Advertising. You see it everywhere you go; getting the train, at sports games, television and even on your cell. Advertisements influence people to buy certain products by identifying a problem and providing a solution, it is suggested that they can make some people feel inadequate and a need to purchase the advertised merchandise.
Advertising has been around since 4000BC, but the colossal amount and difference of advertisements the average American sees on a daily basis is quite shocking - approximately 3000 ads are viewed per day. This vast amount I feel causes a sense of being “brainwashed” and there is a reliability on insecurities that are used.
So how do companies individually advertise? Let’s take Apple Inc. for example, a huge corporation that is favoured with many for their technological products. Apple’s main attraction is the design and style of their numerous products. In 2006 their notorious “Get a Mac” campaign depicted two characters personifying a PC (John Hodgman) and a Mac (Justin Long). Justin Long embodied the style, speed and versatility of a Mac, whilst John Hodgman showed the opposite, dressed in a dated business suit. This effective advertising appealed to the younger generation by identifying their self-esteem and wishes in a computer. I feel it also discredits nostalgic views of many against technological advances such as Nicholas Carr by showing the progression of technology. Their television adverts now demonstrate their products, showing the different and multipurpose uses. However, Apple were criticized due to many false claims in their advertisements. In August 2008 the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK banned an iPhone ad due to “misleading claims” – the advertisement claimed that “all parts of the internet are on the iPhone” however, the device doesn’t support Java or Flash. This discovery concerns me to how many advertisements show false claims that may ultimately persuade people to purchase the product. The amount they rely on image also increases my fear as it causes people to be concerned about their image (as shown in the “Get a Mac” campaign). It makes people feel inadequate and dated, furthering a need to purchase the product in people that may be apprehensive about their own image.
Children’s advertisements appeal to this concern and other anxieties. Advertising aimed at children is particularly effective, due to less critical thinking or decision-making than in adults. Young Media Australia (YMA) discusses these particular problems for youth. “Recent research indicates that there is a marked link between TV watching, and negative body and eating disorders”, (Becker, A, 2002). This is severely worrying and eye opening. Who would’ve thought an advert could effect how a child feels about their body image?
Magazine and TV advertisements affect women/girls’ body image and confidence. In a poll on http://www.fitsugar.com/Killing-Us-Softly-4-Movie-Trailer-9190792’s article “Do Models in Ads affect your body image?” an overwhelming amount of voters chose the “Yes, I want to look like them, and feel bad when I don’t” category (275/504) rather than the option of being happy and content with their own bodies (48/504). This result furthers the general opinion that advertisements manipulate peoples’ self-conscious feelings and use them to sell their products.
Models and celebrities are used to enhance these feelings to sell products, and are favorable ways of advertising with many companies. Many teenage stars are photographed using products of companies, aimed gain at children and young people who idolize these stars. Apple iPads were photographed being carried by several Disney Stars such as Miley Cyrus and Hilary Duff. Using these children’s idols and again their inadequacies to sell their products – resulting in the products being added to many children’s Christmas wish lists.
This form of advertisement gives a false idea of being like these celebrities or models if you purchase the products fueling insecurities.
Although the advertisements may not be directly associated with the changes people are doing to their body image, it is causing a serious effect. The increase in cosmetic surgery has been cosmic over the past decade, perhaps due to the increase in the “perfect” images shown in most advertisements.
The general consensus regarding advertisements is that they do indeed brainwash and use the insecurities of people to sell their products. The vast amount of the similar types of advertisements is astonishing, and by using ads that answer people’s needs or affect ones self-image are usually extremely efficient at selling products. It may be felt in companies that these tools are essential to sell, however, the affect it is having on the generation is considerably distressing and is causing serious health risks and disorders.
Friday, July 30, 2010
essay draft
It is commonly acknowledged that technology has made life a whole lot easier. In fact,
technology has significantly improved our standard of living by supplying us with better communication, faster and safer travel, more effective medical care, and more. But nowadays, it seems that technology has begun to shrink. While it may not sound very logical, this rapid shrinking technology will not only help us, but save us as well.
Imagine a time when cancer treatments could ensure a patient’s full recovery, a person with a debilitating spinal cord injury would walk and a disease could be prevented before it became threat. Imagine that the effects of aging could be completely reversed and broken bones could be healed in a matter of hours. Although these may seem like a doctor’s and patient’s wildest dream, with the further development of nanotechnology, these dreams could become reality.
In the most technical terms, nanotechnology is the study of the controlling of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Scientists have begun to engineer extremely small robotic devices, nanobots, which have the potential to revolutionize the field of medicine by 2015. Nanotechnology could help doctors effectively diagnose, treat and cure patients because nanobots could retrieve intimate images from within the body and perform complicated procedures that doctors are not humanly capable of doing. Patient aftercare could also be improved with nanobots that are able to regulate the delivery of a drug to the patient as well as allow the patient to monitor their own body systems. These abilities of the nanobots give doctors, as Ralph C. Merkle, researcher of nanotechnology and author of “It’s a Small, Small, Small World”, would say, “Positional control” that would guarantee “a quantum leap in our medical capabilities”. Given that there is no end to the possibilities nanotechnology offers for the
Betterment of the health of the human race, it is as if there is no possible way this new technology could fail us.
