Technology has become integrated into society.  There are few jobs that do not require some use of computers at some time or another.  Answering machines have become increasingly popular.  The wierd thing about some technology is that it is superfluous.  Answering machines were probably originally made for companies so they would miss less calls.  But people began to use them in their own houses and now they are quite common.  Winner stated answering machines are given a job to do.  The problem with this is that most people would not mind if they missed a few calls or at least would not pay someone to answer their phone while they were away, so whose job is the answering machine replacing?  Yes, the answering machine is a member of society, but non-commercially used answering machines could probably be done without.  So my question is how important are these artifacts which are functioning as members of society?

    Another point that Winner makes is about "secondary consequences."  He pointed out that the Industrial Revolution, with primary purposes of new techniques for doing certain things, was far more significant for its change of society.  It brought on a new relationship between people and objects that changed the way people lived.  He also compares technological "artifacts" to the people in the cultures that use them, stating that the blueprints for new technological things often resemble the characteristics of the generation that will be using them.

    I strongly agree with Winner's point on primary and secondary consequences or impacts.  Take electronic surveillance, for example.  The original purpose of electronic surveillance on the job site was probably to increase productivity.  But the secondary impacts could eventually take freedoms away from everyone.  The example that Winner uses is about a telephone operator who had been working with a company for 18 years and was fired for not meeting the company's efficiency quota.  Part of the reason she did not meet this quota was because she would talk to people who called that were lonely or maybe that were depressed.  Although she was eventually rehired due to a union protest, the damage has been done.  Once a technology begins to develop and uses are found for it, some company usually takes the initiative to improve it.

    Technology seems to be working towards "machinizing" people.  It is also working towards "peoplizing" machines.  Some complex machines are becoming more user friendly.  Machines have already replaced workers in some factories and in many places.  So why should an employer expect any less than a machine from a human?  It is because humans make mistakes.  But the bright side to this is that machines do not have emotions and it may be a while before they can be given emotions.  Advantage: humans.  The goal of most businesses is to make the customer happy.  If shoppers at a store had to receive help from a machine rather than a human, they might become disappointed and not shop there.  Winner is right about technological artifacts symbolizing the generation in which they are used.  Computers, compared to early models, have become extremely powerful yet simple (to an extent) to use.  When I say simple to use, I mean for functions such as word processing and even number crunching, not programming and other more complicated things.  People that use computers are making the most out of their time by not having to learn all about computers in order to use them.  This society could be described as button pushers that point and click their way to success.  But there is nothing wrong with that.  Computers are relatively expensive devices, although I consider mine a great investment at the time.

-Ryan Pinckney