After Hours

Have you ever found yourself bored and wanting to do something? Do you have a late night craving to move around or look or think when everyone else is asleep? I do all the time. I find myself enthrawled with television or the Internet after hours. I think about what I can do when I have time to spare. Technologly is at our finger tips twenty-four seven, so why not take advantage of it? Some say that Google and the Internet are making us stupid, but how can it. When we are awake alone and have noone to converse with, we turn to our facebook friends, the customers of Walmart, or YouTube. We can learn so much when we least expect it. On the contrary, it is true that we can sit in our comfy chair in our living room and research and entire paper and print it off without the slightest movement in our feet. So, is the Internet helping or hindering the develpment of the human mind? I think it depends on how and to what extent we use these technologies.

tech and smarts

I have heard from many people that this generation is becoming stupid from the Internet. I feel a bit insulted, but that generally happens when someone says you're stupid. I read an article on Discover Magazine's website recently that brought up a great point. It was in response to an article arguing that Google was making people stupid, due to the easy access of information, rather than the absorption of knowledge– a quick fix rather than actual learning. The author of the Discover article was arguing the reverse; that Google benefits us, as we are built for it. He claims that we are cyborg-like, and that the internet serves as an extended mind. This is similar to using an address book; you can remember some of the addresses, but it is much more practical and beneficial to store the information in another place and to use it when necessary. It was an interesting article, and made much more sense than saying that we are all being dumbed down. Some people might be, but others use the internet as an extra source of information to improve their intelligence and function.

Where would you go and what would you take?

In chapter 15 (The Rule of Technology) Borgmann raised an interesting point:

"They do believe that life is better in the country than in the city and that we have become too dependent on machines. But they do not find that life in the technological society is too complicated. They appreciate the comforts of present technology." (106)

So my discussion question is: if you could return to another time period, when would it be and what modern technology would you want to still have? Would you want it at all?
There are several periods I would enjoy living in, provided I had modern plumbing and medicine available: the Stone Age (hunting giant creatures sounds fun), Rome under Emperor Theodosius, and England under King Alfred the Great. Other modern technologies feel more like toys to me; they are certainly nice and comfortable, but I could go without them if had to. Plumbing and medicine are, however, rather literally close to home. Discuss.

Blog #6: To the Tune of Great Silence…

After today’s viewing of Into Great Silence, I started to think a little bit about silence. Isn’t it amazing how “silence,” when posited within varying contexts, can invoke so many different responses? The silence of a lightly lit church often incites reverence, a certain humble veneration. The silence of a dark attic or graveyard usually engenders fear or trepidation. The silence endured whilst scuba-diving several meters beneath the ocean rouses wonder and unequaled awe. As an aside, and interestingly enough, how would those responses of veneration, fear, or wonder change if the contexts were instead filled with sound? It’s an interesting thought. I don’t think many of us would be afraid in that nighttime graveyard if we brought along our iPod and listened to our favorite music. At least, the fear would be significantly diminished. Silence alters everything.

The movie today was filled with silence. What was your response? I was rather curious at first. Who in their right mind would produce a movie which lacked an audio component entirely? I mean come on…at least Koyaanisqatsi had music…but this? Although we weren’t able to view the entire film, I believe we were given a picture of how serene our lives could be. Aside from the hustle and bustle of our daily existence, aside from the devices, aside from the unneeded stressors and unwarranted worries, and aside from the noise; what is there? There is only…silence. And as I said earlier: silence alters everything.

When your life is silent, what happens? I usually gain a new sense of calm and center when I’m immersed in silence (placed within a certain context of course). Many an epiphany has arisen from moments of deep and profound silence. Silence and meditation is also medically beneficial to both our minds and our bodies, allowing us to concentrate and heal. Conversely, noise interrupts and breaks through moments of simple repose. One needs only to envision how sound travels as vibrations, tremors which displace and disrupt the very air we breathe, to appreciate the disturbance induced by noise. From dawn till dusk, our lives are usually replete with noise. We can’t seem to escape noise. In the morning, we habitually awaken to the berating and beleaguering sounds of our alarm clocks. Do you wake up naturally? Not many people that I know personally do. What would your life be like if your body was able to make its own schedule and imbibe silence for as long as it needed in the morning? Throughout the entire day, we are bombarded with noise and consternations ad nauseam. Many times, we even fall asleep to the tune of the TV in the background. Sometimes the TV is replaced by our MP3 player. But nonetheless, the inundation is still the same. We are environed within a cage of noise. But would we have it any other way? Humanity is so adapted to noise that it has nearly begun to embrace a certain hostility towards silence. We really don’t like silence do we? We feel out of place and disrupted by something which is the effective opposite of disruption. Only the most powerful of events can summon one to the world of silence (e.g. a funeral service, a spiritual experience, poignant memoriams, etc…). I wonder how strange an occurrence this would have represented to our ancestors of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. I can only imagine how they must have lived their lives, lives undoubtedly filled with more silence than those lived today. I would probably say that the diminishing of silence in existence has a direct correlation with the production and acceptance of devices, in Borgmann’s sense, and the overpowering onslaught by technologies designed to make and sustain their own noises. This deduction thus draws me to a certain conclusion in light of Borgmann’s reasoning: if we stave off our total and maddening love for devices and work more to embrace those focal things/practices which Borgmann catalogues, then maybe, just maybe, we will once again begin to hear and intimately know the tune which silence proclaims.

“Stat crux dum volvitur orbis”

After viewing a segment of the documentary “Into Great Silence” in class today, I did some brief research on the Carthusian Order of Monks in order to gain a deeper understanding of its foundation. One thing that caught my attention during my browsing was their motto, “Stat crux dum volvitur orbis”, which translates as “The Cross is steady while the world is turning.” In various ways, the ideology of this religious order parallels Borgmann’s argument against the radical transformation or perhaps, degradation of the individual human experience as spurred by the modern technological era.

Compared to the blurred image of fast-paced streets and sidewalks in cities that never seem to sleep, the Carthusian Monks appear to be living at a standstill. One of the images from the film that lingers in my mind is the elderly monk’s hand simply resting on the coarse white fabric for a few moments before he continues each new step of the folding and cutting process. I think that individuals in technologically advanced societies have lost the ability to simply pause from the pattern of their hectic lives and feel the textures of life that surround them. We do not even really stop to appreciate the world in the present moment with our own eyes; indeed, the vast majority of individuals, myself included, tend to view the environment through technology in the form of a camera, capture it, transfer it to our computers, and store it in the recesses of an artificial memory to view later.

People today not only operate in constant motion but also in constant communication through texting, Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social networking. I have heard various people assert that they cannot go ten minutes throughout the average day without texting someone. From the perspective of a local farm girl that would have to grab a feed bucket and walk up to the field at the top of the ridge to get consistent reception, dependence on a cell phone in the home environment is an anomaly to me. It seems that this desperate need for attention from the distant masses has led to a depreciation of the internal dialogue or even dialogue with nature that contributes to self-discovery and the formation of one’s personal ideology. We spend so much time trying to be heard that we often forget to listen.

Into Great Silence :: Reaction

So how do you put into words a movie that had no words?

My initial reaction to the movie today in class was impatience. As the documentary progressed however it became easier to relax and appreciate the rare form of cinematography at hand. The mere prospect of living life in a monetary with such an extreme lack of technology, ownership of possessions, and human interaction seems horrifying. With a movie like this you are indeed forced to ask and respond to your own questions. I couldn’t understand how anyone could be comfortable living that type of a lifestyle. Just as watching the silent movie began to feel more and more natural, I’m sure a simple and pure life like the monks live could begin to feel right as well.

I suppose a meaningful movie is one that allows the viewer to take something away from it. After watching the excerpt from Into Great Silence it caused me to reevaluate my own values and view of the world. What exactly is a perfect life? A good life can’t be measured by the number and quality of devices in our life; after all, the monks in the film have managed to find enjoyment and fulfillment in their rudimentary way of living in the monastery. Perhaps the monks are much happier with their version of the “good” life than any of us are. I personally believe the single most important thing in life is our personal relationship with God and to seek him with all our heart and soul. Life in the monastery has removed the modern distractions by taking life back to a more simplistic and pure form thus focusing on the single most important thing in life.

