For this week I will take a look at the second half of Slade's book, Made To Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America. The first half of this book is largely about how manufacturers essentially plan for things to go wrong with their products after a certain period of time. The reason that a company would want to do this is plain and simple: to generate more revenue. In addition to planned failure, companies also use things such as model updates as another way of getting consumers to purchase another product of theirs.
In the second half of his book, Slade begins to focus on specific examples of this type of behavior in companies. He uses many examples including radio and computer production. Slade also introduces ther eader to terms such as "death dating" and he backs up his argument with great evidence. However, after his examples he changes his train of thought to what I believe to be his main thesis; that technological obsolescence not only affects the products we use and consume, but it also changes the way that we think about the world. Similar to how Technopoly suggested that we would soon be totally dependent on computers, Slade is arguing that soon disposability and obsolescence will be dominant traits across all aspects of life. Like Slade says in the first half of his book that American's invented disposability, we are now incorporating that into all aspects of life.
I do agree with Slade for the most part in this case. Obsolescence is a serious problem in our society and the way I see it, it causes two problems. The first is that we are developing a culture where in order to be accepted and succeed you need to have the most advanced technology. Functionality is no longer a priority, it often seems as if we want new things simply just to have them. The other problem that obsolescence poses for American's is a tangible effect. When we all buy new technology constantly, we are disposing the old stuff somewhere too. By creating all this trash we are also filling up our landfills and destroying our planet.
Slades description of technology, railroads, and houses clearly explains that we are controlled by obsolescence. Manufacturers and companies are able to "help" consumers make decisions because of how influenced they are by the market. I couldn't believe the section in the book that described how porches and basements could be in or out of style. This type of belief among the public likely made some people seek home renovations and therefore provides a perfect example of how obsolescence has affected the public. Overall, I really enjoyed this book and I did learn a lot from it. I never knew anything about this subject so it was all new to me and definitely helpful in explaining its point of view.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The Social Network Extra Credit
I saw the movie "The Social Network" a few weeks back and haven't had a chance until now to blog about it so here it goes. I'll admit I'm a big facebook user and so I was certainly interested in the story behind the most popular website of my generation. I didn't know the story prior to the movie so I was seeing it with fresh eyes. One thing that stood out to me right away was how well the movie was done. I really enjoyed every aspect of it including the cast, the plot, and specifically, the characters that play Tucker and Zuckerburg. I think strong acting as well as a good story were the high points of this movie.
Another thing about Zuckerburg that stood out to me was how smart he was. It blew my mind that he was able to do the things that he did including facemash and the software he developed that Microsoft wanted to buy. Obviously he had to be extremely bright to do such impressive things with computers and I was shocked that he was able to do so much in such little time.
I was also totally surprised to see that Tucker, the inventor of Napster was involved in facebook. I had absolutely no idea that he contributed to it and I enjoyed Justin Timberlake playing that role. I thought it was incredible that two young people, Tucker and Zuckerburg, were able to accomplish so much using the internet from such a young age. Ultimately it made me realize that the internet is essentially a tool that provides its users with ENDLESS possibilities. Anyone can have a good idea and become a billionaire these days because it is so easy to reach such a large audience. In the past a good idea could take years to develop but the internet has changed that drastically.
Overall I really enjoyed the movie, however I will say it made me feel pretty crumby about myself since I'm the same age as Zuckerburg was when he began to work on facebook. I sat through half of the movie trying to think of my billion dollar idea. Hopefully one of them works.
**I give the movie a 7/10
***I'll bring in my ticket stub on Monday.
Another thing about Zuckerburg that stood out to me was how smart he was. It blew my mind that he was able to do the things that he did including facemash and the software he developed that Microsoft wanted to buy. Obviously he had to be extremely bright to do such impressive things with computers and I was shocked that he was able to do so much in such little time.
