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.

The Internet

The internet can be very useful. You can get things cheaper and find things a lot easier. But I think the internet is mostly used to fill time. I know people that just sit on the internet not really doing anything. You go on the internet and try to google something what you were looking for doesn't show up, you get a bunch of things that are useless.

The internet makes life easier. When you are writing a paper you can quickly look up something that you need and use. The internet puts everything in one place for you to find it.

Mostly I think that the internet is used to fill time. It has its benefits, but I don't know if the benefits are more than some of the problems with it.

Borgmann part 1

After reading the first few sections of Borgmann's book, I see a lot of his points in the real world. People are becoming more and more dependent of technology. They also have no idea what background effects it is having on them. However, there are some counter-measures being taken. Some people are conscious enough to take breaks from their digital lives and go do something more social and real. Some gaming consoles, such as the Wii, include occasional messages that encourage people to stop for a little while.
The responses on the Edge website also enlightens the class material. While most of the answers conclude that the effect of technology is positive, many add a caveat: you must be wary of the potential negative effects, or else they could consume you, and hurt you in the real world.

Blog #2: The Internet and an Engendered Passivity…

The focus of one of our recent class discussions regarded the internet and how it affects how we take up with the world around us, especially in a cognitive sense. After perusing through the myriad of online reflections upon the subject I would like to work out some reflections of my own as they relate to the internet. To me, the internet is still somewhat mysterious…

When I think of the internet, I usually envision it as a massive conglomeration of tangled and twisted wiring. I’m not really sure why I think of the internet in this way, but I do. As I sift (in my thoughts of course) amongst the excessively intertwined mess of cords and cables which provide transit to the stream of ceaselessly pulsing information, I wonder to exactly what fixture is this entire system grounded. Have you ever wondered that? It might help elucidate what exactly I’m talking about if I offer an example. Let’s, for instance, take a house. A house has many rooms and doors and hallways, all spaces through which one may travel when passing through one’s own home. These passages and spaces are fixed in place and provided their grounding from the structure upon which they are established. The firmament and edifice upon which these features are established provide the very foundation for their existence. Let’s apply this same scenario, in an analogous way, to the internet. Upon what do these cords and cables lie? Now I know that there aren’t really cords and cables which compose the “internet” per say (in reality there are actually some cords and cables involved; although culturally, we are increasingly moving in a wireless direction, but that’s another topic), but the illustration helps I think. Anyway, the internet is a streaming compilation of information and data shunted to and fro across our modern digital landscape. However, the question still stands: what supports all of this? Upon what structure does all of the information rest? Does it rest upon the several tens of millions of computers that are connected in tandem across the world? If so, these computers obviously make up an extremely large network, one which is evidently profound and extensive. Who maintains the integrity of this network? Where are the chief junctions which support the network? Who connects these terminals in a successful and efficient manner? What offers ultimate stability to these oftentimes unruly and dissident connections? And this question brings me back, in a rather circular way, to my original question: to what and how exactly is the internet grounded? When I think of the internet long enough, I come to realize exactly how little I actually know about it.

I think many times in our modern world we take things for granted to the point of passivity. And I think that humanity has done this generally with a great many things, including the internet. We are so enmeshed in an internet-driven world that we really could care less what exactly the internet is. All of us are a part of an unfathomably huge anomaly in the history of humanity, and for the most part we don’t really know anything about it. We are being passively carried along by an alien creation, a creation which in itself often works to spawn passivity and lethargy. Although I am somewhat wary of Borgmann’s disdain for modern technology, I must agree that we are increasingly drawn away from activity which uses skill and assemblages of proactive behaviors on our part. And I think that the internet may be one reason for this occurrence. I can only imagine how long it will be before our society trades the supermarket in for an internet-supported food market. I mean, think about it. By our standards today, the Nintendo Entertainment System is nearly a relic, one replaced by massive online multiplayer games and games which capitalize on the communal aspects of the internet. Fifteen years ago, who would have thought that that would have happened? Therefore, it’s not really that hard to fathom a time when almost all things will be consumed by the internet. Now don’t get me wrong, I appreciate much of what the internet does for humanity and would never wish it away; but with that being said, I will say that we need to work to better understand those things which we interact with on a daily basis (e.g. the internet). This may be the only recourse which routes the further engenderment of a passivity which already plagues humanity.