Despite the strides nanotechnology has made in the hopes of improving the effectiveness of modern medicine, some critics have expressed their concerns with the more sinister potential these nanobots have to offer. Critics fear that where there is a way to heal, there is always many ways in which to hurt. Among those critics is Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, head of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, reminds the scientific community of the ethical dilemmas that nanotechnology faces with his message that “everything technologically possible need not be ethically permissible." We must consider the risks of developing a technology to use for good that, with a bit of tweaking, could easily be used for evil. Nanobots could guarantee that we could live for a very long time, but, like with all technologies, if nanobots fell into the wrong hands, all of humanity could be in danger.
Imagine a time when a bioterrorism attack could be completely successful because the terrorists have programmed nanobots to deliver poison that avoids the body’s defenses and but to not attack the terrorists. Imagine that nanobots became so advanced that they could self-replicate until they formed an elite army of super humans that could take over the world. Imagine that scientists engineer nanobots as lethal weapons or that doctors could harvest and spread disease with nanobots instead of preventing and curing disease. And again, although these may sound like the wildest dreams of science fiction novelists, the development of advanced nanotechnology opens the door to these ominous possibilities.
One could debate about the ethical use of nanotechnology for days. The issue with nanotechnology is that its development cannot simply be either beneficial or detrimental to
humans. If the issue was that black and white, the answer for whether or not it should be made and used would be easy. Like all technology, nanotechnology’s main problem is that it is being manufactured by human beings who have demonstrated infinite capabilities for both good and
evil. Some would argue that doctors need the ability to cure people’s cancer, while others would be adamant that rogue nations should not have access to technology that could wipe out an entire country. As Sherri Chasin Calvo, a freelance science writer specializing in genetics has stated, “nanotechnology can be a double-edged sword”.
Taking both the advantages and disadvantages of nanotechnology into mind, I believe, that the advantages of nanotechnology in medicine are numerous enough to outweigh the disadvantages if the proper procedural steps are taken and the rules are enforced. Completely halting the nanotechnology would be unreasonable because technological development would be at a standstill with no onward movement. Also, abstaining from further research and work on nanotechnology in the United States, for instance, would not guarantee that other countries will not continue development of nanobots now or in the future. Giving scientists the freedom to work freely with nanotechnology, however, is not an ideal solution either. Instead, regulatory policies and guidelines should be made and enforced to effectively prohibit the abuse of nanobots’ abilities and the possible negative effects on humanity.
Guidelines for nanotechnology development would hopefully prevent the nanobots from becoming a threat to the public. Ideally, the designers of the nanobots would make certain that the nanobots could not self-replicate or be susceptible to changes in their blueprint ensuring the
nanobots could only perform the job they were meant to do. These policies and guidelines, however, will not be easy to establish and enforce. Obtaining absolute cooperation from every
government in the world will be difficult as will the hiring enforcers to see that international laws are followed. Because nanotechnology applies to other fields beside medicine, regulations will
have to be formed specifically to each field. Despite these obstacles and given the benefits of the technology, I believe that nanotechnology policies and regulations should be established so that research and development can continue on.
New technology always faces ethical dilemmas. I find that as someone who may require medical care in the future or may know someone else in dire need of medicine, the potential that nanotechnology offers to the field of medicine is difficult to deny. The establishment of safety policies and guidelines, though a not an easy endeavor, is not an unreasonable or impossible to carry out. With these policies and guidelines firmly in place, I see no reason why we cannot reap the benefits nanotechnology gives us and remain confident of its safe use and application.
Jamais Cascio, author of “Get Smarter”, describes the human race is an evolving and intelligent species with the ability to use technology for our benefit. Cascio also writes about our “co-evolution” with technology. If nanotechnology is the next step in the evolutionary process for technology and we discontinue its development, can we continue to evolve as a species? Another point Cascio makes is that “with augmented intelligence, we will have a far greater appreciation for the consequences of our actions”. Perhaps with this new appreciation, all of society will want to use nanotechnology for its benefits despite other possible uses. In the end, we must rely on own species and our own choices, for while nanotechnology may be the sword, it will be the human beings who decide which way to swing the blade.
technology has significantly improved our standard of living by supplying us with better communication, faster and safer travel, more effective medical care, and more. But nowadays, it seems that technology has begun to shrink. While it may not sound very logical, this rapid shrinking technology will not only help us, but save us as well.
Imagine a time when cancer treatments could ensure a patient’s full recovery, a person with a debilitating spinal cord injury would walk and a disease could be prevented before it became threat. Imagine that the effects of aging could be completely reversed and broken bones could be healed in a matter of hours. Although these may seem like a doctor’s and patient’s wildest dream, with the further development of nanotechnology, these dreams could become reality.