It is clear to me that a movie with the goal of immersing the audience in the way of life for the Monks would have only been tainted with voiceovers. How is life meant to be lived? The devices that have become ingrained into our daily lives have without a doubt distorted our ability to clearly see and experience the true miracles of life. Though taking such extreme vowels like the monks in the documentary is not an option for many of us, at the very least we can immerse ourselves in their lifestyle for the duration of the movie, and hopefully learn that the absence of modern technology is not always a terrible thing.

Bloom Box

The other day when I was watching 60 minutes ( yes I watch 60 minutes and find it to be very interesting), but anyway in our class we talked about focal things, things, and the device paradigm. While I was watching 60 minutes I found an invention called the bloom box which was invented not to many years ago and is now in trial runs with EBay and Amazon to name a few companies. When I watched this little segment on the Bloom box I started to think about how new inventions can lead us to things rather than focal things, which was discussed in class. Though I am not truly bought on the whole idea just yet I found this new invention to be interesting and something that we may be seeing in years to come. Think about how these new inventions make life easier and also what they may take away?

www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

Mindless Leisure

When we discussed the topic of mindless labor and mindless leisure. The example was brought up about how mindful leisure would be playing chess with your friends and mindless leisure would be playing against a computer. There is really no joy in playing against a computer compared to playing one of your friends. I do not play chess on a regular basis, however, I do play XBOX. I enjoy playing, but whenever I am unable to talk to my friends or play with them in a game I get bored very easily. I can understand the mindless leisure aspect of playing games.

In the book, it stated that both political views typically take for granted that an increase in economic productivity is desired. The example that was used for mindless labor was an assembly line. A worker will easily get very bored with putting together one part of a car at a manufacturing plant. However if the person took the time to put together the entire car, he or she would have a much more meaningful outcome at the end of the completed task. This was a great example and really helped me understand what was meant in the reading of the book.

Jonas Mekas on the Internet and Art

The following quote, from the Lithuanian artist Jonas Mekas (pictured above), was taken from the World Question Forum website (see the top of "links). It reflects Borgmann's concerns about the device paradigm replacing "focal things and focal practices." The point of Borgmann's book, in fact, is precisely the fear that important things and practices are being eliminated by devices. Is this a serious situation? 

I would like to add one more note to what the Internet has done to me. And that is, I began paying more attention to everything that the Internet seems to be eliminating.Books especially. But also nature. In short: the more it all expands into the virtual reality the more I feel a need to love and protect the actual reality. Not because of sentimental reasons, no. I do that from a very real, practical , almost a survival need: from my knowledge that I would lose a very essential part of myself by losing the actual reality, both cultural and physical.

The device paradigm spoke of by borgmann is very interesting because it speaks of an era that our generation doesn't know of. I can remember when computers where still new and the Internet was just arriving, but could I live without google, the verb. Yeah, it makes me because I myself have fell to the cultural desire to use google as a verb "goolgle it or googled it." However, his definition of what a device and a thing are is very complicated to me. It's seems that borgman is truly driven by the "human soul." I'll explain this more thoroughly; we in society today take pride in our specialty. How only a select few can do our job and with that we have prestige and authority. Having a skill is very unique, but with devices is that taking away our skills? Today we have jobs that unskilled individuals work because all they do is press the button of the machine they are working. We spoke of instrument and how borgman enjoyed those because they require skill and attention. With our current drive for new technology that will soon be gone. Rock band is an example of how that is being taken away. We spoke of online classes and how that is something beneficial for our society. I would agree, but borgmann may say it would take away from the true tradition of going to a classroom itself. Borgmann has not made a set in stone side he is on and nor will because I'm actually typing this up on my iPhone. Yet, with this fallacy to drive for bigger and better things seems like we may come upon a day where desire better consumes the purpose of why we do something. Example being we may want cell phones that we can virtually everything a laptop does, but in all reality we just want to call or even just text.

Blog 2

The internet, that is conversation piece that continues to take away from our class week in and week out. This is due to the fact that the rewards given to us by the internet. These rewards are extreme giving us the ability to communitcate and obtain information all over the world. I found after long contemplation that the internet is a "device" however, that does not make it "bad." Now I understand that is not Borgmann's argument, whether the device is bad for us. Yet, the internet serves more than one purpose and does take away from many moments that could be spent in books or lunches between friends who have not spoken in years. The social networking sites in today's society would really assist Borgmann's argument. Now I know there will be people who disagree but the only reinforces his argument that we are in the paradigm and that it is extremely difficult to get out.

Blog #5: Koyaanisqatsi...

Upon watching director Godfrey Reggio’s film Koyaanisqatsi, I’ll admit that I was somewhat perplexed at first.

“Is this a really, really, really long introduction, or is it just me? I guess it’s just me. No, I’m pretty sure that this voiceless prelude is a little bit longer than what I’m accustomed to.”

Following Dr. Langguth’s brief description of the film prior to our watching it, I had expected to become the invisible observer of an ancient Hopi civilization. But as I waited for the scenery detailing our natural world to subside, I realized that there would be no concrete diagramming of Hopi life through the actions of actors and actresses. Instead, the simplistic and natural lifestyle of the Hopi culture would be conveyed through a very telling contrasting of Earth’s primitive beauty with our technologically ensconced modern world. Or even more minimally, the theme of the film is conveyed through the picture’s very title, Koyaanisqatsi, which, originating from the Hopi, means “a life out of balance.”

The film is extremely unconventional, but its unconventionality is utilized to its advantage because it forces the viewer to contemplate for himself/herself the ideas of the film. I don’t think that I have ever watched a feature film which forsook speaking and verbal narration as a means to convey meaning to the viewer (avant-garde to say the least). Seriously, how many production companies today would be willing to help produce a film which failed to rely upon the spoken word? In our digital era, the percentage would be next to zero. Nonetheless, I don’t think that we should let Koyaanisqatsi’s alternative mode of communication turn us off to the message it relates and the considerations it invokes. I heard an undercurrent of moaning and horror as our class realized the entire movie would be watched without talking. Maybe this very fact proves that we are, as a society, too over-stimulated for our own good. Maybe this is just what we require (i.e. to sit and allow our minds to be liberated from the usual constraints of language and persuasion) if we truly wish to engender a genuine reflection upon the overall balance of our lives. I think that we should at least be willing to offer the movie a chance at stirring that musing. I was somewhat skeptical at first; but after watching several minutes of the film, I grew to understand why the director forsook language. In line with what we have been reading in Borgmann, sometimes it’s more informative if we forsake the apodeictic and turn to the deictic or paradeictic. In order to understand the paradigm, it sometimes helps to turn to a form of explanation which “articulates a thing or event in its uniqueness,” essentially “point[ing] up something in its significance” (page 72). As Borgmann relates, the subject comes to possess more preeminence than the method of discovery if we follow this path. Step away from scientific modes of deduction and the characterization of theses and antitheses and let your mind revel in staring at the outright existence and implications of what we are attempting to observe.

Although we only watched bits of the film, we received a taste of what its main premise is. One need only remember the urban scenes of refuse and waste to realize that our life is out of balance. Can the point be demonstrated any better through language? There’s a certain beauty, a certain simplicity, that we lack in our daily interactions with each other and the world around us. And although we haven’t been presented with an explicit picture of the Hopi world, the landscapes do offer us a glimpse of what that life must have held for those people. Today, the beauty and organic features of our earth have faded away, in both our environments and our minds, to the rigidity and linearity of our buildings, residences, and ways of taking up with the world. Just look at how our lifestyles revolve around technology and its promise. Just look at how stressful and clamorous our existences are. Just look. Let the scenes speak for themselves and listen. Maybe what we need to learn is how to just be…

Chesterton on Borgmann

This is my first attempt at blogging, so I hope I get this right :)

I have found that despite his bouts of sesquipedalian loquaciousness, I am agreeing with Mr. Borgmann. I found page 93 in Chapter 14 (Technology and Democracy) particularly intriguing:

"...a question of whether we can establish a just society without a commitment to a good society in a strong sense."

