The second part of the Slade's "Made to Break" was a bit confusing for me. I understood the mention of radio in chapter 4 and the happenings of the 50's and 60's in chapter 6 but was completely lost in chapter 5 when he talked about the war, stockings, and houses.
Slade's main point is of planned obsolescence, which was talked about in my previous post. By the 60's, "death dating" was a new definition of planned obsolescence, and it would become the primary meaing of the phrase (p. 113). It was interesting to see the progression of radio (AM and FM), and how really the business (entrepreneurial) aspect of it spawned the whole process. David Sarnoff and Edwin Howard Armstrong had a really peculiar relationship. It felt like they were friends yet enemies, judging by how they affected each other's private lives (p. 85 with Armstrong marrying Sarnoff's secretary), but still had problems (p. 87 with legal battle). The intense fight over FM that included the move of the FM transmission bands which left 500,000 FM radios manufactured in American before the war inoperable (p. 103). Due to this factor as well as few others, Armstrong eventually broke in both the spirit and the physical, leading to his suicide in 1954 (p. 104). It was really sad to see the whole transition from a brilliant and determined genius to a desperate and pitiful man. Although it is hard to blame RCA and other businesses involved since they were looking out for their own good (which is that businesses do), it is also difficult to not blame them for leading Armstrong to his position at his end.
I understood what Slade was talking about in chapter 5, but did not quite get how they fit in with his idea of planned obsolescence. In chapter 4, he concluded the chapter by mentioning how (radio) product life spans were created by plan; it was not by coincidence that radios would need to be repaired or replaced, but rather, planned by the companies to generate more demand and revenue. Yet, in chapter 5, all Slade really talks about is how the war and the tensions between Japan (and its allies) and the United States led to the development of technological innovations. The nylon stockings were invented largely due to the fact that we wanted to damage Japan's economic state, hoping it would be for the better. I don't even have to mention why the atomic bombs were inveted and perfected. He seemed to make mention of how this could have led to mankind being obsolete on page 149, but was it really that bad? It seemed like a overkill.
Brooks Stevens was the most captivating guy mentioned in this part, in my opinion. He summarized and explained planned obsolescence in such a clear and concise way, I could not help but nod to myself. Although he was definitely not the first one to coin the term as he claimed, he was its "most vocal champion" (p. 152). He sums up the whole theory quite nicely on page 153, saying that planned obsolescence was the product of our desire to make money. The introduction of new products that will render the older ones obsolete is always done on purpose. People will want to own something "a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary," (p. 153) which basically illustrates why and how businesses can successfully penetrate their markets every time they introduce new products. I completely agreed with his view and was really curious to see how Slade would integrate this into his numerous examples within chapter 6.
Advertising was a huge part of the business models in the 60's and it helped to generate demand with every new product. It should be interesting to see if this method (which still exists today) was carried on from then on or another method caught on.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America PART I
The introduction + the first three chapters of Gile Slade's "Made to Break" were really interesting to read for me, since I am interested in most parts of "business." The ingenious advertising that we know of today as well as the retail style of several industries can be explained by looking at the past that Slade mentions in his book.
The introduction raised several issues that had me pondering throughout the reading. We have become a society that does not fear waste. In fact, we actually advocate and fully participate in the heinous act. Instead of recycling our old PCs, laptops, ipods, and cell phones, we usually throw them out in masses and replace them with new ones that won't be so new in a short amount of time. As humans, it is in our nature to want more and more, meaning that once our 'new' products are considered outdated, we will try our best to get the newest versions. That means that every time we take part in this replacement, we're adding on more junk to the already gigantic pile of electronic waste that "we do not have enough time, money, or space in the continental Unites States to create enough landfills" (3) for. The worst part is, in my opinion, a lot of this so-called waste were usuable.
Above all else, the economic incentives seemed to have influenced the American society's frugal and conserving mindset to a wasteful and obsolete one. A lot of the disposable products we still use such as razors, condoms, and sanitary pads were invented as a way to satisfy the American public's growing needs for easier and more accessible necessities (13,17, 18). Companies even advocated for anti-thrift to convince people to keep spending their money (26). Once the automobile industry set in, the top companies Ford and General Motors started to make annual changes and editions of their cars to take advantage of the altered mindset of the American population. One of the adjustments they made were to the style of the cars, in order to meet the demands of women, who made up a great percentage of shoppers (37). I thought it was smart of them to make the appropriate alterations to their products to attract more customers but just as I think about the annual versions of cars today, it is so unnecessary to keep changing the models every year! It seems like such as waste to buy a car if it's going to be outdated in a year or less.
