As technology rapidly advances in our society, especially consumer technology, the divide between its proponents and opponents grows wider and wider. Many claim that consumer technologies such as computers, social media, smart phones, tablets, etc. have begun to destroy how civilized society communicates and will lead to its members having a much more sedentary lifestyle. Others, however, claim that new technologies will allow for increases in information gathering, the ability to save more paper, and an outlet for people to always stay “connected.” Although there is no clear winner to this seemingly never-ending argument of technology making or breaking society, one point has been proven: the argument will forever exist. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking, Fast and Slow speaks of a theory called the “affect heuristic.”
This involves someone’s predisposition to a certain idea, event, product, etc, affecting his ability to focus on its benefits as opposed to its risks or drawbacks. Despite any rational thinking that may be involved, the emotions that someone has towards technology will force them to back it almost wholeheartedly, which will continue the divide in opinions that experts have on the matter. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt put this in context by saying “The emotional tail wags the rational dog.” Therefore, as technology advances, its supposed benefits and risks will become even more prominent, widening the gap in opinions even more.Technology Changing Us? Or Us Changing alongside Technology?
Much of the material discussed in class deals with society changing for the worse alongside the advancement of technology. Essentially, many presented ideas claim that technology has shaped how we act, think, communicate, learn, and much more, almost all for the worst. Nicholas Carr discussed his inability to edit a paper by hand due to his dependence on his “new” Macintosh computer in 1986. Bill Joy discussed how the world will become dependent on nanotechnology to treat all illnesses in the future, which will cripple our immune systems. Many more ideas have been presented, though I raise several points in response. In generations’ past, did experts in various fields not have the same concerns? Are these fears of new technologies not taken in the exact same way that the television, the car, even the printing press were? For example, many claim that text messaging and online chatting will sacrifice the ability for someone to have a face-to-face conversation.
When Gutenberg invented the printing press, did people have similar concerns over proper handwriting being lost? Many claim that such accessible video games will lead to children having more sedentary lifestyles. Did the introduction of the television not lead to the same ideas? I am simply curious if all of the fear of newfound technologies is simply due to the time we live in, instead of the threats that are actually presented.The Dumbest(?) Generation
Mark Bauerlein has many unique perspectives on how technology and digital media have shaped the current generation of youth and young adults in civilized society. He claims that the generation has forgotten many fundamental aspects of how society works and does not have simple knowledge such as awareness of political or cultural institutions. He instead claims that the people of the generation know far too much information about each other, which leads to them falling short of their intellectual potential. While I do agree with Bauerlein in claiming that some important information has been pushed by the wayside, I disagree in the products of social networking being such a poor idea. I feel as though social media and perpetual connectivity is in such an infantile state in our society, that the digital natives have not yet understood its potential. When they do, though, their ability to communicate with others constructively to share ideas of how to better the world will be fully realized.
No comments:
Post a Comment