"To make divorces, abortions, and entry into the labor market easy...is of course to withdraw formal social support form the traditional family, from the reverence for emerging human life..."

"The law can conform to matters of ultimate concern or morality only when there is something like unanimity. There are probably more shared views on morality in this country than we realize."

There were also many more passages regarding the impartiality of a liberal democracy in realms such as morality. I am an avid reader of the great apologist/philosopher/writer/drunken master/all around cool guy G.K. Chesterton. I have found many quotes from his various works comment nicely on the ideas in this chapter. I thus present Chesterton's commentary on Borgmann (bracketed comments are my own):

"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."

This provides a good comparison with Borgmann's idea of shared views on morality. A good commentary on the idea of being pluralistic or broad-minded is this:

"Modern broad-mindedness benefits the rich; and benefits nobody else."

"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance."

Borgmann also writes:

"It [liberal democracy] needs technology because the latter promises to furnish the neutral opportunities necessary to establish a just society...It fears technology because technology may in fact deliver more than it had promised, namely, a definite version of the good society and, more important yet, on which is "good" in a dubious sense."

Chesterton writes:

"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we [or rather technology] are always changing the vision."

Borgmann, then, I think, would have got along with Chesterton quite well. He seems worried about what he writes (or rather, what other people have proposed). Some closing remarks from Chesterton that I found quite relevant to this chapter and the class in general:

"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man."

"None of the modern machines, none of the modern paraphernalia. . . have any power except over the people who choose to use them."

Is Technology Improving Fast Enough

When watching the video I realized how complicated things have become from technology. I don't know if everything getting more complicated is a bad thing because even though the technology is complicated if you know how to use it it makes things a lot easier. The way things were isn't necessarily the best thing they might have been simpler to use and fix but they weren't as efficient. Technology may cause a lot problems with the environment and other things, but eventually we will solve the problems with it. I just hope its in time.

Blog 3- A Brief Look at Technology in Medicine

Although we haven't discussed this yet in class (and I hope that we eventually do), I want to briefly talk about the growth of technology in treating patients. A recent commercial by GE is out that shows a man and his doctor in the examining room, with the doctor unsure of the patient's history. At this point, we see a lecture hall sized amount of doctors appear in the background, explaining to the man's doctor the patient's history (these doctors are representative of the medical knowledge stored in a computer). With everything we need to know about a patient now available at easy access, what point is there anymore with patient-to-doctor interactions ("bedside manner") , or doctor-to-nurse interactions? Although this may make things "easier", per-se, for the medical personel (meaning doctors can know sooner what they are dealing with, and diagnose more quickly), it will probably reduce the human interactions between patients and their caretakers, which I believe is half of being a good doctor.

In addition, the growth of surgical technology almost makes doctors and nurses obsolete, since they are unable to move with the precision of a robot arm.

Simply put, although technology is obviously a good thing for patients and the evolution of medicine, I also believe that as a result of this growth patients are losing the experience of being treated compassionately by their doctors (a quicker way to diagnose a patient and move on sounds very appealing to fast working, stressed out doctors).

Medal Count=$$$

With the heart of the Winter Olympics about to be upon us I wanted to write a blog that had to do with the issue. After looking at the leading countries for the medal count it came to my attention that all of the countries had one thing in common, money. It is hard to differentiate the list of total medals by country to the list of total GDP. It is vital that in the winter games that the athletes have the best training. However, it is also a necessity that the athletes are given the best equipment in which to perform in. The speed skaters need the best skates that will not dull down over their long races. The downhill skiers need the best suit in order to be more aerodynamic. The hockey players need the best stick in order to get more power on their slap shot. All of this cost money in order to develop. I’m sure that the budget for the Olympic committee to develop this equipment is endless, but at what point does it become less about the athletes’ ability and more about the technological advancements of the country?
This is why I like the summer games a lot more compared to the winter. In an event such as the 100 meter dash, it doesn’t matter what type of cleats the athletes wear, the one that is the fastest is going to win the race. Jamaica’s Usain Bolt won in a World Record time, not because he had superior equipment or training, but because he was the fastest human being of all time. Also, you never seem to hear about poorer countries’ athletes ever getting banned because of the use of illegal substances. This is because their country could never develop a drug that would mask the mandatory drug tests. It makes me wonder what athletes from less fortunate countries could do if they were given the same advantages as ours. Do we really have the best athletes year after year in the Olympics or do we just have the best technology?

AHH LUKE WILSON!!!

Our class is titled Ethics and Technology. In class, somebody mentioned that a robot now has the capability to learn things that have not been programmed. This idea frightens me very much. If we create things that can feel and learn- then there is no point of humans. They will take over the world! Robots don't eat, have disease, love, humor, etc. I want to take a moment and talk about one of my roommates, for her sake, we will use the name Sarah. In October of '09, Sarah woke up in the morning yelling "AHHHH LUKE WILSON!!!!!" It was very humorous to myself and my other roommates. It still is an inside joke in our room. Sarah told us about her dream and how Wilson was trying to make her change her phone plan to AT&T, and of course she didn't want too. He chased her as she ran, until she woke up. Technology is taking over and even the most innocent of people have nightmares about that AT&T commercial. What is considered too much in the ideas of technology in our lives?
Even after we have fallen asleep, our lives are affected by techology. Many of us rely on our alarm clocks, our cellphones, or our freshly brewed coffee to wake us up. Then throughout the day, we drive our cars, listen to music, use our laptops, and use electricity. I think you get my idea. Are we too dependant on technology everyday that we loose focus on the values that our ancestors had. I realize times are changing, but are we slowly moving backwards to the time of no communication. No communication, but texting. Are we incapable to show our true emotions with people face to face or are we so inthrawled with the idea of proving our love through sending each other Valentine's Hearts on facebook/ myspace, that we loose ourselves in the fake world of technology?
How much is too much? What is appropriate or not? Can we survive if everything shuts down on us? Do we have the traditional skills to survive? These are questions I feel we need to look at when we create our new technology.

Killing Communication

During this class one of the things that came to my mind was wondering how interpersonal communication has been impacted. I could try to talk about how people talked and such 40 years ago but I have no first hand experience. The crazy part is that being only 21 years old I can still note a significant difference in how things are today than they were fifteen, ten, or even five year ago or so. As a child I remember getting letters from my family out west, getting regular phone calls from relatives, and simply riding my bike to my friends house to hang out.

Instead, these days I find myself occasionally getting an email from my family out west, maybe getting a call from relatives, and instead of seeing my friends I get texts from them. The worst thing I have seen has been people sitting the the same room... possibly beside each other, texting... Yes, this can be for fun or cute or whatever, but it is still sad that we have integrated technology so deeply into our daily life that instead of turning our heads and speaking we have to send a digital message to someone who may be feet away. I feel like a grumpy old man...

Golf Simulation

When we were talking about Borgman’s hike simulation during class it reminded me of a product that I have seen before. It is a golf simulator and it is quite unbelievable. The player has the ability to use his own clubs, his own golf balls and has the opportunity to play at courses from St. Andrew’s, Scotland to Pebble Beach, California. This is great for the golf junkies that can’t play during the cold winter months. The sensors on the machine are very accurate and the graphics are phenomenal as well. It is relatively inexpensive to play at a place like Dave and Buster’s, which is another benefit of the system, but nothing compares to going out and getting the full experience of playing the sport. Just like Borgman’s thought process of the hike simulation, you do not get the full effect of actually taking place in the activity no matter how realistic the simulation seems to be.

