Both passages have very nice tones that make them easier to read and stay engaged with what the author is saying. In the kitchen utensil introduction, the author maintains a light, humorous tone by pointing out several ironies. The author admits that the wooden spoon “looks like the opposite of ‘technology,’” and then goes on to expose the great complexity that lies beyond its basal appearance. A long list of decisions that influence the ultimate shape, look, and function of the spoon is given, from different possibilities for its material composition, shape, to handle length. The author goes into detail about what alternatives for the spoon may look like, but claims that the spoon is the way it is based on our culture. Despite that superior alternatives may exist, “we cook with wooden spoons because we always have,” which makes the point that our choices in what technologies we decide to use are driven by what is acceptable by society.
This point is also made in the egg article, which takes on a more direct, informative tone. This article illustrates the influence of culture on technology by contrasting the methods of processing eggs in different developed countries. The article gives information explaining that the US has a desire for the food to be “super clean” and have a longer shelf life, while other countries cannot afford the cost of washing eggs and uses cheaper alternatives that work just as well. This demonstrates how two societies can achieve the same result, but use different technologies.
The articles also demonstrate that culture can change based on the technologies available. The kitchen article mentions that the invention the enclosed brick chimney altered who performs labor in the kitchen. The kitchen was no longer as dangerous a place to be, so women began to have a larger presence in them. The egg article discusses how the advent of refrigeration allowed the wash method for eggs to be possible, and the US ended up following this route because the technology was available and convenient.
Despite that nagging fear many may feel just before receiving a shot, people should be thankful to live in a day in age when such technology is available. The development of the hypodermic syringe has allowed for great advances in the medical field, creating the means for a safer, more sterile mode of drug administration. Along with these benefits, negative issues have also arisen with the publics acceptance of the hypodermic syringe. The advent of the hypodermic syringe, along with the development of vaccines to be administered by them, has led to many deep anxieties and fears over what their use may entail. These fears among anti-vaccine groups has led to an incredible push back against vaccinations, as well as conditions like blood injury injection phobia. Despite many assertions and studies performed by the scientific community demonstrating such claims are invalid, they continue to persist in the minds of the public. Yet, in the face of these complications, it is most important to weigh these downfalls of the syringe against the more important gains in safety and quality of life.
There isn’t much that is quite as comedic as big burly dude cowering when the doctor says it’s time to get new round of shots. Although this may seem ironic, a phobia of needles is a fairly common reality for countless people across the United States. But what is it about needles that gives so many people this paralyzing fear, when in fact the pinch of a needle’s prick is fairly mild in comparison to the alternatives of the past? The development of the hypodermic syringe has allowed for great advances in the medical field, creating the means for a safer, more sterile mode of drug administration. Despite these benefits, the advent of the hypodermic syringe has led to the development of many deep anxieties and fears over what their use may entail. These fears among anti-vaccine groups has led to an incredible push back against vaccinations, and cultural creations of stories such as Needle and the horrible Freddy Kruger with syringes for fingers. Despite many assertions and studies performed by the scientific community demonstrating such fears are overblown, they continue to persist in the minds of the public. Although it may cause anxiety to the public, it is most important to weigh these downfalls of the syringe against the more important gains in safety and quality of life.