Why Do We Need This Technological Advance

As I write this I am sitting in my dining room listening to my brand new turntable filled with a Bob Segar album that is older than me by a good number of years. As I sit here I wonder why we had replaced this technology? It's perfectly functional and the sound is incredible! But yet i still have in the other room two MP3 players along with a mountain of CD's.
This brings me to the maing topic of this post. Why have we deemed it necessary to advance technology the way we have? Do we really need to have a phone that can also do a million other things? Honestly people just think about it, has that Iphone really improved your quality of living? Does your refridgerator have more food in it because of it? I would be safe in assuming that the answer to the questions above would all be "no."
The only thing man needs to survive is food, water, and shelter. I do realize that this technology makes life "easier" but its not necessary as some might think.
Technology is a vicious parasite that is invading every aspect of our lives. A perfect example of this would be how I have to post my homework on a blog instead of printing it and turning it in like would have occured only ten years ago.
Maybe I am too negative, maybe I am downright wrong, but it is my fundamental belief that if we do not do something about this parasite we may end up loosing ourselves into it. Who knows, maybe the Terminator movies predict the future.

Technology is dehumanizing!

With our discussions in class about Albert Borgmann and the technology question, I couldn't help but constantly think about how dehumanizing this world has become. When we want to contact someone, we do it in all the ways possible EXCEPT seeing them in person: if our phone dies during a text message we turn to email, and if the email isn't working we turn to facebook, etc. Its almost as if the importance of one-on-one interactions has ceased (convenience of communication is becoming increasingly important).

Speaking in sociological terms, our current technology is a of great benefit, but only to a certain degree. We rely too much on the internet and text messaging for the simple things: organizing a party, contacting a professor, asking someone out on a date, even grocery shopping (some people actually order their groceries online and have them delivered to their house). Sure, its O.K. to use facebook or use one's phone to get events together or make plans, but to make it their primary tool of communication and lifestyle is just sad; people need to get off their butts, live life, communicate in person more often and stop being lazy.

As a result of our dependence on convenience and our laziness, we now see a decline of human social skills; we don't know how to act to people around us anymore, nor do we depend as much on "normal language" when we communicate with our technology- ex. "LOL omg that vid wuz awsum. make sure to send it 2 steve b4 u d/l it! ;)".

I just hope that the world soon wakes up, and realizes that what is called "progress" may actually be an advance backwards.

the question

When posted with the question “has the internet changed the way we think?” I had to sit down and think of a time that was before the internet. The shocking thing is I have never been without the internet or computers. To some people this may be very odd to others this could be a normal statement. So I browsed the articles to see what others have been saying, and I find one titled “we are changing the way the internet thinks”. The article is very interesting; it has a good take on what the internet has become and how it has affected us. The internet and I have an intertwining relationship and I feel that people had much to do with how the internet is how it is today then we think. We shaped the web to fit our ever growing needs, our ever growing minds, and our ever growing ambitions. The internet has not changed us, and the people who think that are the men and women who refuse to accept that the world is in the twenty first century of technology. In the article he explains that the internet is becoming an “ever-growing conversation”, which in fact is very true with all of the new social sites that are out there. We share everything with everyone we are all connected; literally. We do think as we always have, it is just in its condensed internet form, and this is where some people might get the notion that the internet is changing our mind.

The Internet or Web :: #1

In class we briefly discussed the fact the most people, even the intelligent and well-informed, are confused about the difference between the internet and the web. Most people associate the internet as simply the medium in which they view their favorite websites or check their email but in fact the internet is so much more. The internet is a massive networking of networks and computers globally in which all the computers can communicate with each other. The web is just one of the many ways in which information can be retrieved from the internet. Many of us believe that the internet has been a huge innovation that is greatly changing and shaping our lives however we don’t even begin to grasp the scope of it. We may think that we only spend a couple hours a day using the internet but most of the time we probably don’t even realize that we are using it. Many of us may connect to our work computer from home, talk to friends using VOIP services, send and receive emails from our phones, downloads using peer-to-peer software, programming DVR’s via cell phones, only to name a few. We live in an environment of technology and though we may only spend a couple of hours a day on the web, most people spend a good portion of their day using internet resources. If the internet were to have a malfunction or be offline the repercussions would be even more catastrophic than just temporarily loosing your ability to surf the web, the way of life as we know it would cease to exist.