I was also totally surprised to see that Tucker, the inventor of Napster was involved in facebook. I had absolutely no idea that he contributed to it and I enjoyed Justin Timberlake playing that role. I thought it was incredible that two young people, Tucker and Zuckerburg, were able to accomplish so much using the internet from such a young age. Ultimately it made me realize that the internet is essentially a tool that provides its users with ENDLESS possibilities. Anyone can have a good idea and become a billionaire these days because it is so easy to reach such a large audience. In the past a good idea could take years to develop but the internet has changed that drastically.
Overall I really enjoyed the movie, however I will say it made me feel pretty crumby about myself since I'm the same age as Zuckerburg was when he began to work on facebook. I sat through half of the movie trying to think of my billion dollar idea. Hopefully one of them works.
**I give the movie a 7/10
***I'll bring in my ticket stub on Monday.
Critical Analysis #7
This week I will take a look at the first section of Giles Slade's book, Made to Break; Technology and Obsolescence in America. In this book, Slade suggests the idea that new technology is "Made to Break" after a certain period of time. In the introduction, Slade explains the stage's of product obsolescence. The first is "technological obsolescence" which is when things become outdated based on innovation. This can easily be understood by all people. Everyone has decided they want a new phone or new Ipod because a newer, sleeker, "more effective" model has been introduced. Often we don't NEED these things but we feel that our current product is now outdated and therefore we update our technology.
Slade then writes that the next stage was "the annual model change". This represents "psychological, progressive, or dynamic obsolescence" (5). This is similar to the first in that people begin to feel their current equipment is no longer usable since there is something better. I think Apple is the best example of this type of obsolescence because every year almost they create a new version of each Ipod. While the functions rarely change, the cases and memory change drastically usually and this creates the feeling that makes people want the new Ipod.
Slade finally introduces "planned obsolescence" saying that since "any product will fail because its materials become worn or stressed [after prolonged use]" (5). Slade suggests that since manufacturer's know information about when their products will fail, they may try to limit the lifetime of a device in order to promote the consumer purchasing a new one. Slade informs us that this is illegal, however it likely exists in today's current market.
The first chapter describes the history of disposability within America, and Slade explains that American's practically invented it. I think this first chapter sets up the rest of the book really nicely. I believe this because it goes into detail about how American's dispose paper products, clothing and other things excessively. The reason for this is because of the ease of it. This is a habit that was developed in early America and still prevails within our society today. Everywhere we turn there are disposable things and it is only recently that people have becoming increasingly aware of the devastating effect it has on the environment and therefore are trying to cut back. But the main point is that I believe Slade has set up the book nicely, explaining that American Disposability is a habit that will be hard to break.
One thing that stood out to me was the following line, Slade writes, "This self-conscious concern about being out-of-fashion is the key feature of psychological obsolescence" (53). Slade is telling the reader that is it part of human nature that we feel left out if we don't have the best technology or the best in anything. From a young age little kids always want the same toys as everyone else and it's no different for adults. I even can recall seeing some cell phone advertisements that had the punchline "get rid of cell phone embarrassment" or something like that in an attempt to increase this feeling among people that still have "non-smart phones". The annual model change exploits this aspect of human nature and it is easy for the reader to see why.
Overall I believe Slade is proposing a very interesting argument so far. Ultimately he is suggesting that all of our technology is driven by capitalism and all of the major companies that produce the devices do so in a way that optimizes their monetary intake. This makes sense in terms of the large companies, however it makes me wonder whether or not the majority of consumers realize this. How would American's feel if they knew the companies were trying to manipulate their feelings to increase spending? But then again I suppose that's the point of having a business and creating new products so many American's who support capitalism might not feel too deceived. Overall I think Slade proposes some very interesting arguments, however I will need to read more before I evaluate his argument further.
Slade then writes that the next stage was "the annual model change". This represents "psychological, progressive, or dynamic obsolescence" (5). This is similar to the first in that people begin to feel their current equipment is no longer usable since there is something better. I think Apple is the best example of this type of obsolescence because every year almost they create a new version of each Ipod. While the functions rarely change, the cases and memory change drastically usually and this creates the feeling that makes people want the new Ipod.