Out of everything, though, I was a bit disappointed in the way businesses took part in the practice called "adulteration", which is when a product in the simplest of processes is diluted (77). In order to profit during the hard times of the Great Depression, firms decided to adulterated their products to decrease cost of production. Although that lead to lower pricing of the product which led to increased sales and profit, it also meant that the consumers were presented with less than superb quality, which deals with ethics in business.
During this reading, I had several questions in my head. Can I really blame the American public for wanting the newest and the most convenient products? Can I really blame the businesses for wanting to maximize profits by constantly upgrading their products? Can I really blame the same people for adulterating their products to stay in business during the Great Depression? Honestly, I do not think I can. It is logical for businesses to want to maximize profits just as it is logical for people to fall into obsolescence. The problem is the implications presented by these. I cannot wait to read more of Slade's to see if he addresses any implications.
The introduction raised several issues that had me pondering throughout the reading. We have become a society that does not fear waste. In fact, we actually advocate and fully participate in the heinous act. Instead of recycling our old PCs, laptops, ipods, and cell phones, we usually throw them out in masses and replace them with new ones that won't be so new in a short amount of time. As humans, it is in our nature to want more and more, meaning that once our 'new' products are considered outdated, we will try our best to get the newest versions. That means that every time we take part in this replacement, we're adding on more junk to the already gigantic pile of electronic waste that "we do not have enough time, money, or space in the continental Unites States to create enough landfills" (3) for. The worst part is, in my opinion, a lot of this so-called waste were usuable.
Above all else, the economic incentives seemed to have influenced the American society's frugal and conserving mindset to a wasteful and obsolete one. A lot of the disposable products we still use such as razors, condoms, and sanitary pads were invented as a way to satisfy the American public's growing needs for easier and more accessible necessities (13,17, 18). Companies even advocated for anti-thrift to convince people to keep spending their money (26). Once the automobile industry set in, the top companies Ford and General Motors started to make annual changes and editions of their cars to take advantage of the altered mindset of the American population. One of the adjustments they made were to the style of the cars, in order to meet the demands of women, who made up a great percentage of shoppers (37). I thought it was smart of them to make the appropriate alterations to their products to attract more customers but just as I think about the annual versions of cars today, it is so unnecessary to keep changing the models every year! It seems like such as waste to buy a car if it's going to be outdated in a year or less.
Out of everything, though, I was a bit disappointed in the way businesses took part in the practice called "adulteration", which is when a product in the simplest of processes is diluted (77). In order to profit during the hard times of the Great Depression, firms decided to adulterated their products to decrease cost of production. Although that lead to lower pricing of the product which led to increased sales and profit, it also meant that the consumers were presented with less than superb quality, which deals with ethics in business.
During this reading, I had several questions in my head. Can I really blame the American public for wanting the newest and the most convenient products? Can I really blame the businesses for wanting to maximize profits by constantly upgrading their products? Can I really blame the same people for adulterating their products to stay in business during the Great Depression? Honestly, I do not think I can. It is logical for businesses to want to maximize profits just as it is logical for people to fall into obsolescence. The problem is the implications presented by these. I cannot wait to read more of Slade's to see if he addresses any implications.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality PART II
The first part of the book ended with a strong statement: Like it or not, in the future you will be using Wikipedia (pg. 113). The second half of the book didn't fail to expand on that and even managed to capture my 21st century ADD-impaired mind for the whole time.
We love Wikipedia. Those who are part of the Wikipedia love it because it is a virtual world in which these individuals can come together to write, discuss, critique, and contribute (pg. 120). Some even adore the very immature possibilities, such as vandalism that can lead to fame (in a negative sense, of course). Others love it for the vast amount of information that at most times is unique to Wikipedia alone. Of course, it would be unfair to say that EVERYONE loves Wikipedia. After all, every great invention in the world had oppositions.
The most interesting part for me was the pages and pages of discussion for each article as well as the media coverage of anything Wikipedia-related. Both indicate how Wikipedia-centralised we have become in the past few years.
