Skip to main content

In "There Will Come Soft Rains", what can a reader conclude about the author's view of technology?

Thematically, "There Will Come Soft Rains" has a focus on technology and its power.  What I like about this story is how Bradbury presents two sides of a technology debate.  


One side of the discussion is that technology is beneficial.  By its very definition, technology is considered helpful and good.  The dictionary defines it as follows:



the use of science in industry, engineering, etc., to invent useful things or to solve problems



That side of technology is presented in the story.  The house is a "smart home."  It automatically cooks breakfast and cleans it up.  Vacuum cleaners are little robots that automatically detect a mess, and the house can be voice controlled.  That's not that different than my own home currently.  I have a robot vacuum cleaner called a "Roomba."  The Amazon Echo lets me choose music with voice control and even order stuff from Amazon.  I can even set my thermostat with it.  To a certain extent, I think it is a bit of a gimmick at this point, but I do see my Roomba and Echo pointing toward the home in Bradbury's story.  I think people will really enjoy a house like that because it does useful things.  


On the other hand, Bradbury's story shows readers that despite all of that technology, the fancy tech was incapable of saving the people's lives.  In fact, it was advanced technology in the form of nuclear weaponry that caused the destruction in the first place.  I'd also like to point out that the house in the story is so advanced that it could operate without any kind of human input.  Living humans are simply not needed in order for the advanced technology to continue "living."  That's a scary thought. I believe that Bradbury's view of technology is that technology can be both good and dangerous at the same time. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more