Slade finally introduces "planned obsolescence" saying that since "any product will fail because its materials become worn or stressed [after prolonged use]" (5). Slade suggests that since manufacturer's know information about when their products will fail, they may try to limit the lifetime of a device in order to promote the consumer purchasing a new one. Slade informs us that this is illegal, however it likely exists in today's current market.
The first chapter describes the history of disposability within America, and Slade explains that American's practically invented it. I think this first chapter sets up the rest of the book really nicely. I believe this because it goes into detail about how American's dispose paper products, clothing and other things excessively. The reason for this is because of the ease of it. This is a habit that was developed in early America and still prevails within our society today. Everywhere we turn there are disposable things and it is only recently that people have becoming increasingly aware of the devastating effect it has on the environment and therefore are trying to cut back. But the main point is that I believe Slade has set up the book nicely, explaining that American Disposability is a habit that will be hard to break.
One thing that stood out to me was the following line, Slade writes, "This self-conscious concern about being out-of-fashion is the key feature of psychological obsolescence" (53). Slade is telling the reader that is it part of human nature that we feel left out if we don't have the best technology or the best in anything. From a young age little kids always want the same toys as everyone else and it's no different for adults. I even can recall seeing some cell phone advertisements that had the punchline "get rid of cell phone embarrassment" or something like that in an attempt to increase this feeling among people that still have "non-smart phones". The annual model change exploits this aspect of human nature and it is easy for the reader to see why.
Overall I believe Slade is proposing a very interesting argument so far. Ultimately he is suggesting that all of our technology is driven by capitalism and all of the major companies that produce the devices do so in a way that optimizes their monetary intake. This makes sense in terms of the large companies, however it makes me wonder whether or not the majority of consumers realize this. How would American's feel if they knew the companies were trying to manipulate their feelings to increase spending? But then again I suppose that's the point of having a business and creating new products so many American's who support capitalism might not feel too deceived. Overall I think Slade proposes some very interesting arguments, however I will need to read more before I evaluate his argument further.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Critical Analysis #6
This week I will take a look at the second half of "The World and Wikipedia, How We are Editing Reality" by Andrew Dalby. In the first half of this book we examined many of the pro's and con's of Wikipedia including its reliability, its ease of use, and the ability to pool all of our brains together and create an "ultimate" source of information. As we have seen however, there are many things that contribute to the negativity of this source including the ease of people posting onto pages that may not know the truth about the subject they are writing about.
The second half of this book describes a few different things including why people don't trust Wikipedia, why we will continue to use it, and also why people love Wikipedia. Many people don't trust Wikipedia, namely professors and other professionals. The reason for this is obvious, many of these "upper level educated people" had to pursue research the hard way, that is, by going into a library and reading books, as well as conducting interviews themselves. However for the generation of those studying now Wikipedia is so easy that in many cases, it will suffice for our research purposes.
The first subject, "Why we love it", is a very long chapter in which Dalby provides a variety of different reason's why we love Wikipedia. The one that resonates most with me is when he says, "We love it because it's a virtual nation, or rather a virtual world" (120). He provides us with examples of people that say they enjoy contributing to it, and also that people enjoy discussing the articles and varying degrees of opinions on the website. Just like with Facebook, and as we have discussed in class, the internet is creating a place where we are becoming more isolated, however out of that isolation people are seeking a sense of community and Wikipedia provides that to its users.
Another thing that I found very interesting is that, in the section titled, "Why you don't trust Wikipedia" is when Dalby writes "In general... articles get longer because it's easier to go on writing than to compress what one has written... It's easier... to write than to edit what others have written" (181). This fact alone contributes to one of the major flaws of the website. Often, popular articles become huge pages and this is because of this fact. This also sometimes results in differing opinions residing on the same page. With so much information from many different sides of the argument it becomes clear that people are not sure what to believe. Dalby provides the example Sarah Palin's page, who had nearly 7,000 edits in two weeks. These edits show the constantly evolving nature of the articles and because of that it is hard to decipher what to believe and what not.