In the most technical terms, nanotechnology is the study of the controlling of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Scientists have begun to engineer extremely small robotic devices, nanobots, which have the potential to revolutionize the field of medicine by 2015. Nanotechnology could help doctors effectively diagnose, treat and cure patients because nanobots could retrieve intimate images from within the body and perform complicated procedures that doctors are not humanly capable of doing. Patient aftercare could also be improved with nanobots that are able to regulate the delivery of a drug to the patient as well as allow the patient to monitor their own body systems. These abilities of the nanobots give doctors, as Ralph C. Merkle, researcher of nanotechnology and author of “It’s a Small, Small, Small World”, would say, “Positional control” that would guarantee “a quantum leap in our medical capabilities”. Given that there is no end to the possibilities nanotechnology offers for the
Betterment of the health of the human race, it is as if there is no possible way this new technology could fail us.
Despite the strides nanotechnology has made in the hopes of improving the effectiveness of modern medicine, some critics have expressed their concerns with the more sinister potential these nanobots have to offer. Critics fear that where there is a way to heal, there is always many ways in which to hurt. Among those critics is Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, head of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, reminds the scientific community of the ethical dilemmas that nanotechnology faces with his message that “everything technologically possible need not be ethically permissible." We must consider the risks of developing a technology to use for good that, with a bit of tweaking, could easily be used for evil. Nanobots could guarantee that we could live for a very long time, but, like with all technologies, if nanobots fell into the wrong hands, all of humanity could be in danger.
Imagine a time when a bioterrorism attack could be completely successful because the terrorists have programmed nanobots to deliver poison that avoids the body’s defenses and but to not attack the terrorists. Imagine that nanobots became so advanced that they could self-replicate until they formed an elite army of super humans that could take over the world. Imagine that scientists engineer nanobots as lethal weapons or that doctors could harvest and spread disease with nanobots instead of preventing and curing disease. And again, although these may sound like the wildest dreams of science fiction novelists, the development of advanced nanotechnology opens the door to these ominous possibilities.
One could debate about the ethical use of nanotechnology for days. The issue with nanotechnology is that its development cannot simply be either beneficial or detrimental to
humans. If the issue was that black and white, the answer for whether or not it should be made and used would be easy. Like all technology, nanotechnology’s main problem is that it is being manufactured by human beings who have demonstrated infinite capabilities for both good and
evil. Some would argue that doctors need the ability to cure people’s cancer, while others would be adamant that rogue nations should not have access to technology that could wipe out an entire country. As Sherri Chasin Calvo, a freelance science writer specializing in genetics has stated, “nanotechnology can be a double-edged sword”.
Taking both the advantages and disadvantages of nanotechnology into mind, I believe, that the advantages of nanotechnology in medicine are numerous enough to outweigh the disadvantages if the proper procedural steps are taken and the rules are enforced. Completely halting the nanotechnology would be unreasonable because technological development would be at a standstill with no onward movement. Also, abstaining from further research and work on nanotechnology in the United States, for instance, would not guarantee that other countries will not continue development of nanobots now or in the future. Giving scientists the freedom to work freely with nanotechnology, however, is not an ideal solution either. Instead, regulatory policies and guidelines should be made and enforced to effectively prohibit the abuse of nanobots’ abilities and the possible negative effects on humanity.
Guidelines for nanotechnology development would hopefully prevent the nanobots from becoming a threat to the public. Ideally, the designers of the nanobots would make certain that the nanobots could not self-replicate or be susceptible to changes in their blueprint ensuring the
nanobots could only perform the job they were meant to do. These policies and guidelines, however, will not be easy to establish and enforce. Obtaining absolute cooperation from every
government in the world will be difficult as will the hiring enforcers to see that international laws are followed. Because nanotechnology applies to other fields beside medicine, regulations will
have to be formed specifically to each field. Despite these obstacles and given the benefits of the technology, I believe that nanotechnology policies and regulations should be established so that research and development can continue on.
New technology always faces ethical dilemmas. I find that as someone who may require medical care in the future or may know someone else in dire need of medicine, the potential that nanotechnology offers to the field of medicine is difficult to deny. The establishment of safety policies and guidelines, though a not an easy endeavor, is not an unreasonable or impossible to carry out. With these policies and guidelines firmly in place, I see no reason why we cannot reap the benefits nanotechnology gives us and remain confident of its safe use and application.
Jamais Cascio, author of “Get Smarter”, describes the human race is an evolving and intelligent species with the ability to use technology for our benefit. Cascio also writes about our “co-evolution” with technology. If nanotechnology is the next step in the evolutionary process for technology and we discontinue its development, can we continue to evolve as a species? Another point Cascio makes is that “with augmented intelligence, we will have a far greater appreciation for the consequences of our actions”. Perhaps with this new appreciation, all of society will want to use nanotechnology for its benefits despite other possible uses. In the end, we must rely on own species and our own choices, for while nanotechnology may be the sword, it will be the human beings who decide which way to swing the blade.
Persuasive Essay Draft
My mom walks into the TV room and gives my sister and me a glare. All I could think was what could that possibly be for or what did I do wrong now? As I look around the room I notice that my sister is on her IPod Touch and on her laptop, and I am also on my laptop. Then, I see my dad walk in the door from work talking on his Blackberry. Now I understand my mother’s glare.