Are Things Getting to Complicated

When I usually think of using a computer to something I think of a hassle. Its not that when I use a computer I don't know what I am doing its that I am used to something going wrong and not knowing how to fix it. An example is when my computer got a virus I had to call a customer support line because my antivirus didn't do its job of finding the virus and getting rid of it. This makes me wonder why they make some things in technology not work the way they are supposed to.

If something on my computer broke I wouldn't know how to fix and would have to send it in to get fixed and would have to wait a couple months to get it back. I would also have to pay a lot of money to fix it if the warranty was up. Maybe things are made so complicated because they want to be able to make money after they sell you the product. It seems like they make it to where something is definitely going to go wrong.

I don't know though if everything getting so complicated is a bad thing. It kind of makes things a lot more simpler to just send something out to get fixed instead of fixing it your self. The more complicated the thing gets the less work you have to put into it.

Has Technology Helped or Complicated Life?

My initial consideration to this question is that of course technology is almost always a good thing however after further reflection I realized that it all really depends on the context of how you are using it. For example a few days ago I had a very short paper to write. First I had to turn on my computer, login, respond to all of the annoying update notifications, and finally launch word. In addition to those steps in which I had to take just to get to the word processor there are a number of things required by the device that you don’t often think about. The computer requires electricity, a monitor, appropriate software, and of course a printer. This seems like a lot of extra work especially when you compare this option to the “old fashioned” typewriter which required basically two things, paper and ribbon. With a computer there are so many more things that can go wrong in the in the list of prerequisites just to enable you to word process. Of course the computer does allow some amenities such as spell checking, and error correction but the true question that will be different for everyone is if the advantages outweigh the complications? For people who are only using their computer for word processing it seems a bit excessive. Computers are always becoming obsolete and everyone is always running to upgrade to the latest and greatest but what exactly is the benefit for us personally? We may be the type of person who will greatly benefit from all of the great new features but as for everyone else its almost like a compulsion that they have to have the latest and greatest devices even if they don’t have the slightest clue what the benefits will be.

Isn’t our goal to be as productive as possible with the least amount of hassle? Many of our devices today do so much more than we would ever want or need, yet we still buy them. Modern game systems such as the Nintendo Wii and the Xbox360 are no longer just a video game. These systems now offer access to social networking, media streaming, and access to the World Wide Web. The system allow for a fictional virtual reality in which the user becomes engrossed in. The systems have become so intricate that they distance us from reality as the user gets lost in the virtual world of the device.

These game consoles have distanced us from the true human interaction desperately needed by everyone. People no longer turn to each other for entertainment as they now have devices to provide it for them. Board games used to be an acceptable form of entertainment but just like type writers they have been replaced with overly sophisticated devices. Technology has had an incredible impact on our lives but whether or not it has simplified or complicated or lives depends on how we use it. Does the simplification and efficiency of technology outweigh the complication for you?

Technology: Please Use Responsibly

In the book Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life, Albert Borgmann discusses many issues with advancement in technology. Borgmann broke the book up into 3 separate parts. In part two, Borgmann focuses on the character of technology. Chapter 15 is titled the rule of technology. Borgmann made a statement about the importance of taking responsibility when using technology. The idea of taking responsibility with technology should be applied in all aspects; such as people not to be responsible and take care of their pieces of technology, but also be responsible what they do with the technology.
Many of the latest gadgets and technology equipment has become more fragile and more compact. This has resulted with more broken or lost pieces of equipment. As soon as someone breaks or loses their cell phone, their world stops. People feel they are completely out of contact with the rest of the world even when they are only without a phone for a short period of time. People need to realize that cell phones and computers and other fancy gadgets are luxuries, with those luxuries they need to be responsible otherwise they will not be able to benefit from the advances in technology.
In grade schools, high schools and even colleges, there have been a number of incidents of young people not using technology properly. Facebook and Myspace are the biggest examples of people displaying too much information that ends with them facing serious consequences. There are many things that this covers, such as, young kids displaying facebook statuses stating where they are going and who they will be with, or having their phone number or address on their web page. I have also seen incidents where a young student writes something about a teacher or fellow student, yes it is a minor problem, however it still results in consequences at their school. Inappropriate pictures or videos can leak through the Internet and private things can become very public. Having a facebook or myspace is very useful when keeping in contact with family and friends, but people need to be careful with what they display because some people can get around the system and get information that certain people should not have.

Blog #4: Technology’s Conundrum in Freedom…

Sometimes there’s nothing I like better than to relax, to feel free and at ease. You can empathize with me I’m sure. I bet some of the best moments in your life have arrived whilst you were relaxing, freed from the environs of the world around you. How happy were you the day your winter vacation started this past December? What about when your summer vacation commenced last May, the day all your academic commitments and worries were staved off for another three months time? I’ll admit it, I was pretty happy. Let’s continue to push our inquiries a little further. Right after that big test…how relieved did you feel? What about when the freedom is much simpler, even bordering on the commonplace? How gratified and comfortable are you when you are freely involved in your favorite activity (whether it be reading, skiing, fishing, playing guitar, or maybe watching a good movie with a long-time friend)? Even in those things which seem very trivial at first glance, our sense of well-being and security is often manifested the most when they free us the most. Think about it. The creative, human spirit is also often enhanced from freedom as well. The inspiration for a great many poem, nocturne, and novel has arisen during moments of great freedom. When we are most at ease, our imagination is usually able to run wild, grasping at those obscure notions which would have otherwise gone undiscovered amidst stress. Now given, I know that human ingenuity and creativity have flourished within contexts of stress and trial. But for the most part, I think you probably see the point I’m trying to convey: when we are the most liberated, the most free from constraints, we are, many times, situated in a context which augments our ability to be free, to be creative, and to live well.

Aren’t we safe to say that the world of technology aids in creating this context? Upon first glance, I would be tempted to say, without reservation, “yes.” I mean seriously. Have you seen how liberated and free our society has become since technology’s dawn in modernity? Hands-free cell phones, wireless laptops, cordless video game controllers, cars which now ignite at the press of a button (no key turning required…that may have been too hard I guess), commercial airliners, mechanized creations which now do most of our agricultural and industrial work, software which streamlines and hastens the writing and communication of our own language, and most other contemporary technological developments you can name all attest to the high degree to which we have been liberated to do what we want to do? Right? We are now freer than ever before to concentrate on what we want to concentrate on, to indulge in activities which foster our creative spirits, to sigh a “sigh of relief” that we no longer have to sow and harvest crops over half the year. Instead of wasting three hours writing a handwritten letter to a friend, we can write an identical letter in thirty minutes using our computer keyboard (or maybe even this diminished time is grossly over-exaggerated in light of the voice recognition software which currently exist) and then spend the two hours and thirty minutes we’ve been freed to possess to catch up on other leisure activities or maybe even those of the non-leisure variety. What freedom!

But alas, I am confused. Technology, as was mentioned today, many times seems to leave us less free than we were before we found it. How many times have you just sat down to do what you wanted to do and then the phone rang, or a text beeped, or a Facebook chat icon popped up behind the frame you were working in, or an e-mail sidetracked you for over an hour? I think you get my point. And that’s our current technology on its good days. What about on its bad days? How many times has technology failed you, wrenching from you your freedom, and royally fouled up your entire day, or week, or maybe month? What about the dreaded, “Microsoft has failed to recover your document” phrase? What about that time your alarm clock batteries died and you missed an entire day’s worth of appointments or that time your car broke down and you lost an entire half-week’s worth of time trying to get the thing fixed? Modern technology, it would seem, works to free and constrict the human race in ways our ancestors would have considered absolutely farcical. Sometimes we are so shackled to the “freedoms” allotted by our technology that we aren’t really free at all. Amidst the freedom and entitlement to new horizons which technology proffers us, we must continually struggle with those byproducts and failures which recurrently plague it. Borgmann may sympathize with this view. But I don’t want to sound overly condemnatory of technology. I’m not. I really do enjoy our technologically adept society. But we must think about our ways of coping and relating with technology and the greater, natural world around us. The subject at least deserves more thought.