Overall I think Dalby's book was a great resource. The chapter names were obvious, "Why we love it, Why you don't trust it". These chapter names could be understood by any one with a knowledge of the internet, however, the depth that Dalby goes into in his explanations is greater than any that one could create on their own. After reading this book I feel I have a much greater understanding for the world of Wikipedia and the pro's and con's that come with it. Ultimately, this book has helped form my new perspective on Wikipedia, which is that it is a viable resource. I believe that despite the editing, numerous posters, and other factors, Wikipedia has created a world where anyone can get a basic understanding of any subject in the world almost. And like Dalby says, "I will trust Wikipedia" based on a "per article basis" by "[judging] each article for reliability on its merits" (220).
The second half of this book describes a few different things including why people don't trust Wikipedia, why we will continue to use it, and also why people love Wikipedia. Many people don't trust Wikipedia, namely professors and other professionals. The reason for this is obvious, many of these "upper level educated people" had to pursue research the hard way, that is, by going into a library and reading books, as well as conducting interviews themselves. However for the generation of those studying now Wikipedia is so easy that in many cases, it will suffice for our research purposes.
The first subject, "Why we love it", is a very long chapter in which Dalby provides a variety of different reason's why we love Wikipedia. The one that resonates most with me is when he says, "We love it because it's a virtual nation, or rather a virtual world" (120). He provides us with examples of people that say they enjoy contributing to it, and also that people enjoy discussing the articles and varying degrees of opinions on the website. Just like with Facebook, and as we have discussed in class, the internet is creating a place where we are becoming more isolated, however out of that isolation people are seeking a sense of community and Wikipedia provides that to its users.
Another thing that I found very interesting is that, in the section titled, "Why you don't trust Wikipedia" is when Dalby writes "In general... articles get longer because it's easier to go on writing than to compress what one has written... It's easier... to write than to edit what others have written" (181). This fact alone contributes to one of the major flaws of the website. Often, popular articles become huge pages and this is because of this fact. This also sometimes results in differing opinions residing on the same page. With so much information from many different sides of the argument it becomes clear that people are not sure what to believe. Dalby provides the example Sarah Palin's page, who had nearly 7,000 edits in two weeks. These edits show the constantly evolving nature of the articles and because of that it is hard to decipher what to believe and what not.
Overall I think Dalby's book was a great resource. The chapter names were obvious, "Why we love it, Why you don't trust it". These chapter names could be understood by any one with a knowledge of the internet, however, the depth that Dalby goes into in his explanations is greater than any that one could create on their own. After reading this book I feel I have a much greater understanding for the world of Wikipedia and the pro's and con's that come with it. Ultimately, this book has helped form my new perspective on Wikipedia, which is that it is a viable resource. I believe that despite the editing, numerous posters, and other factors, Wikipedia has created a world where anyone can get a basic understanding of any subject in the world almost. And like Dalby says, "I will trust Wikipedia" based on a "per article basis" by "[judging] each article for reliability on its merits" (220).
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Critical Analysis #5
For this week's entry I will be examining the first half of Andrew Dalby's "The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality". Dalby uses this book in order to discuss the history of the popular online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. He also discusses the many pro's and con's associated with an encyclopedia that is free to use but allows all people to edit the information on the page. As a current student, I have obviously used Wikipedia countless times. It is a source that I know may be unreliable, but truly is a great starting point if no prior knowledge of the subject is known. For me, it is a great place to learn the "basics" before I engulf myself into more serious research. I was excited to read this book before I began based on my usage of Wikipedia and Dalby did not disappoint as he creates a good read for all while discussing Wikipedia.
Dalby begins with two examples that are indicative of the main pro's and con's of Wikipedia. The first is a story about an Earthquake in Chile. This earthquake had a wikipedia page within an hour. Soon after more and more people and good sources contributed to the page and therefore a comprehensive article came to be. This article eventually had statistics, data, and other pertinent information making it a great source of information for free, and took much less time than printing an article in an actual encyclopedia. Dalby uses this example to show that Wikipedia can be a good source of information because of the ease that the internet provides.