Americans today tend to believe that the Internet is a great way of communicating and connecting with people. Although I agree that the Internet is an exceptional communicating device, I cannot accept the fact that families are not becoming as close because of the Internet. I believe that the most important relationship to have is with your family and distractions, like Facebook, can affect the relationship between a family. In the movie, “Digital Nation,” one of the first things that occurred was the narrator noticing how each of her family members is in their own virtual world, meaning they are on their laptop or iPhone. Do we want our world to become a place where we can only connect with people through a technological gadget? Ben Turner, the author of the article “The Internet’s Effect on Relationships: Detrimental or Beneficial?” suggests that people have started to become addicted to the Internet, therefore causing people to not take part in their family. Turner also refutes that constant activity on the Internet causes loneliness and intimacy in relationships has decreased. He surely is right about increased loneliness and that people are addicted to the Internet because recent studies by psychologists have shown that this in fact is the case. This study has increased in curiosity because many psychologists think that this addiction is significant and more widespread. Christine Morris, the author of “The Effect of the Home Computer on Family Relationships” from the University of Maine, urges that family rifts have been created because of Internet. She also reports that family tension and conflicts have increased and family communication has declined. Authors from the journal the “American Psychologist” suggest that there has been an “Internet paradox,” meaning most Americans think that the Internet is improving communication when actually the Internet depletes psychological stableness and social engagements. I agree with the authors of the “American Psychologist” because spending time in a virtual world does not count as social involvement.
From my personal experiences, I believe that the Internet is not at all beneficial because most of the time I am at the Internet I am aimlessly on Facebook. Instead of being on Facebook I could be spending time with my family or instead of watching my favorite TV show while eating dinner, I should eat dinner with my family. Recently, I have seen the television network commercials where you are able to record each family member’s favorite show at the same time. Basically, each family member is able to watch what they want in isolation. Obviously this does not help develop a family relationship. We should not let the Internet do this to relationships that are the most important in our lives. Well-known authors of the “Psychologist Suite 101” blog argue that the Internet does not lead to non-social behavior. They also argue that the Internet does increase a person’s social ease and comfort. Though I concede that someone who may not be as social in the real world can be social on the Internet, I still insist that us Americans live in the real world, not in the virtual world, so you have to be able to communicate with people all the time.
Allen Harkleroad, the author of “The Internet- Good or Bad?” from the Statesboro Business & Lifestyle Magazine, argues that the Internet has its positives and its negatives. One of the positives being that it is the best way to connect with family. I most definitely side with Harkleroad and agree that the Internet allows families to connect that maybe on opposite sides of the world. I agree that the Internet is the strongest connection for a family when they are not physically near each other because my experience when I lived in England and communicated to my family in the U.S. by Internet confirms it. Military families also find the Internet extremely helpful when communicating with their loved ones in combat. I agree that the Internet can useful to connect with family, especially when having to communicate long-distance.
When the television was first introduced it was revolutionary technology, but has it ended up decreasing family time? Elena, a writer on Syntax.com, discusses how television is not social. Usually, people watch television to watch their favorite show, which most likely does not include watching it with a family member. As from my experience, my family and I don’t like to watch the same shows so when I watch T.V. it is by my self. Is this the same thing that is happening with the Internet?
As I compare my life before and after my laptop, Ipod, and Facebook, I know an enormous amount of time has been lost using those tools. Our society has not been improving since we were introduced to technology, it has become worse. Should we believe that improvement would be spending two hours a day on Facebook aimlessly looking at friend’s pictures and statuses? This is not the kind of activity that improves our society or our relationships. Cascio, the author of “Get Smarter,” suggests that it is important to keep using technology as much as we do and to develop it to its full extent, but try to picture a family of four all in separate rooms each on their separate laptops or phones. I do not side with what Cascio suggests because I do not want to have no connection with my family. This does not sound like a happy family and it shouldn’t be because you have your family for life and you may have a phone for a year or two years. After all, it is better to have wonderful family connections rather than great Internet connections.
Many writers such as Ben Turner, Christine Morris, and the authors of the “American Psychologist” argue that Internet has caused family communication to decline because of Internet addictions. Also, the Internet has been proven to deplete psychological stableness and social engagements. I have gathered from my personal experience that all the Internet does is distract people from more important things. For example, when I am on Facebook all I do is waste time doing nothing that is going to affect my life. The recent improvements in television technology have worsened the fact that technology decreases family connections. There are opposing opinions that the Internet increases a person’s ease, which I agree with, but it is more important to be connected with people in the real world. There are positives to communicating on the Internet. For example, families that communicate long distance find using the Internet (e-mail) extremely useful. It is also useful for people who are not very social. The Internet is a distraction and takes away from family time. When it comes down to it, the Internet is not as important as family communication.