Blog #1: On the Device Paradigm…

Before I begin to catalogue some of my brief thoughts with regards to Albert Borgmann’s “Device Paradigm” I want to offer a slight disclaimer. Like most everyone in our class, save Dr. Langguth, I have yet to finish “Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life.” Much of the inquiry and examination which I apply to Borgmann’s way of taking up with technology and our global sociopolitical context is at a serious disadvantage at this stage in our discovery of Borgmann’s paradigm and earnest cogitations. Much, as I am quite sure, has yet to be procured through impending analysis. As such, much of what I comment on and argue in this and the following blogs will likely come to a point of reconciliation at a latter instance in Borgmann’s work. Thus, in hindsight several weeks from today, my reasoning in this my first blog may appear rather unfounded and trivial when taken in light of the necessary and final developments of Borgmann’s central apriorism. As the book is carefully worked through, I hope that any crude opinions and notions which I first envisaged are reformulated in an appropriate fashion. However, this point, in and of itself, offers the ardent learner and genuinely interested reader both much caution and help. Such a reflection alerts the reader to stave off any preconceived notion of how exactly Borgmann regards modern technology as of yet. We need not rain down a final judgment when the defense has yet to offer four fifths of the evidence in its favor. Nonetheless, there are a couple of issues which I would like to discuss.

The introductory chapters and topics, many of which work to diagram what the device paradigm is and how humanity takes up with its technological foreground and background, almost seem to come down as condemnatory of any technology which is not pre-modern. Those examples of modern technological features of our society, or features which were at least modern when Borgmann had his work published in 1984, seem to be demonized by Borgmann amidst the backdrop of an excessive romanticizing of what has once been. Take for instance the stereo set (this is actually kind of a throwback to the ‘80s isn’t it?). When speaking of this ‘device,’ Borgmann seems to want to imbue his rather negative ambivalence toward the object upon the reader when he states that there is “an extreme concealment or abstractness in the mode of [the music’s] production” (page 4). Here, Borgmann positions the device within an enigmatic context, and the reader has nowhere to turn but ambivalence towards the stereo set. He seems to do this with many of the examples he cites. I mean, yes. I guess he’s right. Other than the basic knowledge of magnetism, circuitry, and sound I acquired in my Elements of Physics course here at Thomas More College, I really couldn’t tell you exactly how the music I gather from a stereo set is procured. The ends seem very distinct from the means. I most certainly couldn’t fix a stereo set either. But at a much deeper level, I don’t think many people could tell you exactly how music from an orchestra is procured either. Yes, the musicians strum their instruments, blow into them, bang them, or what not to incur vibrations in the air, vibrations which stimulate our neuronal connections. But that knowledge of the acquirement of music is almost rudimentary when compared to the musician’s knowledge of the same subject. So, as it would seem, the means can also be quite concealed in such an object which likely constitutes a “thing” from Bormann’s point of view. When looking at such topics from this perspective, the line between things and devices becomes rather obfuscated.

Why would devices be so bad? Yes, things, in the Borgmann sense, do seem to offer more of a focus than devices sometimes do today but not always. There are many devices which seem to be a place of focus. It may sound rather ironic, but isn’t the modern family room with all of its electronics and media still a place of high focus for many families. I know that it is for my family. Sometimes, the television set draws my family together in order to rally around our favorite sports teams or listen attentively to our national leaders. Sometimes, the familial warmth and affinity which is cultivated around the television is more potent and stronger than that nurtured around the traditional hearth. Now certainly I know that many exceptions and arguments to the contrary undoubtedly exist, but these premises, along with a final thought, are worth our consideration. Have you ever considered the tradeoffs required to move along the evolutionary line from thing to device? And if you have, are those tradeoffs worthwhile?

Citizens of the Technological Age: (Un)lucky Us!

One statement in this week’s reading that stood out to me was the fact that one of the original ‘promises’ of technology was the benefit of extended leisure time. It seems appropriate to use technology to respond to this sentiment: http://i45.tinypic.com/2njes9l.gif. Although there are innumerable realistic advantages to our technological age, the luxury of leisure has not been one of them in my experience.

As computer applications, speedy transportation, cellphones, and all other sorts of advanced devices continue to impact schools and businesses, it seems that educators and employers are keen to respond to the aid that technology provides with more tasks, higher expectations, and more complicated procedures. Because of this, many individuals still wake before sunrise, return home just before dark, and end up falling asleep ten minutes into the movie that they were finally able to sit down and watch. To make matters worse, video games, YouTube, Facebook, and even Lolcats has made it so easy to procrastinate on academic, work-related, and domestic responsibilities, which also detracts from our free time.

