Thesis Statement_2.0

STATEMENT_2.0

Architecture creates space for the inhabitants of a society to both function and thrive within the cultural, economic, and social fabric of civilization. As digital technology becomes more pervasive, it threat­ens to fundamentally augment societal norms, changing the member’s way of life. How then will architecture itself change to perform it’s primary task of creating space for the, now changed, inhabitants of the technological society?

Every culture throughout the course of history has worshipped some kind of symbol, icon, or way of existing. In Christianity, this symbol is God, manifested as Jesus Christ. In the Pagan religion, it was multiple gods such as Poseidon, the god of water, or Zeus, the god of lightning. Finally, during the Industrial Revolution it could be argued that the machine was the symbol of worship, which drove the society. Worshipping does not require a god; it merely requires a symbol or ideal to which a culture may align their views and actions. Societal day-to-day goals and activities are largely driven by the cultural zeitgeist they follow. In es­sence, cultural values affect the paradigms and decisions of the members participating in that society. I believe our modern society has an object of worship, but one that does not have religious connotations.

Digital technology has become modern societies object of worship. Every day hundreds of thousands of employees in the field of technology work grueling hours to pump out and produce the next technological breakthrough, conscious of the benefits of their efforts, but ignoring the vast implications this new techniques potential may have to harm their society. As the number of these developments rapidly increases and accumulates, a need develops for us to take a step back and truly contextualize the implications of these techniques. The myriad of problems associated with the rapid increase in technology is just beginning to reveal their ef­fects on the denizens of the expanding technological society.

For the sake of example, employees of companies that rely heav­ily on technology for their daily production are being given the opportunity to work from home. While this is a benefit in the sense that employees lives are freed to be productive when they wish, to reduce the stress of a commute, or to provide increased autonomy over ones life, it carries with it the inher­ent problem of the human condition. Human beings are fundamentally physiological and social beings whose function and happiness decrease without physical or social inter­action. What happens to an employee who can generate revenue to remain financially stable and have their necessities of food and shelter satiated, but who lack a network of friends? If ones only connection to the political world of friendship and networks is through ones employment, how do these privileged individuals maintain this human aspect of their existence? In the new technological frontier, I believe these individuals will increasingly need a place of social interaction as their employers re­move them from the culture inherent in the office setting. While this only serves as an example, I believe many examples exist to illustrate how technology can both increase our potential for production and connectivity, while simultaneously eroding the fundamental being of what it means to be human.