Comparing Millers Enemy of the People, Becketts Waiting for Godot and Vonneguts Slaughterhouse-F :: comparison compare contrast essays

Human Values and Technology in Miller's Enemy of the People, Beckett's Waiting for Godot and Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five Human values can't be replaced by technology. Human values can just hope to evolve as quickly as technology is expanding. If one lags behind the other, it's human values. Technology can exist and function without human values. There is a rush for Isaac Newton but that doesn't negate the need for a good philosopher. Though both technology and human values can be used hand in hand and that is the ideal situation. Too much of anything is a bad thing. It's all about finding a balance. Enemy of the People is the perfect example of how human values sometimes don't evolve as quickly as technology. The town had the technology available to make sure the hot springs were up to par but not only did they not put that technology to use but they challenged the findings with no proof of their own. The town as a whole had no experience with this type of science before. Thus, they were instantly skeptical (they also benefited financially by not believing it). But what the town should have done was step back and look at all the facts (sick visitors (Miller 35) and the low intake (Miller 36)) and made an informed decision instead of just running from the unknown. "They happen to have ability and knowledge," (Miller 45) is what Dr. Stockman told Hovstad. He assumed that these people had the same trust and knowledge in technology that he had but he was wrong. People need a way to deal with the ever-growing new technology. It was scary for the town to believe that there wer e things happening on the bacterial level (one that they couldn't see). Did the town choose not to believe the blatant truth because it would hurt them, the skewed facts or out of fear of the unknown and the consequences. Ignorance is bliss, but civilization needs to be informed of what's going on and how it affects their lives. A person can't just take things "on faith" when dealing with science, they need proof and an explanation. It's easy to follow the mass in anything (especially public opinion) but one needs to ask themselves how informed is the general public?