Editing wars frequently occured over controversial articles (which are the one where neutrality is hardest to be reached), breaking news (that no secondary source has confirmed), and blatant and stubborn vandalism. Besides the text that Wikipedia users can see upfront, the background to it is the more interesting part. Various editors come together to argue one point another, justify additions/removals, come up with a consensus on what should be said, and generally have a (relatively) intelligent conversation to provide the internet community with the best article possible. Rather than blindly reading what's presented to us, I think it would be interesting to explore a certain article to see the progression from the very beginning. Misconceptions, misunderstandings, mistakes, and any confusions that we may have might have come up in the discussion and reading that may help us understand a subject better.
Although people agree that Wikipedia is unreliable in certain cases because anyone is allowed to edit an article (unless they are blocked or banned), it was clearly demonstrated how dependent people were on it. Everyone from students to journalists have used Wikipedia and in some cases, have used incorrect information because they failed to validate it using other sources, which should have been done, especially in mass media! For example, in the article AC Omonia, the insertion about "The Zany Ones" was completely false, but that didn't stop Daily Mirror from using that information (pg. 178). Ironically, that same article was used to reinsert the false information later on (pg. 179). That really stumped me. How do you know some information didn't originate from some mischievious person writing on Wikipedia like this situation?
Above all, the very final part of the book showed how important Wikipedia has become. After David Rohde was kidnapped, his page was carefully policed by his collegue, Jimmy Wales, and various admins of the site, just in case the kidnappers or those affiliated with them happened to stumble upon Rohde's page (pg. 223). Even the thought that this was possible shows how monstrous Wikipedia has become and it shows no signs of declining.
From the exploration of Wikipedia through this book, I realized that it is actually more reliable than I thought it to be. There are avid editors who will do anything and everything to make sure their pages stay accurate and up to date. Vandalism and mistakes are usually reverted/corrected within a few minutes (most of the time). The people contributing to the cause are not dumb; in fact, they are far from it. Wikipedia may not consist of only professionals with Ph.Ds but it is definitely good enough to "rule the world of knowledge."
We love Wikipedia. Those who are part of the Wikipedia love it because it is a virtual world in which these individuals can come together to write, discuss, critique, and contribute (pg. 120). Some even adore the very immature possibilities, such as vandalism that can lead to fame (in a negative sense, of course). Others love it for the vast amount of information that at most times is unique to Wikipedia alone. Of course, it would be unfair to say that EVERYONE loves Wikipedia. After all, every great invention in the world had oppositions.
The most interesting part for me was the pages and pages of discussion for each article as well as the media coverage of anything Wikipedia-related. Both indicate how Wikipedia-centralised we have become in the past few years.
Editing wars frequently occured over controversial articles (which are the one where neutrality is hardest to be reached), breaking news (that no secondary source has confirmed), and blatant and stubborn vandalism. Besides the text that Wikipedia users can see upfront, the background to it is the more interesting part. Various editors come together to argue one point another, justify additions/removals, come up with a consensus on what should be said, and generally have a (relatively) intelligent conversation to provide the internet community with the best article possible. Rather than blindly reading what's presented to us, I think it would be interesting to explore a certain article to see the progression from the very beginning. Misconceptions, misunderstandings, mistakes, and any confusions that we may have might have come up in the discussion and reading that may help us understand a subject better.
Although people agree that Wikipedia is unreliable in certain cases because anyone is allowed to edit an article (unless they are blocked or banned), it was clearly demonstrated how dependent people were on it. Everyone from students to journalists have used Wikipedia and in some cases, have used incorrect information because they failed to validate it using other sources, which should have been done, especially in mass media! For example, in the article AC Omonia, the insertion about "The Zany Ones" was completely false, but that didn't stop Daily Mirror from using that information (pg. 178). Ironically, that same article was used to reinsert the false information later on (pg. 179). That really stumped me. How do you know some information didn't originate from some mischievious person writing on Wikipedia like this situation?
Above all, the very final part of the book showed how important Wikipedia has become. After David Rohde was kidnapped, his page was carefully policed by his collegue, Jimmy Wales, and various admins of the site, just in case the kidnappers or those affiliated with them happened to stumble upon Rohde's page (pg. 223). Even the thought that this was possible shows how monstrous Wikipedia has become and it shows no signs of declining.
From the exploration of Wikipedia through this book, I realized that it is actually more reliable than I thought it to be. There are avid editors who will do anything and everything to make sure their pages stay accurate and up to date. Vandalism and mistakes are usually reverted/corrected within a few minutes (most of the time). The people contributing to the cause are not dumb; in fact, they are far from it. Wikipedia may not consist of only professionals with Ph.Ds but it is definitely good enough to "rule the world of knowledge."