On the other hand, Dalby provides the example of the user Keykingz13. This user set up his account and began editing and contributing information on pages that he knew nothing about. This shows the main problem with Wikipedia; there is no set of credentials needed in order to contribute information. Anyone, anywhere can edit information. The good information can be deleted and the bad can be entered and this poses a serious problem for reliability of the encyclopedia.
Dalby uses the quote by Carr to say that, "Wikipedia is...praised as 'a glorious manifestation of the age of participation' that allows us 'to pool our individual brains into a great collective mind'" (54-55). I found this extremely interesting because one would immediately think that this would lead to opinionated people or just crazy people from posting their own information. However, it would be untrue to say that Wikipedia is "ruined" by some people. In fact much of the information is correct across Wikipedia. One thing that Dalby says that I believe explains the fact that people aren't destroying Wikipedia is that "the quest for communal knowledge seems to have prevailed so far over any attempt to pit individual opinions against one another" (50-51). This is a very bold statement. Essentially Dalby is saying that people would rather create a great source of information to share than to bicker and destroy it. I believe this is true and that millions of people find Wikipedia so useful that many won't go out of their way to ruin it.
Chapter four was titled "Why You Use It" and Dalby explains that often, even without a commercial motive, "Main search engines, like Google and Yahoo... systematically place Wikipedia pages at the top of their responses for nearly every enquiry" (83). Obviously if someone wanted to do true academic research they would be in a library using books or using a scholarly site such as Ebsco or another article based site. Likely, the average research done through Google or Yahoo is by a novice who is just seeking basic knowledge (or enough to finish a last minute paper). Dalby explains that the pages come up on the first page because they have links to to other pages, are linked to by other pages, and finally pages that are visited most frequently come up the most. The combination of these three things creates a situation where Wikipedia is often at the top of the search results.
I believe that people use Wikipedia so often simply because of the ease of it. You don't have to go to a library, and you don't have to pay for it. It comes up at the top of the search results and therefore it is readily accessible and constantly in your face when looking for information. Wikipedia has evolved from an "interesting experiment" (50) to the giant that it has become today. It didn't happen overnight, but it certainly seems like it did due to the quick growth of the website. Wikipedia, although not entirely reliable provides a great base for starting to learn about something. While teachers and professors discuss whether or not Wikipedia is a reliable source, (even Wikipedia does not consider themselves a reliable source based on their definition), they often decide it is not an acceptable academic source. However I think it is great that there is a website that allows all of us to combine our brain power and knowledge. Wikipedia is enormous as it is today and I can only imagine the plethora of information that will be on it in the future. Dalby does a great job explaining the pro's and con's of Wikipedia throughout the first half of this book.
Dalby begins with two examples that are indicative of the main pro's and con's of Wikipedia. The first is a story about an Earthquake in Chile. This earthquake had a wikipedia page within an hour. Soon after more and more people and good sources contributed to the page and therefore a comprehensive article came to be. This article eventually had statistics, data, and other pertinent information making it a great source of information for free, and took much less time than printing an article in an actual encyclopedia. Dalby uses this example to show that Wikipedia can be a good source of information because of the ease that the internet provides.
On the other hand, Dalby provides the example of the user Keykingz13. This user set up his account and began editing and contributing information on pages that he knew nothing about. This shows the main problem with Wikipedia; there is no set of credentials needed in order to contribute information. Anyone, anywhere can edit information. The good information can be deleted and the bad can be entered and this poses a serious problem for reliability of the encyclopedia.
Dalby uses the quote by Carr to say that, "Wikipedia is...praised as 'a glorious manifestation of the age of participation' that allows us 'to pool our individual brains into a great collective mind'" (54-55). I found this extremely interesting because one would immediately think that this would lead to opinionated people or just crazy people from posting their own information. However, it would be untrue to say that Wikipedia is "ruined" by some people. In fact much of the information is correct across Wikipedia. One thing that Dalby says that I believe explains the fact that people aren't destroying Wikipedia is that "the quest for communal knowledge seems to have prevailed so far over any attempt to pit individual opinions against one another" (50-51). This is a very bold statement. Essentially Dalby is saying that people would rather create a great source of information to share than to bicker and destroy it. I believe this is true and that millions of people find Wikipedia so useful that many won't go out of their way to ruin it.