Introverts and Virtual Teamwork

During today’s discussion, the notion that modern technology is causing a transition from communal work to individual work was brought up. While I neither dispute this idea nor the fact that the lack of physical, face-to-face teamwork has various drawbacks, I also know that it is still possible for a group of people to work as an effective, cohesive unit on various online communities. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the internet has made it possible for introverted individuals to enjoy engagement in active teamwork and community participation. Besides the luxury of anonymity, the internet only requires users to possess a proficient writing technique and an active mental presence rather than physical or verbal assertiveness. The web erases the lines of social status and reputation, which presents the phenomenon of choosing one's own identity. This introvert haven provides them with the security of being able exit out of uncomfortable situations with one click. Furthermore, all input is voluntary—in most cases without time restrictions—and therefore complimentary to the reflective thinker in that no one is staring at you in anticipation of a prompt answer. In short, the internet provides a stage for those who would otherwise hesitate to make their voices heard.

I can verify this theory through my own personal experience as an introverted internet user. In the Fall of 2008, I found myself registering at an official fanclub forum on a frivolous whim, but after six months of visiting and contributing to this online community, I was asked to join the senior staff as a global moderator. Now I interact with an organized team of twenty staff members from across the globe on a daily basis and manage over 13,000 users to maintain a forum that many have deemed to be their second home. I find it incredible that someone like me who has always lingered on the edge of the social scene now has the opportunity to take center stage by simply switching over from the physical realm to the cyber realm.

Favourite Science Fiction

Anyone care to discuss their favourite sci-fi flicks, books, or universes? I myself tend to favour post-apocalyptic and/or dystopian sci-fi (though my top 5 says different ;)

Pierce's Top 5 Sci-fi Books (no particular order)
-Space Trilogy C.S. Lewis
-Starship Troopers Robert Heinlein
-Fullmetal Alchemist Hiromu Arakawa
-Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind Hayao Miyazaki
-Warhammer 40,000 technically not a book, but a very interesting gothic-sci-fi universe. Imagine a combination of Starship Troopers, Terminator, HP Lovecraft, Tolkien, Star Wars, and the Spanish Inquisition!

Films
-Aliens
-Battlestar Galactica the original series
-Star Wars original trilogy

Blade Runner & Aliens looking more and more likely

Immortal Bio-warriors

Assuming they could make it work, this is truly frightening.

Capitalism

After reading Borgmann's book about the idea of Technology and Democracy I find some of the ideas talked about different from my own thoughts and opinions. I believe that Capitalism is what drives this country to be so technologically advanced. Though the whole idea of Capitalism and individual wealth has been the for front of some of our government leaders I think that the discussion of our Government with technology is really interesting. I know that Borgmann has his personal opinions and some of the people mentioned in his book do too. So I think after reading this section on Technology and Democracy I came up with my own opinion, which I hope many people respond too so we can get a good perspective on this issues.

The idea of capitalism is, according to wikepedia " is an economic and social system in which capital the non labor factors of production or means of production is privately owned". I think that as people strive to have the best company and the most profit able to obtain this allows for new technological advances to come about. I like the idea that our country is in many discussion to be considered one of the top technologically advanced countries in the world, and I believe capitalism is what got this country to that point. Borgmann does give a good point on the idea of the corporation is taking away from the focal things. Borgmann gave a good example on how their are fast food restaurants everywhere and sit down dinning in every city, which takes away the whole idea of the traditional meal. The idea of preparing the food, and the closeness you gain from this meal while your eating are all lost when you go order a big mac off the dollar menu and drive off in your car. I think this point is in all honesty right we do lose those things, but I think it is a win some lose some battle. We do lose our focal things through the device paradigm, but we also gain. With companies like for say McDonald's they are always out to maximize profits for the company which in return allows us to be comfortable and have easy access to food. I think capitalism also opens the doors for new jobs and new opportunities for people.

Though we can look at the previous example as a good example, we also must look at technology and capitalism. The ever growing need to develop the best product and the best price to consumers allows for our country to compete with one another. I think this in return allows job growth and development of our own cities and states. One good argument with the capitalism market society is one that Borgmann gives about liberal democracy. The idea that society needs to strive to make members feel more equal and free to realize their capabilities. I think that this also needs to be done but through hard work. I totally disagree with everyone is equal. I believe that everyone should have the same rights laws and protection as one another but I believe each of us is our own independent self. I think that capitalism separates many classes of people due to economic status and your social well being, which in my opinion sucks for everybody. Though should everyone be able to obtain the same wealth and privileges. I believe no. I think this takes away from each individual wanting to compete and strive to be better than someone else. I like the idea that I can buy and sell things, go to school, find a job, and compete to be better than someone else. This allows for growth and people wanting to strive to be better rather than stagnate if we are all giving the same thing. ( I always think of this example: If i work hard in a group project and no one else does why do they deserve the A too if they did nothing). This all ties in with technology. I like how technology allows for many corporations and people to compete with one another. We always show off the new cell phones or the new gadget we just bought. This in return makes people want to get that gadget which should strive people to work harder make more money and get what they want. Technology has allowed our capitalism market to grow and I think for the better. (Please Respond).

Technology Frightens Me

Someone in class recently mentioned a robot that was able to learn things that were not already programmed. After first hearing this, I was amazed and slightly impressed that this is possible. But after thinking harder on the topic, it became a little frightening. I would like to think that what sets human apart from animals and other beings in this world is our ability of higher thinking and a great capacity for learning. The fact that we can now create something out of metal and other products that can learn and adapt to the world around us scares me. It reminds of Sci-fi films where the robots rise up and attack the human or decide that they no longer need to follow human commands. While this may be far fetched, a few years ago a thinking robot was far fetched. Whatever happened to the values of humans? Why are we constantly trusting machines to do our jobs for us? When will technology go to far? I think we need to step back and really examine what is necessary and what we have created out of laziness.

Much of the technology around us is unnecessary. Do we really need an electronic device to read? I believe that that is why books are printed. It is not that hard to carry around a book instead of a Kindle or the Sony Reader. A physical book has much more intrinsic value that you cannot get with a plastic piece of technology. I do like the idea of being to download a book quickly and have it almost instantly at my finger tips, but I do not want to spend a couple hundred dollars on this technology when I could buy dozens and dozens of used books for that price. Another piece of unnecessary technology are cell phones that can do everything a computer can do. While it is convenient to be able to check your email when you're out on the run, it is not entirely necessary. These are fairly new pieces of technology that we lived without for years, yet now people seem like if your phone cannot access the Internet it is dull and useless. And do you really need dozens of applications, also commonly called apps, on your cell phone? No one needs to play racing games or role playing games on their cell phones. For the younger generation, look at your parents and grandparents. They have been able to lead a large part of their lives without this technology. We may be able to learn a thing or two from them and reconsider the human value that individuals bring and become a more accomplished and technology independent society.

The Device Paradigm

I think that Borgman is almost right. As technology gets more advanced the more secluded people become in most cases. Some people will just stay home on the computer or video games instead of going out and seeing real people. Some people probably go an entire day without face to face interaction.

But some people use technology to be able to make more connections and possibly find more people to do things with. I know someone who uses facebook to find people who like to do what they do and then will go do those things with them. I think that some technology advances are for the best if you use them properly.

Also another thing that technology does is to make it to where kids don't want to go outside and play. They will just stay inside all day and not do anything. When I was a kid I would be outside everyday playing. I had video games but I liked being outside more. Maybe, some technology is make people lazy. It make them lazy because everything they need is all in one place and they don't have to go out and get it.

I think that technology is good if not abused.

Borgmann might be right....(Blog 1)

As I think back to our class discussions a dawning thought comes to my mind. Maybe this Borgmann character is right! Whoa, wtf did I just say? I have come to the conclusion that I do agree with Albert and his idea of the device paradigm. The more and more I open my mind to this idea, the more I see this happening. No matter how you look at it, there are little pieces of our souls being lost every time some new gadget comes out. We don't care how a device was developed, all we care about is that it works and will fulfill our wants/needs. We put so much into modern technology and for what? It's like an abusive relationship, and we are the victims. We are always attending to our gizmo's and constantly relying on them, only to find out they've failed us... But we keep coming back in hopes that this next "device" will be better. When will this vicious cycle end, it won't. Technology will be continually pushed until there is nothing left. What will become of us when this time comes?

