Week Two: My Response to "A Response to Nicholas Carr's 'Is Google Making Us Stupoid?'"

The evolution of technology - and Google's role in-particular - is an interesting debate. As I was reading Carr's article, I kept thinking about how ironic his article is as he argued that people are becoming more accustomed to skimming articles, getting easily distracted, and prefer shorter articles, or those that are broken up into pages. It is interesting how this article was broken up into three pages, just as Carr was discussing how people lose focus on long articles (such as his.) Although Carr's article was not very deep in context, it was quite lengthy and made a variety of points that were not always concise with each other. That is why I enjoyed this article more. This author was concise with his points and demonstrated them clearly. He also pointed out that the internet creates and mimics the way that humans truly think and engage - through discussion with others. Although the internet has shorter articles, humans are use to spur of the moment interaction, where one must think off the top of their head the opinion and the discussion is constantly changing. He claims that books "ignore the natural ways that humans learn through oral interaction and in a group." It is a more natural and rapid form of thinking. Thus, Google doesn't make us stupid. It simply allows us to communicate through a more natural means with one another.

Week Two: A Response to "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

The article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr brings up interesting points in the way that technology has evolved over time, and the impacts that it has made on the human brain. As technology has progressed, it has changed the way in which humans think. Not necessarily diminishing our ability to think, but altering the way in which we receive, process and give information. While responding to this article, I would like to note that in these contexts of reading and writing, one must also understand the audience and subjects, those who are truly affected and discussed by Carr. As writing came into practice among cultures, the wealthy classes were the only ones who were educated to be able to read and write. Now, on a similar (more global) scale, first and second world countries would be the most widely used population to refer to as they have the education and access to literature and the internet. These cultures more primarily use written word as a means of communication, whereas a third world country may rely more on verbal information and communication. In addition, due to cultural differences between a first and third world countries, their outlook and the affect by sources and technology such as Google will be vastly different. 

When writing was first being put into practice, Socrates was concerned with people forgetting more information. Instead of relying on memory, would writing become a substitution for knowledge people use to have in their heads? As writing came into practice, passing information and stories down through generations could be permanently stored - somewhere other than the human brain. Would writing then cause us to "cease to exercise the brain and become forgetful?" As history goes, that is not necessarily true. Granted, it might be more difficult for us [as humans] to remember things upon hearing them once. But who knows for sure? When your grandpa tells you a story about his childhood, do you remember it in entirety the first time? Probably not. This may have been true thousands of years ago, before writing was widely practiced, and verbal communication was the primary use of communication through communities, and from generation to generation. 

As technology has progressed over time, it has affected and influenced both written and verbal communication. People use to dive into books, reading them cover to cover, pondering the context, plot and purpose of it. Now people "control f" to find what they're looking for in an article or reading. Does this truly make people less smart? Or does it mean the way they process information has changed? I have to say that I have never been a huge reader, and I'm picky about the books that I read (hence, I go to RPI.) But that's okay because not all of us have to love reading. For me, online short articles are convenient. I find what I need and what I want in a timely manner. But for those who enjoy the depth and time of a book, why let technology change your life or reading style? That's a personal choice. We all (meaning Americans) have the freedom to choose what we read. So why does Carr allow this change to influence his life so heavily? Especially when he enjoys reading good literature? He states that "what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation." But why let it? He has the capacity to not go on the Net, but instead read books, the newspaper etc. It seems that Carr is allowing the internet to play an uncomfortably large influential role in his life. 

As the internet has made finding information easily, providing it at our fingertips, people still have control. One observation I have made is with younger generations. I find it rarer to find children with a book in hand - whether at a restaurant, at home or in the car - but rather with an iPad or some other piece of technology. It seems that with younger generations reading as a pass-time has dissipated because they are being brought into a world of technology. But this too can be changed and monitored through parental control. Technology does play a large and influential role in people’s lives; because they allow it to. 

In addition, Carr also brings up the point of machines, and how evolved they have become. The analogy to a clock was a most interesting one. Although the clock "disassociated time from human events and helped create the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences" it did not make us stupid, but rather altered the way we oriented ourselves around time. Technology is a truly powerful source. What if the internet or technology becomes smarter than those who program it? Will we lose control as a population? Should we allow it to become so integrated into our self as a human that we become high speed data processing machines? Are we machines? No. Should we be machines? No. WHY would someone want to be a machine?? What about ones individuality and personality, not that of a machine? These are several complex questions that came to mind as I read through this article. Although they do not all have answers, and are more complex than we may perceive, technology is on the brink of these possibilities. 

