At the time I had a facebook, I'd log on to "kill time" by browsing through the friends (and maybe making some obscure new ones) and to make sure my online identity fit with the person I thought I was. Clever quotes, interesting but not over the top pictures, high-ish-brow movies (and the silly cliche...just to show I was a 'uman), and artists I put up for the sole purpose of obscurity. A legion of pantemimes, my words were. Ha. Ha. Ha. Look at me, world.
And then the time came when I figured I had grown too old for facebook, oh yes, I was too good for facebook. It wasn't for me.
Ha. Ha. You're never too good for facebook. It's either obsolute or obsolete.
But wait, this isn't about facebook and its disabilating habit. This is also about dictionary.com. And Wikipedia. And countless stores that tell me that they sure do have a catalogue...only it's online "for my convenience." And online banking.
As much as I appreciate the incredibley wide array of information available at my finger tips, I think its just as important to realize that indulgence in technology is and won't be the key to any evolution- metaphysical of literal. I'm not preaching the death of tech either.
For the 30th ann. of the Walkman, a 14-year old was given a tape and told to try it out. Upon the tapes finito, this kid realized that the tape could be turned around to play more music. And oh was he amazed. The importance isn't that he doesn't know what a walkman or tape are. It's that this kid has lost the instinctive curiosity that should lie within all of us. There is a tape. It can only go in one way. There is another side. They were made with an "A" and "B" side for a reason, good sire.
Before anybody even thinks that we are progressing as a human species, we need to give credit where it is due but also take a hard look at ourselves and shake the demons that haunt our habits. Let's not mistake convenience for blatent stupidity, advancement for irrevocable damage to ourselves and this ground we love to piss on, and, of course (the tried and true mantra) money for power.
So raise your glasses to your screen and have a toast with me.
Here is to the hope that we end our splurge of immediate gratification for techno convenience and replace it with a new A.I. known as N.I.: Natural Intelligence
Here is to a world where a girlfriend is somebody you see and not somebody you glorify on your space.
Here is to a world where we rejuvinate instead of extract. Eveyrthing.
Here is to a people who realize the value of nothing.
The point isn't to destroy the nano but to incorporate some breathing, conscious life into it.
But before that you have to remember how to breathe.
Breathe.
And turn off your computer.
Breathe.
And remind yourself how beautifully comforting your own voice sounds as you read.
Breathe.
And think without being given a screen to demand it of you.
Breathe.
And then remember how to speak.
Let's talk, I've missed the way you used to breathe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
asdfghjkl;
ReplyDelete=] amazing.
more like an immodest proposal....
ReplyDeletebut in all seriousness...that was absolutely incredible.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteIn your post you talk about technology, and becoming too involved in it, to the point where we don't think for ourselves or don't involve ourselves in reality enough. The level of global connectivity that we experience today is unprecedented, and barring some cataclysmic occurrence (like a world war) I think it will continue to grow into the foreseeable future.
With that being said, our new level of technology, while unique in nature and certainly in rate of growth and expansion, is not necessarily a new phenomenon. I think it is merely an extension of technological innovation that humans have been experiencing for hundreds of years. The wheel allowed humans to interact and travel better than ever before, as did domestication of animals. The sail and improved navigation techniques allowed the Europeans to reach the New World, and the printing press help increase literacy and in turn lay the foundation for Democracy as we know it today.
Taking that into account, is there really any time in human history when we are not being influenced by technology too much? Or, to put it another way, is what we are experiencing today a new problem or simply an extension of what we have been experiencing for hundreds of years?
Personally, I think it is in essence an extension of what we as people have been going through for hundreds of years. I don't think it is harming us, or causing us not to think outside the box (like the kid and the tape). I believe the more technology the better. Of course, having said that, I might change my mind if Skynet were to become a reality=)
I would be very interested to hear what your thoughts are on this.
