Life or Machines?

Loren Eisley, author of The Bird and the Machine, believes in life. Machines evoke less wonder, he says, because they can only change when a human changes it first. But all forms of life, from birds to humans, are unpredictable and therefore have incredibly more power and potential. Birds, like all life forms, yearn to be free and unrestrained by society. They are able to. But, what Eisley argues is the main difference between life and machines, forms of technology like computers and robots have no desire to be free. Because they have no spark. No passion for change and never knowing what will happen to himself next. That excitement for change, which resides in every being, cannot be in computers.

The discovery of the cell changed a generation's way of thinking. Before, when the cell remained unknown, "man, whether he was conceived as possessing a soul or not, moved and jerked about like these tiny puppets. A human being thought of himself in terms of his own tools and implements. He had been fashioned like the puppets he produced and was only a more clever model made by a greater designer" (Eisley 602). Science's effect on this issue completely changed a common thought. When the cell was discovered, it restored a sense of wonder. The fact that scientists didn't know everything about the cell excited them all the more. With a machine, there is little wonder to be found because it is man-made.

So, life or machines? Eisley says life. Many respected others say machines. If you have a wager, leave your response in the comments section.

Outstanding TED Talk

In Aaron Koblin's "Artfully Visualizing Our Humanity", he transforms staggering amounts of data into personalized, human creations. When he sets up his sheep experiment, Koblin sifts through thousands of sheep, and each one is specific to the personality and mood of the artist. His revolutionary technology focuses on community. Technology is full of what Koblin calls "personal contribution", and he varies the contribution levels through his experimentation, surprised by what he sees.

The idea of "personal contribution"- I know I already mentioned this, but it just amazes me how technology can bond us together through a personal Johnny Cash video. People all over the world were able to watch this "living, breathing memorial" for Johnny Cash. This technology was visually stunning, and it showed a humanity that we often don't think of when we think of technology.

"The Interface Is The Message"- At the beginning of his video, he mentioned that our generation is changed by interface. Our communication and the way we interact with one another is completely altered. Dictionary.com gives this definition of interface: "a thing or circumstance that enables separate and sometimes incompatible elements to coordinate effectively." That is truly how digital technology can work with people.

Beautifying data- The way he presented his data humanized it to me. Instead of methodical charts, which seem so computer generated, he presented them in a way that showed rises and falls, spikes and declines in natural flowing lines. In the natural world, people are not without flaws and this was shown through the presentation.

In terms of clarity, Koblin's ideas flowed very well and there wasn't really anything I questioned or wondered about. My biggest question during the video was, "How did you collect all of that data?" I would definitely recommend this video to anyone interested, but especially those who think technology dehumanizes people.

Bridging the Communication Gap

Growing up in an intensely digital age, I know that connecting with other generations is tougher than ever. Since the creation of websites like Twitter and Instagram, words have new connotations and new meanings and in some cases, new words are in the dictionary due to these inventions.

 I was talking to my grandmother the other day, and I was about to say something along the lines of, "Isn't that funny? Hashtag awkward." Luckily, I stopped myself just in time. But after thinking about that for a while, I was puzzled how that particular phrase had made its way into the vocabulary. 

The interesting part about that is this: I don't have a Twitter account. I was actually proud of that fact too, proud of my restraint in not giving in to technology, especially what I considered "dumb" technology. When, in fact, I just did. 

Technology has such a profound effect on this digital generation, and yet, earlier generations do not seem to welcome this new technology. Communicating has become so different, which is why there is tension between the generations. We are used to an instant response, emoticons, and distance between the communicators. We are used to writing 140 characters or less, not thoughtful letters to the editor, which my grandmother told me she and her friends did if they had a complaint.

This change in communication affects all of us, even those unwilling to use Facebook or Twitter or Instagram. If we do not learn to talk to and understand earlier generations, their voices will be lost. Our communication gap must be bridged through interpersonal relationships, which can be strengthened by technology, but can only be formed through love. We need a relationship to work with or without technology, but the key is INDEPENDENCE FROM TECHNOLOGY. 

As people, our mission is to love people well. Love, unlike many people's actions, is not passive. It is easy to like someone from afar, but making a point to get to know someone and loving them anyway is actual love. We show our love for others by communicating with them, and obviously, communicating with them well. 

Technology can either be a detriment to relationships or it can strengthen them; it depends on the user. However, show your love for others by attempting to communicate with them well in whatever way that you must. People deserve to be treated like people, not machines.

Embrace the Technopoly: It's Not a Bad Thing!

