Well, after finally finishing the article on the Atlantic, “As We May Think” by Vannervar Bush I feel like it left me thinking about a number of different things. First of all with the amount of content that was provided in this article, I feel like that was unnecessary in terms of the simplistic nature of what the the article is trying to say. The title itself, “As We May Think” almost implies the idea that we think we know the reasoning and context of why and how we create the technology that we do. When in reality the rhetoric of the title implies that we are unable to truly grasp the psychological element for our motivations and therefore, this article acts as a light (in a way) to illuminate the deeper meaning of what we don’t know.
One aspect in the beginning of the article that I found fascinating is that creation will only arise out of it’s necessity to be created. It’s almost a supply and demand quality, but more in terms of innovation and invention. For example, when war strikes a civilization, there is this need for survival and adaptation. And in order for the two to thrive, we must adjust, or invent, accordingly. If there was no war, there would be no need for specific types of weapons that were only created for the sake of survival, not discovery. To simplify, if one takes a darwinian approach, instead of adapting ourselves physically to survive, we adapting our surroundings and creating in order to survive. I sincerely believe that if inventions were created only for purpose of innovation and discovery, they wouldn’t be used for destruction. It’s the need to survive that allows us to be put into the position where creation is not only important, but vital.
On that note, Bush brings up an interesting thought:
It is the physicists who have been thrown most violently off stride, who have left academic pursuits for the making of strange destructive gadgets, who have had to devise new methods for their unanticipated assignments. They have done their part on the devices that made it possible to turn back the enemy, have worked in combined effort with the physicists of our allies. They have felt within themselves the stir of achievement. They have been part of a great team. Now, as peace approaches, one asks where they will find objectives worthy of their best.
What happens to our world of discovery if the need to create in order to survive is no longer the driving force. With the use of war as an example, there is an urgency and almost a deadline (no pun intended) for the creation to occur. While, as peach approaches, as Bush states, how much will discovery be actually worth while. I honestly believe that if there is no actual need for the invention to manifest, then it will not. Why would someone want to invent something that is not needed and will not be used. If there was no war, then why would we need specific combat weapons. Everything in that regards is therefore linked to the idea of what is there to come and is conflict and demand to only way for it to be introduced into the world?