Hey Blakey,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you as far as you lend your arguement. While it may be true that technology "is in essence an extension of what we as a people have been going through for hundreds of years," my call to arms realizes that these people are not those of one hundred years ago- or even fifty years ago. Incredible as our technology is and has been, never before in the time of human existence has one techno revolution (the peecuter) been able to effect economical, political, and enviormental principles the way our age has (maybe the only exception being the industrial revolution [but that isnt even one 'thing,' so to speak, it was a whole freakin era])
With that being said, it seems every generation of technological advancement has effected its corresponding peoples in more and more damaging ways. Sure, the wheel probably couldnt have caused much devastating damage to a society, but then again, its a freakin wheel. The romans used slaves, the industrial revolution wreaked havoc on immigrants and the enviornment, the car only perpetuated this, and the computer era will only cause this to shoot exponentially.
My beef with technology isn't about technology. It's about changing the way we've ever thought about its implementation.
Think about how many problems the race of human beings could save themselves if we only realized we're due (maybe the wrong tense since it seems we're currently experiencing) for another one of these devastating results of our own ingenuity.
I think we can do much better. If we intend on evolving into a better species, there needs to be a fundamental change in the way we handle our shit. And seeing as how the whole nature of evolving requires changing, we need to make sure we're not playing a catch-22 on ourselves, change in exCHANGE (get it?) for our own destruction.
The day we think about the consequences of our actions before deciding to experiment on self-sustaining nuclear power at the cost of our own arses is the day we slap ourselves upside the head and discover the cure for cancer.
Muah.
Thanks for the lengthy and in depth response! My name is not Blake though=)
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the basis of your argument regarding technology is that it's ill effects often times outweigh its benefits. "With that being said, it seems every generation of technological advancement has effected its corresponding peoples in more and more damaging ways." I disagree with this, but I suppose in order to really debate this point we would both have to define what we believe are good and ill effects of technology.
For me, I would measure the effect that technology has on our lives by looking at if it improves the quality of life that a person enjoys.
You cited the industrial revolution, which seems like a good topic to delve into. The industrial revolution definitely created more harm than good at first. However, without the industrial revolution, we would not be where we are today, and we would be without many of the benefits that modern technology brings. It's no coincidence that Communism found its roots in this time period. In order for Communism to work (or try to), there has to be an abundance of goods available for all people, of all classes. Ideally, this would end up in a utopia where everyone has what they need. Without industrialization, even dreaming about this would be impossible. In practicality, more moderate Socialists preach wealth redistribution or simply more goods for the lower classes. This has actually been achieved in some parts of the world (like Sweden) and has led to a lot of good for the people who enjoy it. Even in our own country, lower class people benefit from the industrial revolution in the form of cheaper clothes, food, and a general abundance of everything that they could want.
So properly harassed, I believe any technology can lead to a general improvement in everyone's lives. First world nations today like the U.S. and U.K. etc. enjoy a standard of living unparalleled in history. We live longer, and healthier, thanks to technology.
Even nuclear weapons, which are often cited as a perfect example of technology gone awry, have led to a lot of good in our world. They are one of the primary reasons that there has been no major conventional war fought between the powers of the world since World War 2. It isn't because after the war everyone got all warm and fuzzy and swore WW2 would be the last war they would fight since it was so horrible (which is exactly what they did after WW1, often called the war to end war). It's because, in large part, nations were afraid of mutual destruction at the hands of a nuclear war. Nations don't goto war on a whim, even Hitler make calculated gambles (he thought the Allies would fold over Poland as they had in Czechoslovakia). Nations goto war to gain something, and when the loss of human life is an acceptable cost in the minds of most rulers. Nuclear weapons change this dynamic, it makes the cost of war too high.
But anyhow, I should end this lengthy response, I have already rambled quite a bit=) In short, I believe that technology is good, and the more of it, the better.
Just realized I put "properly harassed" when I meant "properly harnessed". Changes the meaning a bit=)
ReplyDeleteHello Blank, sorry about the name mix-up...blank...blake...you must see it too.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up several points that I would hope you will reconsider (even though it seems like we're fundamentally on opposite sides of this discussion).
