Han vs Roman Attitudes Toward Tech

Kimberly Giron AP homo history September 27, 2012 World History DBQ Han rescript had positive place towards applied science as near saw it as beneficial to hunting lodge and others weighed it a gift. Roman society had more than of a supportive to that extent demeaning pose towards technology. There is no doubt that things that benefit populate and gift are turn overed positive. A Han judicature authoritative (Document 1) wrote to local officials in order to advise them on how to aim their technology to prevent floods, video display his interests in maintaining the empire so that it doesnt fall.Not only that, Han Guan, another government official (Document 2) goes against the way the government is monopolizing the making of technology and that technology should be do by the people, since government make technologies are brittle and costing the government more money as not much salt is be produced. It is very interesting that an official would speak against the govern ment, nominated it may be due to the incident that the scarcity of salt is costing this official money.Both officials may to a fault be looking to maintain their positions or get high ones once the emperor sees how well they are looking after the empire, which spate only be maintained with the help of technology. Others in Han society consider technology as a gift from enlightened leaders. Huan Tan, an upper- descriptor philosopher (document 3) mentions that Fuxi settleed some technology which was efficient and beneficial to society. Fuxi, is said to be a impertinent enlightened emperor which means that since Fuxi made it, it is no doubt a great gift.There is also some government sponsored history (Document 4) which characterizes Tu Shih as a just and commoner loving man who developed technology in order lift some of the burden of labor off the people. engineering was Tu Shihs gift to the people and Tu Shih, was considered a Fuxi. Therefore this government sponsored historia n also considers technology a gift. Roman attitude towards technology was that is was necessary notwithstanding that it didnt take much intelligence to make such technology, or in other words, a demeaning attitude.Cicero, an upper-class politician leader (Document 5), considered technology as something for vulgar common folk,not gentlemen. He believed that skill wasnt required to use such thing but, he neer mentioned that technology was useless. Seneca, a philosopher and consultant (Document 7) also believed that it doesnt take brains to come up with technology but never attacks its use in society as he sees that it doesnt matter who made it, but its use that matters.Their attitude must be influenced by the fact that technology was made by the lower class and acknowledging lower class work would mean lowering their pride. Other Roman attitudes were that technology was required to create beauty. Frontius, a Roman general (Document 8) gives a glowing study on how beautiful techno logy has been able to make the empires aqueducts, far more superior than structures in Greece and Egypt. Plutarch, a high official in capital of Italy (Document 6) gives another positive report on the beauty of Roman roads created by Gaius Gracchus which was built with the help of their technology.Therefore, technology is practical, is essential for making things beautiful, but looked down upon as it is used by the lower class. Despite the divers(prenominal) societies, it is clear that in each empire government officials and upper-class philosophers function to share attitudes towards technology. It would be interesting to see the attitudes of common workers and women towards technology as they are the ones who make more use of it.Workers may be nigh affected by technology as they are the ones whom upper-class Romans consider to be the vulgar people who work with it and brainless people who invent it. In Han societies they would be the ones who produce the salt and also need the protective cover given by technology. The opinions of women would also provide information on how women were complicated in technology and how it affected gender roles. The documents above only provide a view for one class in each society therefore not giving a clear overall attitude on technology in each society.