The Device Paradigm

Albert Borgmann brought forth this idea of the device paradigm. I haven't been able to completely agree with Borgmann on this topic. How can you state that there is a pattern to modern technology when modern technology follows many different paths in itself?
Our technology today is advancing in some many different ways I cannot comprehend how a paradigm can be established for it.
Borgmann says that the technology behind modern technology has become opaque to the users. Here I do agree with him, but isn't that the pattern with all technology? Wouldn't you think that the other cavemen would stare in amazement at the first wheel? What about the first steam engine? You can bet they did!
No one understands something as soon as it comes out, because its new. If everyone understood everything there would be no inventions as they would have already been done. It takes some new minds to coem up with something, and then 30-50 years down the road people, as they become more adapted in the new technology they understand it.
I will agree with him on the fact that most modern people do not understand the workings of a computer, but the people didn't understand the first train either. Give it time and this knowledge will come as similar knowledge already has.

Blog #3: Change and the Stasis of Our Lives…

How willing are we, as humans, to embrace change? As we discussed recently, the Luddites weren’t that impressed with change, especially change of the technological variety. But, it would seem as though our society is extremely preoccupied, and undoubtedly in a great many fashions, with the notion of “change.” Within the political sphere, change (i.e. progressive policies and legislation which work to better suit the current socioeconomic climate) oftentimes plays a critical role in garnering support. Our last great ‘national debate’ centered, at times, around the concept of change (e.g. “A Change We Can Believe In”). The desirability of change is implicit not only within the political realm but within others as well. Think about the way in which both you and I take up with life on a daily basis. Many of our daily activities are subject to our own preference for change. Take our food, for instance. Our daily diets are composed of a variety of forms of nourishment, as they should be. Moreover, our capricious taste, in and of itself, frequently orders up change; in fact, our tastes often demand change. Reactions to ‘leftovers’ demonstrate my point here. Our fondness for an array of food choices usually leads us to reject even a kind offering of last night’s meatloaf and potatoes. Isn’t that interesting, how our predilections for certain foods immediately change after we partake of those foods? Now, I know that there are definitely exceptions to the “leftover principle,” but the point is well taken, I think. We don’t want the same old “Hexagrain Crisps” (i.e. off-brand Chex Cereal) every morning for breakfast. That’s why we usually add yogurt and granola or change our cereal choice to Cinnamon Toast Crunch every now and then. We relish change. The absence thereof gets quite monotonous after a while. Just think about your own home. How many changes has your house gone through during the time in which you have resided in it? If I scraped through the paint on your walls, would I encounter varying colors the deeper I dug? What about the evolution of your room? Just think about how much time, not to mention the energy, you have spent rearranging your room. Over the course of my 15 years in my current house, I do believe that my bed has touched every wall in my room at one time or another. What about something even as simple as your bed sheets? Disney prints are usually popular selections for kids at first. As we age, we outgrow Princess Jasmine and Aladdin and move on to other themes, maybe of the animal or sports variety. However, we soon come to outgrow even the lion or baseball bat and adopt the mild, tone-matched, sheet pattern which may or may not possess an affinity towards stripes. Our common usage of the word “outgrow” here within this context is really interesting if you think about it. When we change our sheets, we usually don’t physically outgrow the linens we replace. We do, however, outgrow them from a dispositional standpoint. Our idea of what we once thought was rather cool has changed. Our aptness to outgrow certain things betrays our preference for change. Even when we’re older, we often welcome a fresh change of scenery, pace, and lifestyle. Within the digital and electronic world, humanity usually welcomes those changes which disburden us from the taxing qualities of older devices and appliances. It would seem as though we can’t escape change any more than we could flee from our own emotions and tastes.

However I’m perplexed, because a great many times in our lives we aren’t very open to change, and the power of this force seems, at times, equal to or greater than that of our affection for change. Although the label “set in their ways” is frequently applied to an older generation, I would argue that many younger men and women are just as comfortable with the static state of certain areas of their life. I would even go so far as to argue that a little Luddite, be it small or large, exists within each and every one of us.

At times, I’ll admit…I don’t like change. I remember as I kid, my family would always visit my paternal grandparents for Thanksgiving. Our Thanksgiving meal would always be composed of certain home-cooked staples: broccoli casserole, from-scratch mashed potatoes, green beans, lightly brown-sugared yams, fall-off-the-bone turkey, corn pudding, buttered rolls, and (of course) grandma’s homemade macaroni and cheese. The meal, however, usually played second fiddle when we actually sat down to eat together because conversation and familial remembering would take over, permeating the air and tightening the intimate bonds which were already closely knit. I recall those days and lament the fact that they have long since passed. I possess a certain antipathy towards change in this instance. Hostility to change can even take place, contrary to what is commonly propounded, within the technological domain; and here is where the Luddite within us peaks forth. Once again, an example from my childhood seems to beckon my telling it. As a kid, my cousins and I would always write letters to one another several times a year, most likely because they only visited once or twice in that same time span. Nothing was more exciting than opening a letter from my cousins. What stickers would they stick on the letter? What little magazine cut-outs would they place in the envelope? The suspense and sheer eagerness of opening that envelope and unfolding that tangible piece of stationary was always thrilling. And would you know it…I don’t ever get that same feeling when I open an e-mail.

Why?

Is it because of the transient and nearly ethereal constitution of the e-mail? Is it because of the lack of personality inherent in any regimented form of digital correspondence? Or is it because not enough time has accrued between my opening of the last message and the present one to fill me with anticipation? I would likely argue that all of these serve as ostensible reasons for my fondness of written mail. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the rapidity and ease of electronic communication, I do; it’s more likely that I appreciate the breadth of experience which comes with opening postal letters. I miss my pen pal days. I miss the days where people would actually communicate in writing. I know of very few instances where people still send handwritten letters to one another. The rise of the internet and cellular phone during my lifetime has negated the need to communicate via “snail-mail.” Swiftly approaching is the day when humanity will no longer correspond by means of handwritten, mailed letters. Although I’m not technophobic, and hence probably not a committed Luddite in the truest sense of the term, I am definitely more resistant to change in this area than in various others. Why are we sometimes resistant to change? Is it because of sentimentality? Probably more times than not. I will admit that, in both of my examples above, my resistance to change was due to a preoccupation with a certain degree of a sentimental nature. Those things and circumstances which become deeply enmeshed with our emotions and most sensitive feelings are those which oftentimes call us to resist any events which would jeopardize their continued existence. We don’t want to change those things to which we have become attached. The Luddite in me, at times, says “Keep the snail-mail.” What does the Luddite in you say?

iWant an iPad!!! ...but not really.

In this post I will be shortly discussing the new Apple iPad, and why it is yet another technological blunder. Essentially, the iPad is an oversized iPod Touch which offers the same applications as its predecessor, as well as the Amazon.com "Kindle"; however, even with such a plethora of features, I feel that the only reason to buy an iPad would be for the Kindle-like book reading technology. Thus, we come to a question: why buy an iPad if there is already the Kindle? Reading some forums, people have said that they love the design, as it is just like an iPod Touch- flat, sleek, and easy to operate. I think they are missing a little bit of the common sense in such a design. With one accidental drop of the iPad, i'm quite sure that the screen would be damaged, if not at least some parts of the inner workings; measuring .5 inches thin might be convenient for putting into a backpack, but it is very inconvenient for the durability of the item (I wouldn't be surprised if it snapped in half after a drop).

In looking at the book reading technology of the iPad and the Kindle, I think that it's a great idea, but at the same time people should not totally disregard books. The idea of owning a tangible book, and not an electronic file, is not only a more "safe way" of owning the reading (no worries about hardware issues), but it also offers a greater feeling of accomplishment once you finish reading it.

