Has Our Technology Outpaced Our Maturity To Use It?
posted by Matt Catley | June 9, 2010
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
IcerocketBefore I start, I wanted to recommend something that I think it would be in everyone’s best interest to spend the hour to watch. It is a special called “Digital Nation” that Frontline has done on technology and our rapidly changing society. The reason that I would strongly suggest this to everyone is because we are so immersed in our technology nowadays - and that technology is changing so quickly - that it is really important for people to stop and just take a look at what it is doing to us. This TV special looks at issues surrounding the internet, virtual worlds, video games, addiction, military, and education to just name a few. They do a fantastic job of presenting both sides of the arguments, the good and the bad, and really only leave you with more questions at the end – you won’t regret watching it! I have put the link at the bottom :o)
Where do I stand on this issue? I do believe that technology has some amazing capabilities and introduces new and exciting possibilities that we have never had before. No need to go on and list examples, but one quick one is this Evolver website and the ability we have to connect to each other all over the globe. However, I do also feel that just like most things, it can be abused to our own detriment if we are not careful with how we use it. I could go on to list many glaring negatives with technology, but I would like to focus on one in particular – addiction.
I had a bit of a realization the other day. The topic of cell phones came up with my friends and, like I have so many other times, I began to joke about how I had a muscle twitch in my leg that often made me think that my cell phone was vibrating. This even happened when my cell phone wasn’t in my pocket – haha funny stuff – until I really thought about it... I have a muscle in my leg – in the exact same spot that I have my cell phone all day – that twitches. That doesn’t really sound very good at all – maybe my body is telling me something. Maybe my cell phone sitting there constantly isn’t doing my leg much good at all.
I would probably combine the two issues of addiction and dependency together – it’s hard to have one without the other. If I am totally honest about it, I would say that I am both of those things toward my cell phone. After the muscle twitch realization, I decided that I am going to kick my urge to constantly know if someone is trying to reach me and to reply immediately.
I believe that technology’s uses far outweigh the negatives. At the same time though, I believe that our technology has far surpassed our maturity to use it. When a group of friends is hanging out and every single one of them is glued to a screen, there are some issues. We need to remember to get outside, to talk to each other, to appreciate nature and all of the gifts life has in store for us to explore and enjoy. Our technology is an amazing tool – but that is all. We cannot let that tool consume our lives to the point that we are existing in some online vegetative state.
Those are some of my thoughts on the subject. I could be totally wrong – maybe online virtual worlds are the next step of human evolution. What if those worlds reached a point where they were as real as this reality? What is the difference?
Digital Nation: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/view/
I hope you enjoy it!
One Love
:o)
Comments
Great subject, thanks for bringing it up.
— Jun 09, 2010
I think the most over looked aspect of technology, especially in society, is the speed at which it has changed society. The pace is almost inhuman in regard for our ability to absorb this change and the continuing change of "upgrades" before the original technology has time to prove itself in "real human time."
I also feel that the social side of technology and it's benefits are very over hyped. We live in an age of unprecedented focus on quantitative worth, of totally permeated hype, or sales. Our language in inundated with what I call "Sell Speak." Do the products really provide what the hype sells? "Who knows, but here's the new version.0 gotta get it."
It's attractive, it's seductive, it's trendy.... is that all it is?
I gave up many digital aspects of my lifestyle, except for this computer.
I too used to complain, "I just don't have the time." BUT, I threw away my cell phone and quit trying to "multi-task" and magically my time returned. Even Aristotle cautioned against the fallacy of the effectiveness of the practice. I now do one thing at a time, and get every thing done. And so far, the world hasn't ended.
The lines between virtual worlds and the real world are definitely blurred. The more frightening aspect though is how quickly this became common place, less than fifty years, probably more like less than 20 years. Can society and humanity absorb and assimilate this rate of change beneficially? From where I stand now, having removed myself from techno-urban-profit-opolises, I'd say I have my doubts looking at it differently and not distracted and addicted by it's pervasive influence.
I don't think people ask enough questions in general. I don't think when confronted with a fashionable and seductive trend that people ask any questions at all. The town I live in now, just got a cell phone tower a year ago. Within less than one month, the whole population, 1,000 people purchased cell phones. Now when I sit in the local diner, my meal and conversation is disrupted by custom ring tones. In less than a month. That's fast. To quote Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle that speed."
I see high school kids tuned-out, on Ipods, cell phones, playing phone app games or talking to someone else when they are physically sitting in a group and not talking to the people around them. They scroll through their play lists, barely listening to 15 seconds of each song... is that music appreciation? Some could argue the progression from live concert time frames, to LP's to 45's and now mp3's just part of a "natural" progression. There are other discussions on how the music business and music creation has been severely damaged by the technology and the marketing of the technology, but that's another discussion.