Technology can be either an advantage or a major problem. If we completely depend on technology, then we will become a "technopoly". Or so Postman claims at first. However, we kind of already are one. Inventions are technology, and our day-to-day lives involve all kinds of technology, from iPhones to laptops to pencils to books and so on. True, inventions can change the way we think. But it seems so gloomy to immediately assume that those inventions will control or try to harm us. It is worth considering the risks and possible societal differences this invention will create. However, keep an open mind. "As for change brought on by technology, this native optimism is exploited by entrepreneurs, who work hard to infuse the population with a unity of improbable hope, for they know it is economically unwise to reveal the price to be paid for technological change." The argument Postman brings up here is worth mentioning, however, entrepreneurs are without a job without societal problems. So it is safe to assume that entrepreneurs focus more on helping to solve these issues than "infuse the population with an unity of improbable hope." So embrace the technopoly: it's not necessarily a bad thing! Not to say that we should observe no caution, but the question is not "Are we living in a technopoly?", but "How do we live in this technopoly in a way that honors ethics?".

Touch Screen Babies

In her article, "The Touch Screen Generation", Hanna Rosin writes about the effect of digital technology, such as TV and iPads, on toddlers and young children. Different methods of handling technology worked well for different cases. For example, many people limited their child's use of technology to special occasions or small increments of time daily. However, Marc Prensky, mentioned specifically in her article, allowed his children unlimited access to technology on the basis that, "who says that books are better than screens?" Following this logic, Rosin tried this experiment, and eventually her child got bored with her iPad and left it alone. Achieving this desired outcome through a sort of reverse psychology, Rosin is curious on whether this "books are better than screens" is a worthy reason for withholding technology from young children.

"If they treat screen time like junk food, or 'like a magazine at the hair salon'—good for passing the time in a frivolous way but nothing more—then the child will fully absorb that attitude, and the neurosis will be passed to the next generation" (Rosin). ---This quote is particularly interesting because it compares screen time to fast food: addictive, fun at first but unsatisfying later on.

"And all my kids, including Gideon, play Cut the Rope a lot, which is not exclusively marketed as a kids’ game. I could convince myself that the game is teaching them certain principles of physics—it’s not easy to know the exact right place to slice the rope. But do I really need that extra convincing? I like playing the game; why shouldn’t they?" (Rosin) 
--- Games can be fun without needing to be educational. What exactly is worth learning in educational games, in comparison to non-educational games?

"Some educational apps, I wouldn’t wish on the naughtiest toddler. Take, for example, Counting With the Very Hungry Caterpillar, which turns a perfectly cute book into a tedious app that asks you to “please eat 1 piece of chocolate cake” so you can count to one" (Rosin).
--- Like we had discussed in class earlier, why market something specifically as an "kids' educational" game? This can be ineffective and sends the wrong message to the child playing the game.

In terms of confusion, this article was relatively straightforward. I don't have any major or pressing questions.

Stupid Googlers, Part II

James Bowman's article is a critical response to "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", written by Nicholas Carr. He dismisses the idea that the problem is the lack of "deep reading", as suggested by Carr, and even rejects Carr's notion that he needs to feel guilty about going online. Instead, he proposes and defends the idea that the problem is teachers thinking that they need to make learning fun, which immediately sets listeners on guard and unresponsive to the teachers. This method, not the tool, is the problem.

Because the article is titled so similarly and directly referenced, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" is clearly connected to Bowman's "Is Stupid Making Us Google?". Marc Prensky's "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants" supports the idea of teachers needing to make learning fun, of which Bowman is highly critical. While Prensky emphasizes the differences of "immigrants" and "natives", Bowman focuses on the result of "learning must be fun", which is bad for all parties involved; the "immigrants" watch their culture become oblivious and unimportant, and the "natives" do not receive the benefits of reaching outside of their cultural bubbles and truly expanding their horizons and minds.

In twenty or thirty years, this computer that I'm typing on will be ancient history and culture. How do you think that my grand- and great-grandchildren should learn about my experiences, or should they? Just a thought.

Are We Stupid Googlers?

Nicholas Carr's article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", brings up an important point on the discussion of the effects of technology on its users. He references HAL, the dangerously powerful supercomputer in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the scene when the astronaut, Dave Bowman, unplugs him. He compares his brain after dealing with technology to the reaction of HAL when he was unplugged.

Just as unsettling as the idea in a science fiction movie of artificial intelligence responding emotionally, Carr notices that Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the creators of Google, have spoken of their interest in connecting artificial intelligence directly to the brain. It re-defines the word intelligence, that is, it makes intelligence something that can be complete. "Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive."

"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" is a more negative take on the same issue that Marc Prensky sheds light on in a much more positive way. Prensky, in his article, "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants", celebrates the wonders of new technology in order for students to learn, because he, in agreement with Carr, writes that students' brains are adapting to this incredibly digital age. But how do you think older adults', or "digital immigrants'", brains are being affected by the technology overload? Leave your response in the comments.