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality PART I
Andrew Dalby's "The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality" is, by far, my favorite book so far. At first I was worried about how I would be able to get through this relatively big book, but as I was reading through it, I realized how easy and enjoyable it would be. The history of Wikipedia certainly could have been less intriguing and captivating. Perhaps Dalby's experience writing articles in Wikipedia helped, but the fact is, he is a great writer who has the ability to thoroughly tell his story while keeping the reader's sole attention.
The book goes through the transition from Nupedia (a 'scholarly' encyclopedia) to Wikipedia, the rise of Wikipedia with the help of various sites (especially Google!), the pros anc cons of Wikipedia, as well as all the problems, confusion, drama, and miscommunication along the way.
From where the web is at today, I would not have guessed that Wikipedia has only been around for less than a decade. It is a massive accumulation of knowledge that varies from the very scholarly that people can have trouble understanding to the very childish/immature that exist solely for entertainment. There are thousands and thousands of people who visit the site, referencing it, writing it, editing it, critiquing it, and enjoying it.
I was surprised at the amount of dedication editors had to various topics; people would come back to the very site they started/edited to make sure nothing was off. That very thought of policing an online article at all times is a little odd to me. For one, how do they make the time for it? How can they even tell that something is off? Where do they manage to find all the sources?
The most intriguing part of the first half was the obvious hypocrisy of the "scholarly" media, such as journals and news. The anti-Wikipedia movement basically stemmed from reporters and journalists stating that Wikipedia is unreliable, amateur, and a horrible source for any work. Yet, these very people were the ones who replicated the information that was present in Wikipedia, sometimes without even verifing the validity of the information, as they should have. For example, the false quote added in under Maurice Jarre, a famous French composer, was used in major newspapers (including Sydney Morning Herald), even after it was flagged for not having a citation in mere two minutes (pg. 92).
What a lot of people are worried about now is the possibility (that is actually happening these days) that students as well as any other groups of people will rely too much on Wikipedia alone rather than going on to further validate some of the information presented in a Wikipedia article. Yet, as it was mentioned several times in the book, Wikipedia articles have been carefully molded by dedicated editors, a lot of whom are professionals in the subject(s) they are writing about. Mistakes are often caught in minutes, and most points are backed by sources that can verify the information. More and more professors and scholars are contributing to this once-thought amateur encyclopedia that has been gaining notoriety and respect over other encyclopedias, such as Britannia. If people do not have the ability to properly use Wikipedia, it is their own fault, not of Wikipedia's.
Personally, I love Wikipedia. It has helped me in so many assignment throughout my high school career that it was my #1 most frequented site. I never had problems of using inaccurate information because I did extra research, usually browsing through the cited sources. For those of you who have not used Wikipedia or is just not a fan of it, re-read the last sentence of page 113. :)
The book goes through the transition from Nupedia (a 'scholarly' encyclopedia) to Wikipedia, the rise of Wikipedia with the help of various sites (especially Google!), the pros anc cons of Wikipedia, as well as all the problems, confusion, drama, and miscommunication along the way.
From where the web is at today, I would not have guessed that Wikipedia has only been around for less than a decade. It is a massive accumulation of knowledge that varies from the very scholarly that people can have trouble understanding to the very childish/immature that exist solely for entertainment. There are thousands and thousands of people who visit the site, referencing it, writing it, editing it, critiquing it, and enjoying it.
I was surprised at the amount of dedication editors had to various topics; people would come back to the very site they started/edited to make sure nothing was off. That very thought of policing an online article at all times is a little odd to me. For one, how do they make the time for it? How can they even tell that something is off? Where do they manage to find all the sources?
The most intriguing part of the first half was the obvious hypocrisy of the "scholarly" media, such as journals and news. The anti-Wikipedia movement basically stemmed from reporters and journalists stating that Wikipedia is unreliable, amateur, and a horrible source for any work. Yet, these very people were the ones who replicated the information that was present in Wikipedia, sometimes without even verifing the validity of the information, as they should have. For example, the false quote added in under Maurice Jarre, a famous French composer, was used in major newspapers (including Sydney Morning Herald), even after it was flagged for not having a citation in mere two minutes (pg. 92).