Chapter four was titled "Why You Use It" and Dalby explains that often, even without a commercial motive, "Main search engines, like Google and Yahoo... systematically place Wikipedia pages at the top of their responses for nearly every enquiry" (83). Obviously if someone wanted to do true academic research they would be in a library using books or using a scholarly site such as Ebsco or another article based site. Likely, the average research done through Google or Yahoo is by a novice who is just seeking basic knowledge (or enough to finish a last minute paper). Dalby explains that the pages come up on the first page because they have links to to other pages, are linked to by other pages, and finally pages that are visited most frequently come up the most. The combination of these three things creates a situation where Wikipedia is often at the top of the search results.
I believe that people use Wikipedia so often simply because of the ease of it. You don't have to go to a library, and you don't have to pay for it. It comes up at the top of the search results and therefore it is readily accessible and constantly in your face when looking for information. Wikipedia has evolved from an "interesting experiment" (50) to the giant that it has become today. It didn't happen overnight, but it certainly seems like it did due to the quick growth of the website. Wikipedia, although not entirely reliable provides a great base for starting to learn about something. While teachers and professors discuss whether or not Wikipedia is a reliable source, (even Wikipedia does not consider themselves a reliable source based on their definition), they often decide it is not an acceptable academic source. However I think it is great that there is a website that allows all of us to combine our brain power and knowledge. Wikipedia is enormous as it is today and I can only imagine the plethora of information that will be on it in the future. Dalby does a great job explaining the pro's and con's of Wikipedia throughout the first half of this book.
Current Event
For my current event presentation I chose an article from MSNBC.com entitled "Dogs can't talk, but now they can tweet".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39487253/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
Essentially the article describes a new item developed by the company Mattel. It is called "Puppy Tweet" and it is a tag you place on your dog's collar. Once in place and activated, it uses a wireless USB connection in order to send funny tweets based on your dog's activity level. If the tag (and your dog) remain still for an extended period of time it will tweet something about sleeping. Similarly if the tag is very active it will tweet something about running around excessively. Basically it is a fun way to keep tabs on your dog while away from home.
In our class discussion, I suggested to the class that perhaps this technology could be useful in other areas. Perhaps as a baby monitor or another thing such as that. The class also discussed the possibility of this technology taking over our society such as in Neil Postman's book that we are reading. Overall the class seemed to agree that this is a cute novelty toy, however does not provide a huge technological advantage. Many agreed that this will likely only sell to avid dog lovers and therefore will not become extremely popular. Finally, one member of our class mentioned that he feels safe with this technology out there as long as people do not become reliable on it.
One other thing that we discussed in terms of Puppy Tweet was the fact that in the human world many of our relationships have been diluted due to the integration of technology in society. Face to face contact has diminished and we discussed the possibility that Puppy Tweet can now add this dimension into the pet world as well. It should be interesting to see how Puppy Tweet sells and how our society reacts to the idea of integrating technology into the animal world.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39487253/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
Essentially the article describes a new item developed by the company Mattel. It is called "Puppy Tweet" and it is a tag you place on your dog's collar. Once in place and activated, it uses a wireless USB connection in order to send funny tweets based on your dog's activity level. If the tag (and your dog) remain still for an extended period of time it will tweet something about sleeping. Similarly if the tag is very active it will tweet something about running around excessively. Basically it is a fun way to keep tabs on your dog while away from home.
In our class discussion, I suggested to the class that perhaps this technology could be useful in other areas. Perhaps as a baby monitor or another thing such as that. The class also discussed the possibility of this technology taking over our society such as in Neil Postman's book that we are reading. Overall the class seemed to agree that this is a cute novelty toy, however does not provide a huge technological advantage. Many agreed that this will likely only sell to avid dog lovers and therefore will not become extremely popular. Finally, one member of our class mentioned that he feels safe with this technology out there as long as people do not become reliable on it.