Americans today tend to believe that the Internet is a great way of communicating and connecting with people. Although I agree that the Internet is an exceptional communicating device, I cannot accept the fact that families are not becoming as close because of the Internet. I believe that the most important relationship to have is with your family and distractions, like Facebook, can affect the relationship between a family. In the movie, “Digital Nation,” one of the first things that occurred was the narrator noticing how each of her family members is in their own virtual world, meaning they are on their laptop or iPhone. Do we want our world to become a place where we can only connect with people through a technological gadget? Ben Turner, the author of the article “The Internet’s Effect on Relationships: Detrimental or Beneficial?” suggests that people have started to become addicted to the Internet, therefore causing people to not take part in their family. Turner also refutes that constant activity on the Internet causes loneliness and intimacy in relationships has decreased. He surely is right about increased loneliness and that people are addicted to the Internet because recent studies by psychologists have shown that this in fact is the case. This study has increased in curiosity because many psychologists think that this addiction is significant and more widespread. Christine Morris, the author of “The Effect of the Home Computer on Family Relationships” from the University of Maine, urges that family rifts have been created because of Internet. She also reports that family tension and conflicts have increased and family communication has declined. Authors from the journal the “American Psychologist” suggest that there has been an “Internet paradox,” meaning most Americans think that the Internet is improving communication when actually the Internet depletes psychological stableness and social engagements. I agree with the authors of the “American Psychologist” because spending time in a virtual world does not count as social involvement.
From my personal experiences, I believe that the Internet is not at all beneficial because most of the time I am at the Internet I am aimlessly on Facebook. Instead of being on Facebook I could be spending time with my family or instead of watching my favorite TV show while eating dinner, I should eat dinner with my family. Recently, I have seen the television network commercials where you are able to record each family member’s favorite show at the same time. Basically, each family member is able to watch what they want in isolation. Obviously this does not help develop a family relationship. We should not let the Internet do this to relationships that are the most important in our lives. Well-known authors of the “Psychologist Suite 101” blog argue that the Internet does not lead to non-social behavior. They also argue that the Internet does increase a person’s social ease and comfort. Though I concede that someone who may not be as social in the real world can be social on the Internet, I still insist that us Americans live in the real world, not in the virtual world, so you have to be able to communicate with people all the time.
Allen Harkleroad, the author of “The Internet- Good or Bad?” from the Statesboro Business & Lifestyle Magazine, argues that the Internet has its positives and its negatives. One of the positives being that it is the best way to connect with family. I most definitely side with Harkleroad and agree that the Internet allows families to connect that maybe on opposite sides of the world. I agree that the Internet is the strongest connection for a family when they are not physically near each other because my experience when I lived in England and communicated to my family in the U.S. by Internet confirms it. Military families also find the Internet extremely helpful when communicating with their loved ones in combat. I agree that the Internet can useful to connect with family, especially when having to communicate long-distance.
When the television was first introduced it was revolutionary technology, but has it ended up decreasing family time? Elena, a writer on Syntax.com, discusses how television is not social. Usually, people watch television to watch their favorite show, which most likely does not include watching it with a family member. As from my experience, my family and I don’t like to watch the same shows so when I watch T.V. it is by my self. Is this the same thing that is happening with the Internet?
As I compare my life before and after my laptop, Ipod, and Facebook, I know an enormous amount of time has been lost using those tools. Our society has not been improving since we were introduced to technology, it has become worse. Should we believe that improvement would be spending two hours a day on Facebook aimlessly looking at friend’s pictures and statuses? This is not the kind of activity that improves our society or our relationships. Cascio, the author of “Get Smarter,” suggests that it is important to keep using technology as much as we do and to develop it to its full extent, but try to picture a family of four all in separate rooms each on their separate laptops or phones. I do not side with what Cascio suggests because I do not want to have no connection with my family. This does not sound like a happy family and it shouldn’t be because you have your family for life and you may have a phone for a year or two years. After all, it is better to have wonderful family connections rather than great Internet connections.
Many writers such as Ben Turner, Christine Morris, and the authors of the “American Psychologist” argue that Internet has caused family communication to decline because of Internet addictions. Also, the Internet has been proven to deplete psychological stableness and social engagements. I have gathered from my personal experience that all the Internet does is distract people from more important things. For example, when I am on Facebook all I do is waste time doing nothing that is going to affect my life. The recent improvements in television technology have worsened the fact that technology decreases family connections. There are opposing opinions that the Internet increases a person’s ease, which I agree with, but it is more important to be connected with people in the real world. There are positives to communicating on the Internet. For example, families that communicate long distance find using the Internet (e-mail) extremely useful. It is also useful for people who are not very social. The Internet is a distraction and takes away from family time. When it comes down to it, the Internet is not as important as family communication.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Ethics and Science of Neurological Medicine
In just the last century, the United States has seen a rapid onset of new research in psychological studies as well as various methods of treating mental disorders. From the lobotomy to SSRI antidepressants, saying that our nation has undergone a tremendous growth in this field would be an immense understatement. Unfortunately however, with this progression comes much controversy. Although many, if not most, would argue that neurological medication is a valid resource for those suffering from some sort of mental disorder, some assert that our understanding of the chemistry in the brain is not sufficient enough to warrant such a thing. Unlike most health problems such as a broken bone or respiratory illness which can be confirmed by an X-ray or other kind of physical test, a mental diagnosis is far less tangible. We cannot scan someone’s brain and confirm that they have Bipolar Disorder or Attention Deficit Disorder. Instead, we base our diagnoses off of what is expressed vocally by a patient in a therapeutic session or a questionnaire. Because we are limited in our understanding of the mind, it is not surprising that many of the neurological medications distributed in the pharmaceutical industry have stirred debate.