What a lot of people are worried about now is the possibility (that is actually happening these days) that students as well as any other groups of people will rely too much on Wikipedia alone rather than going on to further validate some of the information presented in a Wikipedia article. Yet, as it was mentioned several times in the book, Wikipedia articles have been carefully molded by dedicated editors, a lot of whom are professionals in the subject(s) they are writing about. Mistakes are often caught in minutes, and most points are backed by sources that can verify the information. More and more professors and scholars are contributing to this once-thought amateur encyclopedia that has been gaining notoriety and respect over other encyclopedias, such as Britannia. If people do not have the ability to properly use Wikipedia, it is their own fault, not of Wikipedia's.
Personally, I love Wikipedia. It has helped me in so many assignment throughout my high school career that it was my #1 most frequented site. I never had problems of using inaccurate information because I did extra research, usually browsing through the cited sources. For those of you who have not used Wikipedia or is just not a fan of it, re-read the last sentence of page 113. :)
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Solo Current Event: "Hey Parents, Are You Raising a Generation of Nincompoops?"
Before I get into a discussion on my own current event topic, I really wanted to talk about another presentation that went before me because it was really interesting! (I kind of felt really intimidated by the time I had to get up in front of the class to present. haha) I would love to talk about the others but since I should keep this short....... I can only put in a little bit extra >.<
The most interesting one I thought was the one about the discovery of a planet that seems very similar to this Earth that we live in. It raises so many different possibilities, conflicts, and just curiosity! Are there other living species besides the ones we know on the Earth today on that planet? Would we ever be able to communicate with them, if they do exist? Can we ever come up with the technology to travel 20 light years away to visit the planet ourselves? Would we be able to take refuge on it if/when the Earth fails us (even if it won't be until many many generations after us)? If life exists on this planet, what can be said about the principles of some religion, such as Christianity? Above all, are there other planets that are like this one out of the countless number of planets in our galaxy alone? The possibilities seem endless.
As for my own article, "Hey Parents! Are You Raising a Generation of Nincompoops?" I found it while I was looking through the news on http://www.msnbc.com/ I read through several articles under the Technology section to find a curent even article and to me, the one I picked seemed the most interesting and relevant. The article basically talked about how children of the new generation are lacking some 'basic' skills that used to be elementary and necessary to people. In most cases, they were like second nature! Children learn to tie their shoelaces later, if at all, and teenagers are baffled by can openers, ice cube trays, and clothes hangers! The articles goes into an analysis of whether this lack of basic skills in children is of their parents' faults or not.
The questions I asked were "Should parents be teaching everything that kids used to be taught or is it unnecessary?" and "Are we really 'nincompoops' or did the whole set of required knowledge just change?" The respones I got were pretty interesting and it was even better to see how the opinions differed among people who were part of different generations. The general idea, though, is that children are not stupid by any means. It is true that they are lacking some skills that were thought to be basic but times changed with the advancement of technology. Parents and schools have stopped teaching as many skills for a reason: they're not necessary! New machineries and skills that are needed to operate them have overtaken the set of skills we previously needed. In place of them, however, we have a whole diffeent set of skills that are needed to function successfully in a technology-driven society.
So to answer the question of my article, no, we are not a generation of nincompoops nor are the next generations. In fact, we are actually the ones who are most fit to live in the current state of society.
The most interesting one I thought was the one about the discovery of a planet that seems very similar to this Earth that we live in. It raises so many different possibilities, conflicts, and just curiosity! Are there other living species besides the ones we know on the Earth today on that planet? Would we ever be able to communicate with them, if they do exist? Can we ever come up with the technology to travel 20 light years away to visit the planet ourselves? Would we be able to take refuge on it if/when the Earth fails us (even if it won't be until many many generations after us)? If life exists on this planet, what can be said about the principles of some religion, such as Christianity? Above all, are there other planets that are like this one out of the countless number of planets in our galaxy alone? The possibilities seem endless.
As for my own article, "Hey Parents! Are You Raising a Generation of Nincompoops?" I found it while I was looking through the news on http://www.msnbc.com/ I read through several articles under the Technology section to find a curent even article and to me, the one I picked seemed the most interesting and relevant. The article basically talked about how children of the new generation are lacking some 'basic' skills that used to be elementary and necessary to people. In most cases, they were like second nature! Children learn to tie their shoelaces later, if at all, and teenagers are baffled by can openers, ice cube trays, and clothes hangers! The articles goes into an analysis of whether this lack of basic skills in children is of their parents' faults or not.