Much of technology was first developed directly or indirectly for military research and use, then later marketed to society for the purpose of convenience and profit.
At this point, someone usually brings up some medical technology and benefit. To me that's an apples and oranges argument. Hospitals are going bankrupt operating the new technologies, and cell phone providers are raking in billions.
Speed, convenience, "improved" communication... I feel are now totally changing society and not for the better. In less than one generation there will be a disconnect in society so big, it might just trigger a disruption something on the order of a civil war.
I slowed my life down, went back to some lifestyle practices from a hundred years ago and I personally feel I've gain back much of my lost focus, I suffer no ill effects of not being plugged in, I have more time and actually less stress from not benefiting from technological convenience.
Is my decisions right for anyone else? no. Do other people enjoy technology to the point of addiction? yes. My point is there are still options to choose from. That the pace of life and the interactions of people should not be determined by profit driven advertising and chic trends.
Some people will argue how progress in society has always come in leaps and jerks. True. But one too many leaps, too close together can create a momentum that launches humanity right off the cliff.
Some may say it's a generational disagreement, like Jazz and rock and roll. Some my say my generation fears the new coming generation, all very textbook like. Typical debate, yet totally non-relevant. I would say a better observation is, society's development and use of the atomic bomb, hasn't seen anything yet.
I wear my neo-luddite steampunk badge proudly.
just finished watching the series...
— Jun 09, 2010
lol. slow DSL speed.
Yes absolutely EVERYONE anywhere should watch this. But it won't make any difference. The addictive seduction has already done its work.
The change is here now. Those saying they know the difference or that they can handle it is addict speak. So now what?
The professor who said it was similar to the reactions to a crowd a hundred years ago, is missing a few things. One, when reacting to a crowd, you are there, physically. Not only sights, but sounds, smells, feelings, tactile reactions, you can't get all of that virtual experiences. Secondly, when new technology is demonstrated, before the demo is over, people already start asking, so, what's next?
In other words we miss the "real time" affects of the experience in terms of the wow factor, the sudden inspirational factor, the being there when it happens influence, just to name a few. Not fully absorbing, cognitively processing, applying an innovative process to; all that is by passed straight on to what's next. Constant updating promotes a state of expectation that promotes a jaded impression.
There were many many statements in passing through out the whole series that are just as important as the filmed examples. This affect on society is here now.
The most frightening part of it is, its affect on peace. This will be distorted into a totally different topic, but when we went from fighting with swords to guns, it changed the attitude toward warfare. Now, when you don't even have to be there, drone and surrogate war, there is zero feeling about killing and war. If you are indifferent about killing, then you are indifferent about peace.
It's here now. The attitude changes are here now. War is about psychological conditioning far before any actual combat occurs. It's just a movie, it's just a video game, are explanations masking the underlying affects.
It's not the technology, it's how and why we use technology.
That's what's being manipulated and abused. That's what's conditioning our younger generations. I don't believe there are many, if any people who can totally turn off their technology or its affects on their perceptions now.
In war, obviously it's better to be the technologically dominant. But as a deterrent not as an offensive force. How easy is it for a drone pilot 5k miles away to decimate images of people that look like ants? No problem. But as easy as that is, so is it easy to use that technology to attack, promote invasions and wars. It's not the loss of technology and machinery that stops war, its the loss of life. Eliminate that loss on one side and you get perpetual war. Which is more actively used, technology for peace? or billions spent for technology for war?
Once you buy the technology hype and sell speak, you disregard even clinical evidence to the contrary. Once you make billions in profit, it's impossible to reverse the revenue stream, it's corrupting.
Technology is an ultimate ego enabler. Is humanity too immature for the current level of technology? That's not even the half of it. We have been too immature for the technology from the industrial age and are still coping with the social consequences from that. But when you are selling something, you have to create a "reality" of need and benefit. Today we have 7 billion realities thanks to technology. pick one.
E.Sam, I"m a bit confused...
— Jun 10, 2010
You seem to be for one direction, yet your dark side examples could easily nullify the positive examples you like.
I for one do not think MORE cameras in our daily lives for any reason is better. They prevent nothing and are a huge added expense funded by more taxes. The ways do not justify the means. And it is unwise to think that technology will be used only in a totally morally manner.