Overall, this article made a variety of points and intrigued me significantly. Although I do have several questions and opinions that have spurred from reading this article, I want to be clear on where I stand in this response. Technology is a compilation of thousands of years of evolution that has had a significant impact on society and the world today; whether or not we like it. Google has made reading and finding information convenient because it truly is at ones fingertips. It's a growing and changing world where people have the choice of how much "content" they want their brain to be filled with or distracted by. However, it is always ones choice how involved they allow technology to be in their life. If you don't like it's involvement in your life - change it. 

I forgot to do this in the beginning of the week, after creating my blog. However, the primary reason that I chose to use Blogger, is due to the convenience of it being associated with my Google account. Thus, there is one less username and password for me to remember, and it is easily accessible for me. Also, it has a straight forward user interface, which is good for me, as someone who does not like to deal with complexity of computers. In addition, this blog allows for versatility within the layout of the blog which is nice for personalizing. Hence, I chose this blog primarily due to the ease of use.

The Era of Robots - A Response to "March of Robots"

As technology has shifted and advanced, it's uses have changed drastically. Robots are now widely used in armies as a means of replacing soldiers on foreign soil to exploring unknown territory. They can weigh a few grams, to a couple tons, depending on the purpose of the UAV or UGV (unmanned aerial vehicle and unmanned ground vehicle.) However, the most interesting features of these robots are the integration of biomimicry into their design. These robots have the ability to run, jump, hop, swim, fly or crawl; exploring land, sea and air. Some climb over terrain such as steep rocky areas, whereas others swim through the ocean, or fly through the air. As these 'creatures' are able to explore the earth and it's surroundings without direct human interaction or control, it brings up the concern of the actions that they perform. Some people believe that without a human directly controlling the robot while in the physical territory, it may increase the number of attacks. This is belief that armies with "robots may be more inclined to launch attacks" strengthens the notion of "in the loop" vs. "on the loop." While if one is "in the loop" that human or soldier is directly in the area of action and decides whether or not to take action based on their experience. On the other hand, if one is "on the loop" than they are watching what the robot sees, but not experiencing it first hand. This distinction is important due to the atmosphere of which these decisions are being made. Although with this, soldiers are not being placed on foreign soil which makes situations and politics more tricky. Either way, a human should always be the one to decide to attack or not, never should this decision be made by a robot. If robots are the ones being placed in such territory, would war one day end up being robots fighting each other, controlled by a human thousands of miles away? This question truly makes me wonder how technology will continue to change societies and cultures through advancements; especially in the realms of war.

A Response to "Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?"

Although there has been a long time fundamental belief that technology demonstrates the progress of a society or culture; that is not always necessarily true. There is a give and take that comes with the advancement of technology. As technology advanced with mass manufacturing, it began to take precedence over the quality of life in America. Although other societies were optimistic about Western technology, it was often times a mislead and one sided perception. As technology grew, social and political beliefs became secondary in society. Over time, how would this role reversal affect and change the culture of this society? It eventually became evident that scientific and technological progress became the main goal and focus over society and culture in America. Thomas Jefferson often saw how the happiness of people would be affected by the technological advancement, and wanted to leave the industries and factories in Europe to maintain quality of life over cost and economics. Others, however, saw the machine and technological progression as beneficial and very satisfactory as a progression of the time. This meaning that technological innovation is a sufficient cause of an accumulation of progress.  These two opposing views became controversial as mass manufacturing, due to technological advancement, became a growing industry in society. In one form, those in power, and who possessed authority in economics, social, political and intellectual ways, expected the profits that were generated to be brought back to them. That way, their power and property would be maintained. This shift to mass production was a rapid rate of change for technological innovation, as well as it's effects on social progress. These times became marked as the "Age of Machinery" due to the domination by physical machines, as well as the mechanical thinking of the era. Many people also thought of this age, or shift, to be harmless, yet how harmless was it truly? Although mass production made previous luxuries to be available to the general population, machines replaced workers, and the profits went to the 'guys upstairs.' In addition, there became "worshipful attitude of Americans" towards technology, such as the railroad. In a country that is founded on religious values and freedom, it is interesting that man-made objects became so admired. As time progressed through the technological age, there was a shift in the belief of the meaning of technological improvement. From the view of freedom from political domination, to the belief that innovations in technology are a sufficient base for progress. This shift in the attitudes reflected the American attitude of quantity over quality. This compromised the quality of life for workers, for the availability of goods to the general population through mass production. This may be viewed as progression to some, as technology itself advanced, or, as regression to others, due to changing societal values.

This post is a response to “Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?” by Leo Marx.