The questions I asked were "Should parents be teaching everything that kids used to be taught or is it unnecessary?" and "Are we really 'nincompoops' or did the whole set of required knowledge just change?" The respones I got were pretty interesting and it was even better to see how the opinions differed among people who were part of different generations. The general idea, though, is that children are not stupid by any means. It is true that they are lacking some skills that were thought to be basic but times changed with the advancement of technology. Parents and schools have stopped teaching as many skills for a reason: they're not necessary! New machineries and skills that are needed to operate them have overtaken the set of skills we previously needed. In place of them, however, we have a whole diffeent set of skills that are needed to function successfully in a technology-driven society.
So to answer the question of my article, no, we are not a generation of nincompoops nor are the next generations. In fact, we are actually the ones who are most fit to live in the current state of society.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology PART II
The last half of Postman's book was certainly an entertaining read. I'm not so sure how well of an argument Postman made in regards to the final point he made in the first half of the book. In the latter half, he focuses on specific examples of how technology relates to society and the faults of that integration.
I can't say that I agree or disagree completely with Postman. I caught myself doubting him as well as myself a couple of times during the reading. For example, technology became an instrument between the doctors and patients (pg. 99). That is a fact, and we all know it. Postman argues in his book that doctors become less competent as technology advances because they learn to rely less on themselves and much more on the machines they use. At first, I thought, "Oh my god, this is so true! Doctors have to learn how to use machines nowadays before they learn proper techniques, right?" Then, I took a step back and thought about it again. There is now way doctors are less competent. If anything, they have to be better than ever before! Doctors are NOT used by technologies. They take the time to train with machines to be able to correctly use and manipulate them to do their work. There are more requirements than ever before as well as competition to become a doctor. Postman is ignoring huge factors when he makes his so-called judgement calls and only focusing on the mere implications technology MAY have on people.
One thing that I really thought hard about was when Postman mentioned that "people believe that technological innovation is synonymous with human progress" (pg. 117). I mean, I do think that it's true, but can it be any other way? Advancements in technology enabled us to advance as humans with (for the most part) healthier, longer, and overall better lives. Postman argues that technological problems deal with inadequate information while real problems deal with moral issues, which is why technological innovation cannot be synonymous with human progress (119). Yet, is that really a factor in this? So what if the problems are different? We are not saying that technology fixes all these problems in society, but rather, they can just help us advance in certain ways. Unless Postman is saying that human advancement is possible if and only if societal problems are eliminated, this is irrelevant.
Above all, though, Postman's proposal caught my interest and had the wheels spinning inside my head. He make a good point that one cannot learn without the history, but he admits that this type of teaching will lead to set backs in the technological world. I wonder, if we had listened to him in 1992, would we be where we are today? Even better, what does Postman think about the technology-infested world we live in today? That would certainly be an interesting topic to talk about.
P.S. Algorithms that we talked about in class on Monday? As I said, the Amazon.com incident made me think of how useful yet creepy it is that I was able to find all my book by finding one course book and being recommended all others. Nowadays, I try not to pay attention to the ads on my facebook because I KNOW they are pertaining to something I was already tempted to buy/join/read/etc.!
I can't say that I agree or disagree completely with Postman. I caught myself doubting him as well as myself a couple of times during the reading. For example, technology became an instrument between the doctors and patients (pg. 99). That is a fact, and we all know it. Postman argues in his book that doctors become less competent as technology advances because they learn to rely less on themselves and much more on the machines they use. At first, I thought, "Oh my god, this is so true! Doctors have to learn how to use machines nowadays before they learn proper techniques, right?" Then, I took a step back and thought about it again. There is now way doctors are less competent. If anything, they have to be better than ever before! Doctors are NOT used by technologies. They take the time to train with machines to be able to correctly use and manipulate them to do their work. There are more requirements than ever before as well as competition to become a doctor. Postman is ignoring huge factors when he makes his so-called judgement calls and only focusing on the mere implications technology MAY have on people.
