# data[].attributes.body
Over the course of human history, technology has allowed the pursuit of larger scales of human mobility, expansion, and operations across the world (Henkin, 2006). This has allowed the flow of information to be greater in quantity, which has been delegated and negotiated with to this very day (Bouk, 2017, pp. 94-95). Yet, a growing resistance to technological reliance has repeatedly shown itself regarding the state of current society. Though not the result of pessimism, it has been a consistent critique of the hidden costs of technologies, especially in relation to the effects of people of the past and of the future (Bouk, 2017, p.87). And it has occurred since the earliest form of technology, even before steel foundries would cement itself as a pillar to modern civilization (Cook, 2001).

Throughout this exhibition of the world’s technologies, a pattern shows that popular innovations for the information age are fueled by centralized colonial power which disenfranchises periphery communities within the  societies it operates and propagates. Coverage will go from the earliest forms of technology in the Western world to the modern era of the 19th – 21st century. Each section of the exhibit will explore the many aspects of how humans in the development of technology are utilized, or rather abused in what means in this case.

The first section investigates power disparities caused by the development of newfound technologies. As a result of national advantage, advancements in not only gathering information but also obfuscation was made important in many of the earliest voyages across the seas (Hellawell, 2020, p.29). This created biases in the information generated, mostly in service to an institution, which then enacts power over its influence by allowing certain information to be persistent, whilst other forms of information unimportant (Hellawell, 2020, pp. 30 -35). Its consequences can spread to national issues, such disputes over ideology and purpose in war situations, attempting to engage with their local populous with propaganda (Hallin, 1989).

Mental exploitation is not the only layer which dehumanizes the human input in technology, the next section refers to physical bodies that are also being exploited. Done for the benefit of the state and their technologies, they are more ephemeral than mechanical. Related technologies refer to preferred behaviors and traditions for a given population, allowing bodily autonomy to defer to state authorities (Bix, 1997). Worse still, it can even extend to bodily functions such as dietary intake in the pursuit of growth (Smith, 1865).

Finally, the last section covers erasure as a byproduct of hegemonic bias. As history is often cited as coming from which can pass on information over the course of multiple lifetimes (Light, 1999), much of technology’s origins stem from truths and half-truths. Either empowered by social norms, or because of political reasons, facts about the nature of constants in our modern world are compromised despite ubiquity (Hicks, 2017).

Especially as talks of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Arjanto et al., 2023) and technological updates to social practices such as commerce like Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) or Cryptocurrencies (Badea & Mungiu-Pupazan, 2021), a keen eye on the human cost of these innovations should be considered. With political strife coming around the corner because of repeated revisionism from history (He et al., 2021), critical thinking with this context must be needed. This ensures not only the ability to weather these issues properly, but to also integrate technology in a manner that ensures its implementation is not abusive to other communities in all factors.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bias in Information in service of hegemonies

# data[].attributes.subject
Bias in Information in service of hegemonies

# data[].attributes.headline
Erasure of historical contributions to technology

# data[].attributes.subject
Erasure of historical contributions to technology

# data[].attributes.body
Arjanto, P., Senduk, F. F. W., Nahdiyah, U., & Utami, M. S. (2023). AI and ethics in mental health: exploring the controversy over the use of ChatGPT. Journal of Public Health (Oxford, England). https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdad254

Babbage, C. (2010). ON THE DIVISION OF MENTAL LABOUR. In On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures (pp. 153–163). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511696374.021

Badea, L., & Mungiu-Pupazan, M. C. (2021). The Economic and Environmental Impact of Bitcoin. IEEE Access, 9, 48091–48104. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3068636

Bix, A. S. (1997). Experiences and Voices of Eugenics Field-Workers: 'Women's Work' in Biology. Social Studies of Science, 27(4), 625–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631297027004003

Blyth, A. W., Membership of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons (MRCS), & Fellowship of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons (FRCS). (1884). Chapter IV. The Mathematical Form of Expression for Various Kinds of Labour. In The Health Exhibition Literature (Vol. 4, pp. 271–273). essay, Printed and published for the Executive Council of the International Health Exhibition and for the Council of the Society of Arts by William Clowes and Sons.

Cook, S. D. N. (2001). Technological Revolutions and the Gutenberg Myth. In Internet Dreams: Archetypes, Myths, and Metaphors (pp. 67–82). essay, MIT Press.

Daston, L. (1994). Enlightenment Calculations. Critical Inquiry, 21(1), 182–202. https://doi.org/10.1086/448745

Daston, L. (2018). Calculation and the division of labor, 1750–1950. Bulletin of the German Historical Institute, 62(Spring), 9-30

Hallin, D. C. (1989). The "Uncensored War" : the media and Vietnam / Daniel C. Hallin. University of California Press.

Hellawell, P. (2020). “The best and most practical philosophers”: Seamen and the authority of experience in early modern science. History of Science, 58(1), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0073275319842425

Henkin, D. M. (2006). Becoming Postal: A Communications Revolution in Antebellum America. In The Postal Age. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226327228.003.0002

Hicks, M. (2017). War Machines: Women’s Computing Work and the Underpinnings of the Data-Driven State, 1930–1946. In Programmed Inequality. MIT Press.

Light, J. S. (1999). When Computers Were Women. Technology and Culture, 40(3), 455–483. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.1999.0128

Rohde, J. (2017). Pax Technologica: Computers, International Affairs, and Human Reason in the Cold War. Isis, 108(4), 792–813. https://doi.org/10.1086/695679

Schaffer, S. (1994). Babbage's Intelligence: Calculating Engines and the Factory System. Critical Inquiry, 21(1), 203–227. https://doi.org/10.1086/448746

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Portrait of German inventor and craftsman Johannes Gutenberg, touted as the sole founder of the Gutenberg Press, made after his death (Wikimedia Commons, “Gutenberg.jpg”, Accessed April 18, 2021)

# data[].attributes.body
·       Johannes Gutenberg was an iron worker which helped in early print making with helping to improve typesetting (Cook, 2001, p.67). His subsequent mythologizing highlights the genius myth and flattening of innovation to one person, rather than the congregation of multiple disparate iterations in the timeline of technologies (Cook, 2001, pp.69-70).