The importance of technology effecting the quality of peoples life is about as relevant as the arctic forecast in Ghana. I just fail to see how those enjoying the success of industrial advancement relates to those suffering from the burdens that their comforts have imposed. Moreover, I don't believe a society is or should be measured by its wealthiest citizens but by its weakest links.
I don't think we're at odds much about the industrial revolutions impact on society on a general level. It came, it saw, it conquered. It was a destructive force that did in fact salvage itself by ushering in techno advancements on a personal level, which in turn, placed an emphasis never before seen on individuals themselves.
However, I think you've missed the point I've tried to make throughout my discussion. I don't think we should stop revolutionizing our technology. My fear is that the revolutions we create negatively impact the societies we live in worst and worst every time we "advance."
No doubt properly harnessed, technology could lead us into a much better place, but I don't think we should be naive enough to think "properly harnessed" is in the dictionary of entrepreneurs, the same folks that led us into the industrial revolution. Which makes one wonder, what is the true motive for this "advancement" ? Is it fueled by the desire to increase the quality of life or the desire to increase the quality of ones own life?
First world countries reap the benefits of their successful growth and tell the third world countries they too can follow if they sell their souls to the IMF. So soon these countries find themselves A. On the brink of civil war because of monetary deception B. On the brink of being a ruthless war lord because of the exorbitant amount of money to be made from this gimmick C. Hoping they are at least an ideal candidate for puppetry at the hands of a first world nation. Couple these scenarios with one sided news coverage and you've got yourself the perfect recipe for the most stale ignorance around- complete apathy.
On WWII, MAD is a perfect example of the catch 22 role our society is plagued with today. How can you justify the safety of the world based on the paranoia which grips those countries with trigger happy fingers on the go-codes? The safety of the world should have never come to this. This is not safety. This is war put on hold until somebody makes a move.
I think its dangerous to trust in the fidelity of technology. Before we can put that kind of trust in inanimate force we need to realize we are people who have sacrificed humanity for the sake of technology and will continue to do so until we put the brakes on our deluded obsession with advancing farther than we know what to do with ourselves.
This economic crises is the direct effect of the mentality I'm talking about. For the sake of trying to gain good numbers on important spread sheets, we lost track of what it all actually meant and lived the past few years under a complete and utter lie. We were never what we valued ourselves at.
Technology is neither good nor bad, I don't believe. It's a tool. A tool that can be used for either-or. It is the user who dictates the way it will be used and it is the user who will feel the consequences.
Here is a funny (but not ha-ha funny) illustration of what I mean: http://www.gimmiethescoop.com/img/income-to-debt.png
ReplyDeleteJeez, the response I wrote is so long I have to split it up since it won't accept it as a comment. Well here goes:
ReplyDeleteYou make some very interesting points, I'll try my best to address them all and hopefully you can understand my position better.
“ I don't believe a society is or should be measured by its wealthiest citizens but by its weakest links.” Are you a communist or socialist? I don't ask with scorn like many people would if they asked that same question, I'm just curious. Anyways, I don't think that you can measure the success or, health, of a society by its weakest links OR its wealthiest. A strong middle class (like we are slowly losing in the U.S.) should be the measure of a nation's vitality and strength. You don't want all of the wealth concentrated in the hands of few, and by the same token, I think certain people are destined to remain poor or in the lower classes. Some people are in fact lazy and stupid, and measuring your society by them is unfair and unrealistic. It also shouldn't be measured by CEOs getting huge bonuses. It should be measured by the people who are hard working, are good citizens and who value education and civic involvement. By and large, these are people who are in the middle class. Of course some rich people, and some poor, fit what I have just described, but I am only speaking in a broad sense.