One other thing that we discussed in terms of Puppy Tweet was the fact that in the human world many of our relationships have been diluted due to the integration of technology in society. Face to face contact has diminished and we discussed the possibility that Puppy Tweet can now add this dimension into the pet world as well. It should be interesting to see how Puppy Tweet sells and how our society reacts to the idea of integrating technology into the animal world.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Critical Analysis #4
In the second half of Postman's book, he continues to analyze the pros and cons (mostly cons) of our ever evolving technology dependent world. One of the things that stood out most to me in terms of Postman's work was his idea that "technological innovation is synonymous with human progress" (117). He argues that there are differences between problems in the technological world and the real world, stating that a real world problem deals with moral issues. Since computers cannot feel emotion one must wonder if this statement is true. However I agree that technological innovation, while is not the only marker of human progress, is certainly a good indicator of how our society is evolving. For example, how can we say that human's have not progressed because of technology? Technology enables human's to communicate in faster and more efficient ways than ever before and because of that we can debate moral issues more readily. In addition to that, technology has increased our standard of living, and has exposed us to an entire new realm of possibilities. As Postman states in the first half of his book we may eventually forget how to live without computers. This certainly seems like a feasible situation, however if suddenly all the screwdrivers in the world were gone would life go on? Of course screwdrivers, and technology offer huge benefits to society, and they can be seen everywhere. Every building has a screw in it and similarly the internet is everywhere now as well. However, if a large scale screwdriver thief came and made screwdrivers extinct could life go on? Of course!
The point I'm trying to make with the screwdrivers is that just because society is dependent and relies heavily on using something in everyday life does not mean it dictates the only way to do things. If computers disappeared we would certainly find a way to have life go on. Postman clearly is trying to reach a certain audience (those totally immersed in technological culture) and I believe that he takes his message a little too far. It feels biased to me and for the majority of the book (almost all of it except for the very end) I felt as if Postman was totally against the role technology plays in our world.
Neil Postman essentially writes his book in an attempt to help America realize what culture it is missing out on by being so consumed by the technological culture. And to a degree he is right. Literature such as newspapers, magazines, and even television used to play an integral part of people's lives. Their role is diminishing and in many cases technology and computers are replacing many other similar items. Postman wants the reader to understand that while the computer and internet can be largely beneficial to our society, we, like Thamus, have much to lose and unless we try to preserve that culture, it will be lost like junk e-mail in a spam folder.
P.S. After our class discussion last Monday I thought a lot about algorithms and the role they play in everyday online activity. I began noticing them all over the place! The side of facebook, the homepage of eBay, and countless other sites have told me "you may like this...". I never realized that a computer program and an equation were responsible for this and it blows my mind that a computer can be the best salesman at an online company.
The point I'm trying to make with the screwdrivers is that just because society is dependent and relies heavily on using something in everyday life does not mean it dictates the only way to do things. If computers disappeared we would certainly find a way to have life go on. Postman clearly is trying to reach a certain audience (those totally immersed in technological culture) and I believe that he takes his message a little too far. It feels biased to me and for the majority of the book (almost all of it except for the very end) I felt as if Postman was totally against the role technology plays in our world.
Neil Postman essentially writes his book in an attempt to help America realize what culture it is missing out on by being so consumed by the technological culture. And to a degree he is right. Literature such as newspapers, magazines, and even television used to play an integral part of people's lives. Their role is diminishing and in many cases technology and computers are replacing many other similar items. Postman wants the reader to understand that while the computer and internet can be largely beneficial to our society, we, like Thamus, have much to lose and unless we try to preserve that culture, it will be lost like junk e-mail in a spam folder.
P.S. After our class discussion last Monday I thought a lot about algorithms and the role they play in everyday online activity. I began noticing them all over the place! The side of facebook, the homepage of eBay, and countless other sites have told me "you may like this...". I never realized that a computer program and an equation were responsible for this and it blows my mind that a computer can be the best salesman at an online company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)