The common antidepressant medication SSRIs Zoloft and Paxil are among the most common remedies utilized for people suffering from depression by psychiatric professionals. These drugs are intended to allow the mind to fix the serotonin imbalance believed to have caused the depression. Strangely though, one of the most common side effects of these medications is increased sadness and suicide ideation. So, why would a medicine intended to help a person have such an adverse reaction? Because modern science has yet to fully understand the exact workings of neurological medicine, let alone the brain itself. We understand all the genetic and societal factors that affect an individual’s mind, but we are still in discord over how exactly the physical and chemical facets of the brain constitute a mental disorder. So, instead we choose to base our diagnoses off of what is expressed verbally between patient and psychiatrist, and hand out medicine this way. Unsurprisingly, these drugs have had very odd and serious reactions in people. Some of these reactions include increased heart rate, irritability, moodiness, suicide ideation and in some cases, fatality.
Another significant reason for being against antidepressant medication would be that it offers an individual hope through means of a medicinal dependency rather than through self-help and independent healing. This point, having to do with the ethics of neurological medication, entails a negative regard of one relying on some sort of mysterious brain stimulant for help as opposed to doing this through something like yoga or meditation. Many people would suggest natural remedies as the most effective and at the same time innocuous way to battle depression. Some even propose herbs and vitamins to combat depression, such as St. John’s Wort or Omega-3 fatty acids. Some statistics have actually shown that these natural remedies like such have been more useful for individuals than SSRI medication.
Although there are many reasons for why one should avoid taking medicine for a neurological disorder, there are also those who defend its usage. Judith Warner of the New York Times argues in her article The Wrong Story about Depression that medicinal help is far more effective than psychotherapy. She asserts that too many people go untreated or undertreated in terms or psychiatric support, and this is attributable to the over-usage of psychotherapy as a solution. Unsurprisingly though, her reasoning for this is no more conclusive or tangible than the scientific understanding of how these pills work.
Although antidepressants have been proven to work for many individuals, how they work is a much more important issue. It seems that as advanced as modern science has become, it is yet to fully grasp something as mysterious and complex as the mind. So, to utilize medication that alters the chemistry in the brain and attempts to cure a supposed disorder is by all means risky and unethical. Therefore, natural remedies such as herbs or physical exercises which induce a relaxed state of mind may in fact be the most productive and safe solution for those who suffer from depression.
The common antidepressant medication SSRIs Zoloft and Paxil are among the most common remedies utilized for people suffering from depression by psychiatric professionals. These drugs are intended to allow the mind to fix the serotonin imbalance believed to have caused the depression. Strangely though, one of the most common side effects of these medications is increased sadness and suicide ideation. So, why would a medicine intended to help a person have such an adverse reaction? Because modern science has yet to fully understand the exact workings of neurological medicine, let alone the brain itself. We understand all the genetic and societal factors that affect an individual’s mind, but we are still in discord over how exactly the physical and chemical facets of the brain constitute a mental disorder. So, instead we choose to base our diagnoses off of what is expressed verbally between patient and psychiatrist, and hand out medicine this way. Unsurprisingly, these drugs have had very odd and serious reactions in people. Some of these reactions include increased heart rate, irritability, moodiness, suicide ideation and in some cases, fatality.
Another significant reason for being against antidepressant medication would be that it offers an individual hope through means of a medicinal dependency rather than through self-help and independent healing. This point, having to do with the ethics of neurological medication, entails a negative regard of one relying on some sort of mysterious brain stimulant for help as opposed to doing this through something like yoga or meditation. Many people would suggest natural remedies as the most effective and at the same time innocuous way to battle depression. Some even propose herbs and vitamins to combat depression, such as St. John’s Wort or Omega-3 fatty acids. Some statistics have actually shown that these natural remedies like such have been more useful for individuals than SSRI medication.
Although there are many reasons for why one should avoid taking medicine for a neurological disorder, there are also those who defend its usage. Judith Warner of the New York Times argues in her article The Wrong Story about Depression that medicinal help is far more effective than psychotherapy. She asserts that too many people go untreated or undertreated in terms or psychiatric support, and this is attributable to the over-usage of psychotherapy as a solution. Unsurprisingly though, her reasoning for this is no more conclusive or tangible than the scientific understanding of how these pills work.
Although antidepressants have been proven to work for many individuals, how they work is a much more important issue. It seems that as advanced as modern science has become, it is yet to fully grasp something as mysterious and complex as the mind. So, to utilize medication that alters the chemistry in the brain and attempts to cure a supposed disorder is by all means risky and unethical. Therefore, natural remedies such as herbs or physical exercises which induce a relaxed state of mind may in fact be the most productive and safe solution for those who suffer from depression.