With that being said, the effect of technology on people's lives is very profound. Without technology, we wouldn't have a middle class. We would be stuck in the feudal era, with the nobility holding all of the wealth and the peasants holding none of it. Without technology, Europeans would not have been able to trade all over the world, and merchants would never have gotten rich and would have never started demanding more rights. The merchant class, and bankers, are the roots of the middle class, and they were indirectly born from technology, from interest calculations and sailing routs to India and beyond.
Of course, the Europeans also had extraordinarily damaging effects on the natives they encountered, specifically Native Americans. This leads nicely into what you talked about involving the IMF and first and third world countries. “First world countries reap the benefits of their successful growth and tell the third world countries they too can follow if they sell their souls to the IMF.” This is essentially true. No matter what the IMF says, the IMF is not there to help third world countries, it is there to advance the interests of free trade which benefits first world countries since third world countries can never hope to compete with the likes of Germany, Japan and the U.S.
The effects you list (A, B & C) are pretty accurate in my opinion. However, I want to address point C: “Hoping they are at least an ideal candidate for puppetry at the hands of a first world nation”. Here is an essential question that self determination and nationalists ignore: Should we even be an independent state? Take for example, Northern Ireland, which has its roots as the Irish province of Ulster. If Northern Ireland declared independence from the United Kingdom as Ulster, would they really be better off? They would cut themselves off from a powerful source of funding and help if needed, and for what? They are already mostly autonomous, and its not like Britain is oppressing them.
A good, non hypothetical example of this is Jamaica. Jamaica declared independence from Britain, and ever since they have been caught in an IMF prison of debt and in turn poverty for its people. When looking at the trade policy of a nation, usually you can lump them into three categories. Either a nation is protectionist, mixed, or has a policy of free trade in the world. Protectionism and lack of global trade can lead to wars, as one of the primary negative effects of war (loss of trade) is negated. A good example of this is Nazi Germany, and the Fascist regimes that arose after the great depression that did not want to integrated into a world economy that had, in their minds, failed them.
ReplyDeleteHaving a mixed economy is good, since it usually means you protect some of your home grown industries (like the automotive industry or something) while promoting trade overall. Complete free trade can be good but can also be bad. The worst effect of total free trade among nations is that without protection, a nation's own home grown industries can be killed because they can't compete. This is often cited with American manufacturing, since labor costs hurt its competitive ability.
So Jamaica, a newly formed nation, could follow any of these three trade policies. However, none of them work. Jamaica is too poor and small to provide for itself, so it can't follow a protectionist economy in an effort to develop its own industries. Since it is poor, it needs money, and no one (private banks) want to invest in a poor, undeveloped, and unstable nation. Hence, the IMF. Now, Jamaica can't follow a middle ground, since the IMF demands that Jamaica open its markets to the world to allow for free trade. Thus, Jamaica is forced to follow free trade, which also does not work for Jamaica. Jamaica can't compete with better established, and wealthier, companies from other nations like the U.S. Thus, Jamaican businesses fail, unemployment skyrockets, and general poverty continues.
So what's the solution? Well some people would say the IMF is the problem, I say the problem is that Jamaica should never have become a nation in the first place. Some nations simply do not have the resources or population needed to sustain themselves. Hawaii was once and independent kingdom that the U.S. annexed. But does anyone really think they would be better off as independent instead of as a state?
Finally, I think it is important to realize that the entire world can't be first world. Either we have some wealthy nations, a few middle of the pack (Poland for example), and some poor nations, or we have a general mass of nations who are similar in wealth. Instead of first world and third world, everyone is “second world”. Now historically, second world nations were meant to be communist nations, but you get what I am saying.