I find it ironic that most American labor is now completed in a quiet, stationary position while many forms of leisure activities today involve outdoor physical engagement. Furthermore, I resent modern technology for taking away the simplicity of being able to curl up on the couch next to my family with a notebook and a pen to complete assignments. Now I spend my evenings insolated in a tiny room hunched in front of the glaring computer screen on a hard chair with the perpetual purr of the computer luring my mind into a drowsy haze. At this rate, I will be spending all of my future ‘leisure time’ in some doctor’s office collecting recommendations for neck and back pain medications or getting my eyeglasses prescription strengthened for the umpteenth time. Therefore, I conclude that toil and drudgery have not in fact been eliminated from our lives like the early technological theorists predicted. Now we are just experiencing it in hyper-speed.

Is It "A Small Price To Pay"?

This week, our ethics and technology class was assigned to look over some of the posts regarding the question of the year for 2010 "Is the Internet changing the way we think?". I found most of the experts responses very interesting as all of them seemed to take a different approach giving readers many different things to consider. The post titled "A Small Price To Pay" posted by Psychologist and Dean of Social Sciences at Harvard University, Stephen M. Kosslyn. The title struck me because in today's society, when I think of computers and technology, I think of big prices. We have to buy a piece, well multiple pieces of technology in order to use the Internet. In today's society everyone is trying to get the latest gadgets and the most high tech equipment, which of course is pricey.
However, as I continued to read Kosslyn's thoughts, I realized he was not referring to the technology that we access the internet but the internet itself. Kosslyn discussed how much we, as Internet users, can access just by having internet. Kosslyn stated "Even in its current state, the Internet has extended my memory, perception, and judgment". I completely agree and feel that if everyone looked at the internet in this form, then yes, we could say the internet has changed the way we think, and that this change was for the good.
I will be the first to admit that the internet can sometimes be more of a distraction then a resource. I have actually been interrupted by facebook a few times as I have been posting this blog. Facebook along with other sites have a tendency to take over our lives, but at the same time, it is so easy for me to "chat" a friend who is online if I happen to forget my homework or if I am in need of other information. As Kosslyn goes into detail on explaining how the internet has made these extensions, the memory extension parallel really stuck out to me. Obviously, everything we read online will not stay in our memory just because of us browsing, but because everything online is so accessible, Kosslyn points out how easy and helpful it is to remember where that information was to go back and use it if needed.
Internet can improve one's judgement if the internet is used properly. For example, Wikipedia is a website that can be edited, so when accessing information from that site, it is important to have back-up sources too. There are also many forms of gossip and rumors floating around in cyberspace, so again it is important to not trust everything you see online. However, as Kosslyn states in his argument, we can also use these sites to our advantage, to check and double check and triple check. In conclusion, if we all look at the internet in the same way as Kosslyn, the internet will change the way we think for the good.

Back in the Day

The beginning and the end of almost every story my grandpa tells me he usually says, "Back in the Day(and then his long long story)...these days you got it too easy". After reading the assigned material this week for class I began to hear those famous words from my grandpa. Now I don't know if that is a good thing or bad thing but usually I try to forgot about the stories I seem to hear over and over again. Though this time I think I might understand what he means by "These days you got it too easy".
After I read the assigned text I began to think about all the things that make our lives easier and in all honestly really comfortable. For instance, how about having easy access to food on almost every corner with your local grocery stores, or the idea of having an ever ending supply of water being pumped to your home. Something that really caught my attention is how many people these days can not change their oil, build a deck, fix a water leak, or just start an ordinary fire to heat a home. I know I was lucky enough to learn all of these things, but I can say that majority of my friends couldn't even tell you were to begin at checking your oil let alone change it. I think that technology has changed many peoples lives for the better, but one flaw that I seemed to take from the reading is that majority of people in my generation are losing the essential skills of survival and the understanding of how to live without having easy access to all the things we want and find essential to our survival. By being so technologically advanced I think that my generation is losing the basic aspects of life and what got us to where we are today. My grandpa always seemed to ask me "could I survive the way people lived two hundred years ago with the skills I have now". In all respect to my grandpa, I hope to God I don't have to because, "These Days we got it to easy".

Is the Internet Changing the Way We Think?

Please have a look at this website, on which you will find a wide range of responses to a related question: how is the Internet changing the way you think?

Is the Internet Changing the Way We Think?