How Does the Internet Really Affect Our Brains?
Without a doubt, the internet is spreading rapidly throughout modern society, and the usage is increasing even more. It has changed the way we achieve information, connect with other people, and is essentially one of the many factors involved in achieving success in a world of innovation. However, scientists and internet users are beginning to question the affects of the internet on a neurological level. Is the internet affecting the way we think, act, and respond in our daily activities in a positive or negative way? There is new research to explain many peoples doubts and uncertainties about the new way in which we obtain information from the Web.
As a generation of “digital natives” mature, older generations must acclimate themselves to the new ways in which people live their lives. However, scientists doubt that the culture gap is due to the simple difference in age, and are more readily beginning to believe that the brains of our generation are actually different. UCLA neuroscientist Gary Small has developed his own belief on the issue. "Perhaps not since early man first discovered how to use a tool has the human brain been affected so quickly and so dramatically," Small asserts. "As the brain evolves and shifts its focus towards new technological skills, it drifts away from fundamental social skills." (1) Small also claims that the neurological changes are also most prevalent amongst these so-called “digital natives”. According to a brain scan, Small states that the Internet "appears to engage a greater extent of neural circuitry that is not activated during reading — but only in those with prior Internet experience." That being said, these brain changes appear to be a change in the positive direction for future generations. (1)
On a different note, Adam Gazzaley, a neuroscientist at the University of California, San Francisco, begs to differ. In his own words, “We are exposing our brains to an environment and asking them to do things we weren’t necessarily evolved to do,” he said. “We know already there are consequences.” However, Adam Gazzaley fails to include sufficient resource to his readers which shows that his research is inconclusive and leaves myself and other readers unconvinced. (2) Additionally, Gazzaley doesn’t consider other environmental factors that could affect our brains. He is simply making an assumption based on very little facts and has nothing supporting his claim. The only thing certain in his statement is that we are exposing our brains to an environment, but we are most certainly not putting our brains in harms way. If you think back to the thousands of years ago in past eras, men used their primitive and natural instincts to survive. Think of the way humans act today. Our brains have adapted to the changes due to environmental changes.
To further the idea that Small put forth, there was an experiment conducted at by the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA that revealed a result similar to Small’s belief that brain power is increased due to browsing the internet in an effective manner. The study evaluated 24 neurologically stable volunteers who were between the ages of 55 and 76, half of which used the internet regularly, and half did not. The people conducting the experiment monitored their brain-circuitry changes which is the blood that flows through their brains of the volunteers who regularly use the internet, and compared them to the other volunteers who do not. Not only did the experiment find that middle-aged and older individuals who spent time on the Web improve their brain power by doing so, but the results from the experiment predict that internet usage could potentially cognitive decline such as Alzheimer’s disease and dementia at a later stage of life. (3)
Although many authors such as Nicholas Carr choose to believe that the internet is diminishing the attention span of teenagers and adults, including himself, there are most likely other reasons that contribute to a depleted level of concentration. Anything that is overused and abused can cause harm to a person, and an author is a likely person to be constantly using the internet. If a person uses the internet in a timely fashion, and does not spend countless hours browsing the web, there is no reasons for problematic issues to arise.
According to these various experts, there are many observations that differ regarding the affects of internet use on a neurological level. Despite the ideas from Gazzaley that claim that the internet is bound to trigger complications, this information was poorly supported and pales in comparison to the ideas from neuroscientists who have a sufficient amount of support stating the benefits of internet usage. A great amount of neuroscientists and experiment results explain that internet usage boosts brain power and essentially is advantageous to a person’s logic and thinking. Overall, the results indicate a positive future for the health of those who are involved and are affected by digital technology.
*The numbers indicate where my sources will be in my final draft
Who's Behind Facebook?
And what about the face behind Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, who is 25 and among the 400 richest people in the U.S.
nanotechnology draft
It is commonly acknowledged that technology has made life a whole lot easier. In fact,
technology has significantly improved our standard of living by supplying us with better communication, faster and safer travel, more effective medical care, and more. But nowadays, it seems that technology has begun to shrink. While it may not sound very logical, this rapid shrinking technology will not only help us, but save us as well.
Imagine a time when cancer treatments could ensure a patient’s full recovery, a person with a debilitating spinal cord injury would walk and a disease could be prevented before it became threat. Imagine that the effects of aging could be completely reversed and broken bones could be healed in a matter of hours. Although these may seem like a doctor’s and patient’s wildest dream, with the further development of nanotechnology, these dreams could become reality.
In the most technical terms, nanotechnology is the study of the controlling of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Scientists have begun to engineer extremely small robotic devices, nanobots, which have the potential to revolutionize the field of medicine by 2015. Nanotechnology could help doctors effectively diagnose, treat and cure patients because nanobots could retrieve intimate images from within the body and perform complicated procedures that doctors are not humanly capable of doing. Patient aftercare could also be improved with nanobots that are able to regulate the delivery of a drug to the patient as well as allow the patient to monitor their own body systems. These abilities of the nanobots give doctors, as Ralph C. Merkle, researcher of nanotechnology and author of “It’s a Small, Small, Small World”, would say, “positional control” that would guarantee “a quantum leap in our medical capabilities”. Given that there is no end to the possibilities nanotechnology offers for the betterment of the health of the human race, it is as if there is no possible way this new technology could fail us.