This response is already REALLY long, so I won't get into what I think is best, but of course I'll be happy to answer that if you are interested in knowing=)
You might not be a fan of MAD, but I am. Let me give you a good example using France. Lets take the period of 1750-1950, 200 years, of a (mostly) non nuclear world. From 1750-1800, France fought Britain in the French and Indian war and fought in other conflicts. From 1800-1850, Napoleon ran wild across Europe, and France fought, on and off, Austria, Russia, Prussia, Britain, and others. From 1850-1900, the French fought a war against Germany, losing, in 1871 (Franco-Prussian War). From 1900-1950, France fought in two world wars on its own soil. 200 years, multiple wars, millions of French lives lost. If we look at the 50 year period after Nukes became common enough to be a deterrent, we see a different story though. France fought zero wars against Europeans from 1950-2000. No war against the Communists and the West like many feared. No more Napoleons, or Hitlers. Why? Though not the only factor, it's because of nukes.
And while wars were of course fought in other parts of the world (Vietnam, Africa etc.), this was not something new. The British conquered India piece by piece in the 1700s and 1800s. The Spanish conquered the Aztecs and Inca. So while Europeans still waged war against poorer nations, nukes had taken away wars between European nations (and other first world nations, like the U.S.). So nukes haven't stopped war, but if nukes can prevent wars between first world nations, and prevent abominations like World War 1 and 2, I'm all for them.
ReplyDeleteAs far as someone using nukes, I don't think nukes will ever be fired against another first world nation. By the time another situation comes about, like the Cuban missile crisis, I believe we will have finally realized Reagan's dream of “Star Wars”, and will have a missile defense system. Furthermore, the unstable regimes who possess nukes (Pakistan, North Korea), can barely use them. Pakistan's missiles can only hit the regions of India that are close to it, while North Korea's can barely launch at all. India, who wouldn't be considered a first world nation by most, has nukes that can only hit the southern parts of China and Pakistan itself. The remaining nuclear powers, France, UK, U.S., China, and Russia are not going to want to use nukes since the cost is too high.
The economic crisis is merely a more dramatic dip in the economic cycle. It is true that it is longest lasting recession since 1900 for the U.S. But recovery signs are there, and eventually we will come around. Bad accountants do not mean the nation is living a lie. Although I would be willing to concede that might the case with ignorant (or unwilling) politicians regarding our national debt. But that is another story altogether...
In closing, I think technology is good. And, I apologize for the length of my response, this topic touches on some of the things that I am most interested in, so I love to talk about it.
Besides, what better to do than write this while relaxing on a Sunday and listening to your favorite team play baseball? Even if they are losing><
I'm sorry to jump into this discussion in the middle but here it goes:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I must disagree with you blank9000 for this, "I don't think a society is or should be measured by its wealthiest citizens but by its weakest links." Are you a communist or a socialist?"
This logic is actually inaccurate, with what you have postulated so far he would neither be a communist nor a socialist but a capitalist. Capitalism thrives in what is believed to be a "functional" society. The more functional the more capitalism thrives. So capitalists would measure the succes of a society by its weakest links.
No need to apologize! The more the merrier =)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean though about capitalists. Capitalists, or advocates of a free market (market liberals, proponents of laissez faire), certainly don't care about the weakest link in society. They are only concerned with how efficient and profitable the market is. They are perfectly OK with the rich holding all of the wealth, or factory workers having no union benefits or not even a living wage.
If you asked a capitalist how well his country is doing, he would invariably measure it by how successful the top corporations or companies in that country are doing, and he would also indicate how he feels about the overall economy. He wouldn't talk about the poor, or even the middle class, unless he was an idealist. Profit and the acquisition of capital, or wealth, is what is important to capitalists. A society can function perfectly fine in their estimation even if there is a gap in the distribution of wealth. A functional society in their mind, is one where the invisible hand directs the economy, which will inevitably lead to a lot of rich and many poor, but will also lead to powerful, profitable, and efficient, private companies, free from government intervention.
Of course, capitalist is a broad term, and there are certainly “capitalists” who have more concern for the well being of all the classes. The reason I asked if El Gigante is a socialist or communist, is because those who are left wing are usually more concerned about the lower classes (wealth redistribution etc.) and thus would be more apt to call a society where the lower classes are poor or oppressed as unsuccessful.