Again, as I stated in my last post, I think people are so concerned about convenience that they lose the enjoyable experience the old technology brings. I just fear that one day the old technology will become considerably obsolete, and that you will only find such items, like books, in museums.

Neat Neurological Advances

Nueroscience is drastically going to change our future. It sounds ridiculously science-fictiony to say we (yes, this generation) will be capable of being truly cybornetic. Most people don't have access to several of the interesting publications, or news articles, or videos relaying the gravity of the new paradigm that is on the horizon, in the next decade, maybe 20 years.
http://www.singularity.com/charts/page71.html
This link gives important graphs of changes that indicate growth into the singularity.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/digital-cat-brain-runs-blue-gene-supercomputer
The model of a cat brain. The human brain just requires more computers.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2160815834239891699#
BBC Did a 48 minute special on the topics of cybornetics, very insightful and covers a variety of topics and miles stones.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computing.html
An short engaging conversation with an electrical engineer who founded PALM computing and study theoretical neuroscience.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/20/technology/circuits/20NEXT.html?pagewanted=all
Brain Prostethics.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4226614.html
Brain Scans to read thoughts.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0720_050720_bluebrain.html
Computer Simulation of human brain, neuron for neuron.
http://www.touchbionics.com/ProDigits
Robotic prosthetics that are delicate enough to pick up chocolates out of a box.

These are only some examples of the massive amounts of research being funded around the world. Most people bat away the possibilities as simply sci-fi but this list of websites is just to get a glimpse of the strenght and momentum of the things that are to come. Just like the internet revolutionized the world, wheather or not your camera phone is part of your cerebal cortex may t be the big thing for our grandchildren, and whether or not we will be at the end of our lives is well, a different discussion.

Why Evolve Technology Anyway?

A solid question to explore is "why continuely build and expand technology that already efficiently achieves the desired end?" Let's step out of the device paradigm world and look at a simple technological advancement. Stone to metal. Stone certainly was readily available, and capable of being crafted into a variety of tools to achieve survival, now this example seems obivous. Well, obviously metal is sharper and stronger, but then why use iron instead of bronze? Well, obviously iron is stronger and sharper than bronze. Ahh... Well, if we continue this incremental advancement eventually we hit a point where the technological device reaches a local maximum of efficency, effectivness, availablity, etc. That logical reshaping of the device to continually strenght its qaulity and effectiveness seems only reasonable for a, say, tribal society trying to maximize their hunt. But this incremental advancement isn't always so clear, or simply and advancement to beter achieve a desireed end. Lets look a the telephone, At first it was very localized, then grew in distance, and grew in sound quality, and microphone qaulity... Each one of these incremental steps seems obvious, just like the arrowhead, of why you would improve upon. At what point does an advancement or change become unnecessary and just advancement for the sake of advancement? For the telephone, the jump from phone to camera/phone is hard to directly see how, having a camera somehow enhances the conversation over the phone? Sometimes advancements become unnecessary, take the baby monitor, is it NECESSARY to have a hand held LCD 3 way communication ifra-red video montior to watch your baby sleep? Why do we keep just addin' more and more techno-perks to products that their grandfatherly ancestors achieved at the same level of effecitveness?

Does Technology Lead to Greate Fulfillment in Life?

Jerome Wiesner, former president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that the goal of technology was "to lead mankind toward a life of greater fulfillment." Bormann of course completely disagrees with this statement because he believes that technology has an inherent detrimental affect on technology and as it becomes more embedded into our lives its deep-rooted affects become less visible.

Our lives are constantly becoming more convenient however there is a huge loss of tradition. Some of my fondest family memories are during times when technology was completely set aside; cell phones, computers, email, television, etc and our family just has conversations. Technology may make our lives easier however it also prevents families and friends from being as close as they could and should be. It seems to becoming increasingly acceptable for devices to take precedence over real human interaction. Sometimes I believe that even I interact with computers more than humans. Between cell phones with text messaging and internet, laptops, ipods, and mp3 players people typically always have somesort of electronic device on them at all times. Even when passing by someone, rather than the now "historical" smile or friendly greeting people are more likely to keep their head buried in their device as if people are no longer important or they are just simply uncomfortable with eye-contact.

Although some may think the traditional family dinner is now insignificant and a thing of the past, there is an undeniable satisfaction and enjoyment that comes from the interaction and bonding that could never be replicated by an electronic device. I was always raised in a family that made every effort to sit down and have a family dinner. We would always share our day’s experiences and work on homework as a family activity. It seems to be much more acceptable for families to set aside little to no interaction or conversation about their days events. With their actions of emailing, chatting, and watching TV the overwhelming message seems to be that technology is now taking a center stage in our lives. Family and friends are supposed to be important aspects of our lives but we are increasingly spending less time being involved in those activities and more time with electronics.
I tend to agree with Bormann with the fact that technology is replacing the everyday things in our life. Traditional values are an extremely important aspect of human life and the elimination of them will yield detrimental results. Though they may not be immediately visible these affects will keep compounding until the damage is so great that it will be unrecoverable. Technology has allowed for many conveniences in life but if we don’t use it responsibly and in moderation the effects on our social relationships with others could be a thing of the past. If used correctly technology allows for many ways to bring families closer together but it creates even more ways to drive them apart.

The Good Ole Fireplace

In our Ethics and Technology class, we discussed how the television set is now the focal point of the family at home. Previous to this new "modern technological age", the fireplace was the main focus. The family had to provide the fire wood. First, they had to cut the tree, chop the wood, let it dry, bring it into the house, and feed the fire. It is very rare that in today's technological society that people have wood buring fireplaces.
About ten years ago, my parents moved the television from it's place in the living room to the basement. My brother and sisters, and myself were obviously not very happy. The basement was either too cold or too hot (depending on the season). The living room was a place for living, not sitting. Instead of the television, we have a wood burning fireplace. We live in an old house, in which the fireplace was probably the main source of heat years ago. During the winter, so now, we turn off the heat in the house and burn wood. My dad spends his extra time chopping wood outside. My sister and I usually help bring it in the house to dry, and we all pitch in at feeding the fire. I never realized that moving the television to the basement has affected my life. We do focus on working together to attain our goal- heat.
Often when we host parties at our house, we get compliments about the fireplace and hearth. People are no longer focused on what is on tv, but rather the conversation. They seem more interested in people's lives than what the lastest football play or what dress that celebrity wore to the Grammys. So, what we have talked about in class really does make sense. I have been in a front row seat in the change from fireplace to television, in both the good and bad affects it has had on the social atmosphere in the home. With a television there is no focus on the family, but we recieve quick information. With a fireplace, we have skills, warmth, and conversation.
I never realized my parents were that smart!

The new age of cell phones

In class there have been talks about our new age gadgets, and how much more advanced they have become. When thinking of these gadgets that are out there today, the one I own that I use the most would have to be my cell phone. The cell phone is no longer meant for calling it has so many more uses that would be unheard of ten years ago. The cell phone I have does almost everything for me; it has a vast amount of uses now a day that many people don’t know what they have under their finger tips. With my cell phone I can not only call, text, email, take video/ pictures, and listen to music which most phones today come standard with all that. My phone can browse the internet checking face book, shopping on eBay, and searching on Google. If not on the internet I can listen to Pandora which is internet radio, or get a live weather update and forecast for the week. I can check stocks if need be, and the phone can tell me the moon phases. With the brand new android market place the app store where mostly everything is free to download. I have lots of games to play if boredom sets in at any point. If I have to travel any where unfamiliar I have Google maps at my finger tips. If I don’t know a star I am gazing at I can open up the Google sky maps app and it will tell me every star in the sky. My new personal favorite app is remote droid, which turns my phone into a mouse/ key board. I plug my computer to my T.V. and control everything with my phone; I do not even use my laptop mouse pad or key board any more. I have essentially texted this whole blog from my phone. My phone has made it possible for me to do many things that I couldn’t do before without buying other gadgets and having a million devices on me. The phone I have has eliminated any other gadget id need.