One thing that I really thought hard about was when Postman mentioned that "people believe that technological innovation is synonymous with human progress" (pg. 117). I mean, I do think that it's true, but can it be any other way? Advancements in technology enabled us to advance as humans with (for the most part) healthier, longer, and overall better lives. Postman argues that technological problems deal with inadequate information while real problems deal with moral issues, which is why technological innovation cannot be synonymous with human progress (119). Yet, is that really a factor in this? So what if the problems are different? We are not saying that technology fixes all these problems in society, but rather, they can just help us advance in certain ways. Unless Postman is saying that human advancement is possible if and only if societal problems are eliminated, this is irrelevant.
Above all, though, Postman's proposal caught my interest and had the wheels spinning inside my head. He make a good point that one cannot learn without the history, but he admits that this type of teaching will lead to set backs in the technological world. I wonder, if we had listened to him in 1992, would we be where we are today? Even better, what does Postman think about the technology-infested world we live in today? That would certainly be an interesting topic to talk about.
P.S. Algorithms that we talked about in class on Monday? As I said, the Amazon.com incident made me think of how useful yet creepy it is that I was able to find all my book by finding one course book and being recommended all others. Nowadays, I try not to pay attention to the ads on my facebook because I KNOW they are pertaining to something I was already tempted to buy/join/read/etc.!
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology PART I
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture of Technology by Neil Postman is definitely a book I would have never thought of reading but once I started it, I was surprised at how interesting it was from the very beginning. Postman's clever usage of Thamus and Freud had be looking forward to what he would say next. Until, of course, I read his actual point: technology was ruining our lives, even if there are winners and losers in all cases.
I really could not get myself to agree with him. Sure, large organizations may have gotten better with technology but the masses of people he mentions on page 10 are not losers, either. Everyone has benefited from the development of technology. We have much better systems and machinery to help us accomplish more in an efficient way. Steelworkers have better equipment and protection, vegetable-store owners have better storing method for their products, teachers have access to even more information online, and so on! They are definitely not losers of technology.
It felt like Postman was mostly scared of the change that would come about with the growing technology. Just as our minds have become accustomed to dealing with and judging people by numbers and grades (pg. 13), our minds will alter themselves to fit in whatever has been changed by technology. Additionally, he fears that the new developments will be unlike the previous tools we have dealt with that have been integrated well into our culture (pg. 25) and become a true technopoly, which is a totalitarian technocracy (pg. 48). Even though he called himself an open-minded individual, it is clear that he is against all the changes brought on by technology and the possible changes that are to come.
At the end of the first half of the book, I found it a bit funny to see how serious Postman seemed in regards to how technology will ruin our society. Not only will Technopoly experts fail to relate to any matter unrelated to his/her expertise, they are like beauracracies (pg 87), which Postman states create problems (pg. 86). There is also no such thing as sin and evil in a Technopoly because in essence, they are parts of a moral universe that cannot be cared for in the technological world (pg. 90). I'm sorry, but what in the world? I have no idea where he got all this from and could not help laughing out of confusion and disbelief.
I can't wait to read the second half of the book to see how Technopoly cannot work and how the consequences are stupid and painful!
I really could not get myself to agree with him. Sure, large organizations may have gotten better with technology but the masses of people he mentions on page 10 are not losers, either. Everyone has benefited from the development of technology. We have much better systems and machinery to help us accomplish more in an efficient way. Steelworkers have better equipment and protection, vegetable-store owners have better storing method for their products, teachers have access to even more information online, and so on! They are definitely not losers of technology.
It felt like Postman was mostly scared of the change that would come about with the growing technology. Just as our minds have become accustomed to dealing with and judging people by numbers and grades (pg. 13), our minds will alter themselves to fit in whatever has been changed by technology. Additionally, he fears that the new developments will be unlike the previous tools we have dealt with that have been integrated well into our culture (pg. 25) and become a true technopoly, which is a totalitarian technocracy (pg. 48). Even though he called himself an open-minded individual, it is clear that he is against all the changes brought on by technology and the possible changes that are to come.
At the end of the first half of the book, I found it a bit funny to see how serious Postman seemed in regards to how technology will ruin our society. Not only will Technopoly experts fail to relate to any matter unrelated to his/her expertise, they are like beauracracies (pg 87), which Postman states create problems (pg. 86). There is also no such thing as sin and evil in a Technopoly because in essence, they are parts of a moral universe that cannot be cared for in the technological world (pg. 90). I'm sorry, but what in the world? I have no idea where he got all this from and could not help laughing out of confusion and disbelief.
I can't wait to read the second half of the book to see how Technopoly cannot work and how the consequences are stupid and painful!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)