyright might be said to include several philosophical issues which are fundamentally linked to copyright policy, and other jurisprudential problems that arise in legal systems' interpretation and application of copyright law.
Probably the most profound and widely debated philosophical issue amongst scholars of copyright law, is its purpose. Some take the approach of looking for coherent justifications of established copyright systems, while others start with general ethical theories, such as utilitarianism and try to analyse policy through that lens. Another approach denies the meaningfulness of any ethical justification for existing copyright law, viewing it simply as a result (and perhaps an undesirable result) of political processes.
Another widely debated issue is the relationship between copyrights and other forms of "intellectual property", and material property. Most scholars of copyright agree that it can be called a kind of property, because it involves the exclusion of others from something. But there is disagreement about the extent to which that fact should allow the transportation of other beliefs and intuitions about material possessions.
There are many other philosophical questions which arise in the jurisprudence of copyright. They include such problems as determining when one work is "derived" from another, or deciding when information has been placed in a "tangible" or "material" form.
Technology and philosophy
Technology and philosophy
Technicism
Generally, technicism is an over reliance or overconfidence in technology as a benefactor of society.
Taken to extreme, some argue that technicism is the belief that humanity will ultimately be able to control the entirety of existence using technology. In other words, human beings will someday be able to master all problems and possibly even control the future using technology. Some, such as Monsma,[36] connect these ideas to the abdication of religion as a higher moral authority.
More commonly, technicism is a criticism of the commonly held belief that newer, more recently-developed technology is "better."[citation needed] For example, more recently-developed computers are faster than older computers, and more recently-developed cars have greater gas efficiency and more features than older cars.[citation needed] Because current technologies are generally accepted as good, future technological developments are not considered circumspectly, resulting in what seems to be a blind acceptance of technological development.[citation needed]
Optimism
See also: Extropianism
Optimistic assumptions are made by proponents of ideologies such as transhumanism and singularitarianism, which view technological development as generally having beneficial effects for the society and the human condition. In these ideologies, technological development is morally good. Some critics see these ideologies as examples of scientism and techno-utopianism and fear the notion of human enhancement and technological singularity which they support. Some have described Karl Marx as a techno-optimist.[37] However, most technological progression is achieved through capitalism.
Pessimism
See also: Luddite, Neo-luddism, Anarcho-Primitivism, and Bioconservatism
On the somewhat pessimistic side are certain philosophers like the Herbert Marcuse and John Zerzan, who believe that technological societies are inherently flawed a priori. They suggest that the result of such a society is to become evermore technological at the cost of freedom and psychological health.
Many, such as the Luddites and prominent philosopher Martin Heidegger, hold serious reservations, although not a priori flawed reservations, about technology. Heidegger presents such a view in "The Question Concerning Technology": "Thus we shall never experience our relationship to the essence of technology so long as we merely conceive and push forward the technological, put up with it, or evade it. Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it."[38]
Some of the most poignant criticisms of technology are found in what are now considered to be dystopian literary classics, for example Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and other writings, Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange, and George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. And, in Faust by Goethe, Faust's selling his soul to the devil in return for power over the physical world, is also often interpreted as a metaphor for the adoption of industrial technology.
An overtly anti-technological treatise is Industrial Society and Its Future, written by Theodore Kaczynski (aka The Unabomber) and printed in several major newspapers (and later books) as part of an effort to end his bombing campaign of the techno-industrial infrastructure.
Appropriate technology
See also: Technocriticism and Technorealism
The notion of appropriate technology, however, was developed in the 20th century (e.g., see the work of Jacques Ellul) to describe situations where it was not desirable to use very new technologies or those that required access to some centralized infrastructure or parts or skills imported from elsewhere. The eco-village movement emerged in part due to this concern.
Technicism
Generally, technicism is an over reliance or overconfidence in technology as a benefactor of society.
Taken to extreme, some argue that technicism is the belief that humanity will ultimately be able to control the entirety of existence using technology. In other words, human beings will someday be able to master all problems and possibly even control the future using technology. Some, such as Monsma,[36] connect these ideas to the abdication of religion as a higher moral authority.
More commonly, technicism is a criticism of the commonly held belief that newer, more recently-developed technology is "better."[citation needed] For example, more recently-developed computers are faster than older computers, and more recently-developed cars have greater gas efficiency and more features than older cars.[citation needed] Because current technologies are generally accepted as good, future technological developments are not considered circumspectly, resulting in what seems to be a blind acceptance of technological development.[citation needed]
Optimism
See also: Extropianism
Optimistic assumptions are made by proponents of ideologies such as transhumanism and singularitarianism, which view technological development as generally having beneficial effects for the society and the human condition. In these ideologies, technological development is morally good. Some critics see these ideologies as examples of scientism and techno-utopianism and fear the notion of human enhancement and technological singularity which they support. Some have described Karl Marx as a techno-optimist.[37] However, most technological progression is achieved through capitalism.
Pessimism
See also: Luddite, Neo-luddism, Anarcho-Primitivism, and Bioconservatism
On the somewhat pessimistic side are certain philosophers like the Herbert Marcuse and John Zerzan, who believe that technological societies are inherently flawed a priori. They suggest that the result of such a society is to become evermore technological at the cost of freedom and psychological health.
Many, such as the Luddites and prominent philosopher Martin Heidegger, hold serious reservations, although not a priori flawed reservations, about technology. Heidegger presents such a view in "The Question Concerning Technology": "Thus we shall never experience our relationship to the essence of technology so long as we merely conceive and push forward the technological, put up with it, or evade it. Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it."[38]
Some of the most poignant criticisms of technology are found in what are now considered to be dystopian literary classics, for example Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and other writings, Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange, and George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. And, in Faust by Goethe, Faust's selling his soul to the devil in return for power over the physical world, is also often interpreted as a metaphor for the adoption of industrial technology.
An overtly anti-technological treatise is Industrial Society and Its Future, written by Theodore Kaczynski (aka The Unabomber) and printed in several major newspapers (and later books) as part of an effort to end his bombing campaign of the techno-industrial infrastructure.
Appropriate technology
See also: Technocriticism and Technorealism
The notion of appropriate technology, however, was developed in the 20th century (e.g., see the work of Jacques Ellul) to describe situations where it was not desirable to use very new technologies or those that required access to some centralized infrastructure or parts or skills imported from elsewhere. The eco-village movement emerged in part due to this concern.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)