Technology & Family

In our "Ethics and Technology" class, we have discussed many positives and negatives accompanied with modern technology. The positives can probably go without being discussed as many people feel that new technology only makes life easier. The people that feel this way are not wrong, they feel these gadgets have made life easier and they have. However, the easier these modern devices make things, the lazier people tend to get. I do feel like we should be using the advances in technology to assist us and help us get ahead in our career.

A hot topic in our class the past few weeks has been the idea of technology taking away from family interaction or togetherness. Borgmann proposed the example involving the fireplace and the heating system. Not only are we unable to fix the heating system on our own, but it also takes away from the possibility of gathering wood logs as a family and then huddling together on cold evenings near the fireplace. This could be stretching it a bit, I am aware. However, many solutions from this advancement in technology could be considered 'harmful' to a family. In class we discussed the idea of frozen dinners or pre-made food that just needs to be heated and serves. Of course a family could still enjoy this meal together, but its not Grandma's home cooking.

At first when discussing these things, I was not sure if they could really come between a family. Upon thinking of this, I decided to reflect on some experiences in my family. My family takes a vacation every summer. Most years we drive, although we have taken advantage of airplane transportation on some occasions. Coming from a busy family where the five of us do not have an excessive amount of time to bond just the five of us, one might think 12 hours in a car might be good bonding time. My family, like most, has the occasional argument, but looking back I wonder why we never did have a fun family discussion reflecting on previous vacations or play a fun car game. Suddenly, I realized, my sisters have their headphones in and are watching their movies, while my parents are up from listening to beach music, typically Dad enjoys Bob Marley, and I am in the back listening to my i-pod. Once again, the family is all running in different directions. My parents probably do not mind the headphones, because well it keeps the girls from fighting and occupied. For a long trip, everyone having their devices is appropriate and probably smart. My concern is when we are driving to church, or grandma's or to school, and my sisters feel the need to listen to their i-pods so that they do not need to converse with the rest of the family. The circumstances of a 12 hour car ride do not apply to a 10 to 30 minute car ride.

My family loves cards. We all learned how to play euchre one year on vacation. Now that my sisters are getting older, they have started to pick up on Texas hold 'em. We used to have card tournaments as a family, all of us playing at once, laughing and enjoying each other's company. Teams for euchre were always interesting, but it was fun because we would make sure to play a tournament where everyone got to be everyone's partner at least once. I have noticed now when I come home my youngest sister wants to play on the wii. Family game nights are not the same. My parents and I enjoy playing cards, it's what we have always done and we enjoy our traditions. The wii has been involved in a few family game nights, the sounds and noises are quite loud and take away from the communication that could have been going on at the card table. I cannot say we do not have fun, we still enjoy playing a competitive game, however, as soon as there is an issue with the TV, or wii counsel, or the remote, frustration begins to take over and game night eventually ends on a rough note.

Now, just as any argument, I feel that one can look at this and see positives. For example, I go to school 2 hours away from home. It is difficult to get home and i miss out on a lot of things. However, I cannot say I am ever out of the loop. The advancement in digital cameras and cameras on people's phones has made it very possible for me to receive pictures of my sister's broken arm, how many more grey hairs my dad has grown and how cool my little cousin looks with his new braces. In case that was enough, my mom also will forward my sister's video clips from cheer competitions. Not only can I receive pictures and video clips, but now the advances with programs such as Skype, I can communicate with family live. Cell phones were once considered huge and rare. Now they are practically a necessity, if someone does not have one, people wonder why and do not understand how people without cell phones get through a day.

Technophiles Anonymous

This week’s reading about reverse adaption featured the statement that “[. . .] in technology means sometimes determines ends and thus people become enslaved by their servant” (Borgmann 61). This statement rings true to the fact that human beings are now largely governed by an entity called technology. How many of us could live without the comforts of the shower, the heater, and the local grocery store, much less our personalized computers, our cell phones, and our iPods? Acquiring basic survival or even domestic skills is no longer viewed as a priority or even a necessity; indeed, developing these skills is now classified as a ‘hobby’ in programs like Boy Scouts and 4-H. In some ways, it appears that mankind is physically addicted to technology, and thus, we have become dependent on it for happiness and success.

Besides being physically limited, we also see that technology’s effects, such as reverse engineering, are limiting us mentally as the required learning curriculum becomes increasingly vast and shallow. Because the in-depth thinking that leads to personal growth cannot be measured on a standardized test, modern students are only required to memorize hollow facts and procedures. Even today’s Advanced Placement tests only evaluate students’ ability to robotically chuck out formal essays full of terms and topics that they may cease to fully comprehend or have any real opinion on. Without question, one of the most life-changing learning experiences in my academic career was the week in Junior High that my Social Studies and English teachers partnered up to conduct a unit on the Jewish Holocaust. Besides traditional pedagogy, the lessons included silent moments of personal reflection, emotional outlets like poetry and art projects, a fieldtrip to the local Holocaust museum, and a visit from a local survivor’s daughter. The experience has been a key proponent in my active passion against bigotry. Unfortunately, that kind of learning cannot be evaluated based on the black and white standards of the technological age, and therefore, few schools have the time and money to set aside for these types of programs. Even the methods of educating are becoming slave to technology. Apparently it is now acceptable to cancel class when the professor cannot get his PowerPoint up and running! As further evidence, during my first aid work experience in the local schools, around one-fifth of a class period was wasted as the students struggled to start and log onto the school’s new set of Netbooks. Despite these obvious hindrances, the field of education continues to push towards modern technology.

As a last thought, perhaps this lends some insight into the current obsession with James Cameron’s “Avatar”. We are enticed by the plot because it illustrates a scenario where these ideal, human-like beings can sustain themselves without modern technology and ultimately, triumph over machine to regain the role of ‘master’ over technology.

How do I Fix This Piece of Junk?

"Once a new technology rolls over you, if you're not part of the steamroller, you're part of the road." -- Stewart Brand

When I was looking around on the Internet about some of the material we talked about in class the last two weeks I came upon this quote by Stewart Brand. I found this quote to have a clear correlation with our material we talked about today in class. When I read this quote the for the first time I thought about how everyday the new computer I just bought is being outdated. The idea of new technology rolling over you makes that interpretation seem real. Many of us can turn on the television and find at least one new technological advancement that is supposedly going to make our lives much easier( The idea of Technologies Promise in Albert Borgmans Book). The only problem with this new device is once you buy that device its outdated and you have to look for an upgrade or worse off a new device to replace your old one. In my honest opinion I could not tell you all the new capabilities I have on my new lab top, but once I do it will probably be two years from now and many people will consider my computer an antique. So I think the whole idea of this quote is that many people who do not engage and try to understand all the new technologies in the world they will just get rolled over, because they will be incapable to adapt to our ever growing transition to new technology.

This whole idea goes back to our talking about the Device Paradigm. The idea that a device is taking over a focal thing. Our new technologies are taking over the important and significant aspects of our own character. Many of us can't begin to understand how to fix all of the devices in our household, let a lone tell you how that device even works. I don't necessarily find this to be an extreme issue, but I think that there does come a point were we need to understand what our own devices are and gain knowledge on how to fix those devices so we can make it significant to us. For example: ( You buy an old car, and want to restore this car to look the way it did thirty years ago. Many people would not be able to accomplish this sort of task without calling a mechanic or someone who possesses the proper skills to restore a car. I think that this antique car could become a focal thing because, If you don't understand how to restore this old car, but you know friends and family members that have an understanding of restoring a car, than this can become a real significant focal thing in your life. You gain skills and knowledge through your friends and family and gain a sense of comfort and conformity with the ones around you.) Instead of wanting to get the best new device that comes out we might want to stop and ask How do I fix this piece of Junk so one day we can gain the knowledge and skills to pass on to our kids or grand kids.