As for electric cars, unless they run totally by an on board centrifugal generator, it would take more nuclear reactors to handle the charging capacity the cars would need. Start up costs on nuclear reactors are oppressive, the possible environmental risks in case of failure due to any reasons are devastating and so far hoping new advanced technology will make things safer, and cheaper... sorry I don't see it.
I've never heard of projects' budgets coming in under bid. I've never seen a reduction in maintenance expenses from year to year. As an example the batteries I use to power my home were supposed to get less expensive by the time I need to replace them, they have actually more than doubled in price, the same with the solar panels I bought, and the supposed cheap and more efficient ones already developed, are no where to be seen on the market. Utilities are a retail operation. Contrary to popular conceptions, they are not designed for the benefit of all mankind. They generate profits, billions of dollars of profits on outdated systems. They weren't updated because of logistics, but because of costs. When the utilities finally need a full systems overhaul due to the increase in technology, I guarantee you it will NOT be cheaper.
Speculation and reality and market trends toward the best profits, usually produce totally different outcomes in practice and final application.
I watched this whole series, and it did present both sides, but I didn't come away from it seeing a lot of future benefits. I saw just another campaign to redefine what is reality, to a new generation, only looking at the future at the demise and expense of the past and present. I don't see that as productively sustainable.
I remember the holo-deck episodes of Star Trek where problem solving was accomplished with technology you describe... excellent application and outcomes...
But remember also what kind of society existed according to Roddenberry.
The fallacy I see is the redefinition of technology saving us, when I see a more realistic priority as being after we learn a different way to live and interact on this planet as HUMANS, then and only then will technology begin to be beneficial, not the other way around.
Think about that. It's kind of like the chicken and egg debate.
If I were a terrorist, I'd of hit the power grid to bring down America, not some old condemnable buildings in the middle of New York. If you consider this "attack" it's pretty low tech and did nothing really to hurt the Nation. We still went to war, war industry profited, wealth was redistributed and we are on the road to recovery... not too technological there. Pretty old school stuff.
So by using this scenario, that has happened, in reality, I see that what changed a nation, an economy, was not scientific technology, but human nature. The technology came in the fomenting and enacting of war. Lots of technology actively being used there.
Just human nature, human psychology, human fear, human prejudice, human greed. .... Do you really think desensetizing the younger generation to ambiguous "game" technology is going to really change the humanity for the better? Using technology as a surrogate for parenting and mentorship in my experience, a non-MIT genius experience, hasn't yielded the same societal improvements.
I hear an indifference in your stance to transhumanism...
It is what it needs to be kind of thing. Fine, but there's only one glitch. If you go down that route, especially a DNA direction, there's no turning around. Humanity will not be humanity any longer, it will become something else.
Fine you might say, its the choice of future generations. BUT, framed by an old paradigm with an agenda. I take a view that there isn't anything to be fixed or improved upon, we are biological entities in the real plane of existence on this planet, no matter what our intelligence can imangine. Unless we change that planet to fit our synthetic evolution, and we all see how that's going... then we have to stay grounded in the symbiotic relationship we evolved from and have benefited from for eons.
To a genius, technological minority that might not seem so bad, but 66% of the world live in earth built homes. The technology developers and users are in a very small percentage of what's left. I use a toaster, but I can't build a toaster. Technology's been berry berry good to me. lol.
Man, in some people's view was created in the image of God. But no matter his ego, man cannot create like God. Some here on evolver feel we will evolve into gods, but I don't think it involves technology. Unless mushrooms are technological.
I say all of this because so far, in my own experiences, and speaking to the information on this video series, technology in any field is over hyped and extraneous and it's present means is to employ people to redefine concepts and jargon of human life into techno-interactive life... lots of hype, lots of profits, benefits are so far totally outweighed.
I know in your field technology is important, but how many people are in your field compared to the rest of the world's population? In the movie 2012 it seems that the moral of the movie is if you have a cell phone and are surounded by mostly scientists and politicians, you can survive and save the world...
That's a dangerous meme to promote through profit based technologies.
I guess I'm not the best proponent to be addressing this issue as you have educated me on, I concur, but I think there isn't anyone doing a good job to think through some of these decisions about wide spread societal technology.
The information in this Frontline series to me points dangerously to a huge divide and disconnect in society, similar to the already existing wealth division, which currently is greater than at any other time in this country's history. Technology, having it, using it, biologically augmenting yourself with it, or not, will make the differences between societal life in Silicon Valley and the rest of the world magnified by powers of ten. I don't see that as unifying.
I guess you and I represent the two opposing extremes on this issue, which illustrates the need for more rational discussion, review and applicational studies before we start changing the fabric of humanity and making tons of profits to better the future living experience for borg-man. lol.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