Despite the strides nanotechnology has made in the hopes of improving the effectiveness of modern medicine, some critics have expressed their concerns with the more sinister potential these nanobots have to offer. Critics fear that where there is a way to heal, there is always many ways in which to hurt. Among those critics is Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, head of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, reminds the scientific community of the ethical dilemmas that nanotechnology faces with his message that “everything technologically possible need not be ethically permissible." We must consider the risks of developing a technology to use for good that, with a bit of tweaking, could easily be used for evil. Nanobots could guarantee that we could live for a very long time, but, like with all technologies, if nanobots fell into the wrong hands, all of humanity could be in danger.
Imagine a time when a bioterrorism attack could be completely successful because the terrorists have programmed nanobots to deliver poison that avoids the body’s defenses and but to not attack the terrorists. Imagine that nanobots became so advanced that they could self-replicate until they formed an elite army of super humans that could take over the world. Imagine that scientists engineer nanobots as lethal weapons or that doctors could harvest and spread disease with nanobots instead of preventing and curing disease. And again, although these may sound like the wildest dreams of terrorists, mad scientists, and evil doctors, the development of advanced nanotechnology opens the door to these ominous possibilities.
One could debate about the ethical use of nanotechnology for days. The issue with nanotechnology is that its development cannot simply be either beneficial or detrimental to humans. If the issue was that black and white, the answer for whether or not it should be made and used would be easy. Like all technology, nanotechnology’s main problem is that it is being manufactured by human beings who have demonstrated infinite capabilities for both good and evil. Some would argue that doctors need the ability to cure people’s cancer, while others would be adamant that rogue nations should not have access to technology that could wipe out an entire country. As Sherri Chasin Calvo, a freelance science writer specializing in genetics has stated, “nanotechnology can be a double-edged sword”.
technology has significantly improved our standard of living by supplying us with better communication, faster and safer travel, more effective medical care, and more. But nowadays, it seems that technology has begun to shrink. While it may not sound very logical, this rapid shrinking technology will not only help us, but save us as well.
Imagine a time when cancer treatments could ensure a patient’s full recovery, a person with a debilitating spinal cord injury would walk and a disease could be prevented before it became threat. Imagine that the effects of aging could be completely reversed and broken bones could be healed in a matter of hours. Although these may seem like a doctor’s and patient’s wildest dream, with the further development of nanotechnology, these dreams could become reality.
In the most technical terms, nanotechnology is the study of the controlling of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Scientists have begun to engineer extremely small robotic devices, nanobots, which have the potential to revolutionize the field of medicine by 2015. Nanotechnology could help doctors effectively diagnose, treat and cure patients because nanobots could retrieve intimate images from within the body and perform complicated procedures that doctors are not humanly capable of doing. Patient aftercare could also be improved with nanobots that are able to regulate the delivery of a drug to the patient as well as allow the patient to monitor their own body systems. These abilities of the nanobots give doctors, as Ralph C. Merkle, researcher of nanotechnology and author of “It’s a Small, Small, Small World”, would say, “positional control” that would guarantee “a quantum leap in our medical capabilities”. Given that there is no end to the possibilities nanotechnology offers for the betterment of the health of the human race, it is as if there is no possible way this new technology could fail us.
Despite the strides nanotechnology has made in the hopes of improving the effectiveness of modern medicine, some critics have expressed their concerns with the more sinister potential these nanobots have to offer. Critics fear that where there is a way to heal, there is always many ways in which to hurt. Among those critics is Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, head of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, reminds the scientific community of the ethical dilemmas that nanotechnology faces with his message that “everything technologically possible need not be ethically permissible." We must consider the risks of developing a technology to use for good that, with a bit of tweaking, could easily be used for evil. Nanobots could guarantee that we could live for a very long time, but, like with all technologies, if nanobots fell into the wrong hands, all of humanity could be in danger.
Imagine a time when a bioterrorism attack could be completely successful because the terrorists have programmed nanobots to deliver poison that avoids the body’s defenses and but to not attack the terrorists. Imagine that nanobots became so advanced that they could self-replicate until they formed an elite army of super humans that could take over the world. Imagine that scientists engineer nanobots as lethal weapons or that doctors could harvest and spread disease with nanobots instead of preventing and curing disease. And again, although these may sound like the wildest dreams of terrorists, mad scientists, and evil doctors, the development of advanced nanotechnology opens the door to these ominous possibilities.
One could debate about the ethical use of nanotechnology for days. The issue with nanotechnology is that its development cannot simply be either beneficial or detrimental to humans. If the issue was that black and white, the answer for whether or not it should be made and used would be easy. Like all technology, nanotechnology’s main problem is that it is being manufactured by human beings who have demonstrated infinite capabilities for both good and evil. Some would argue that doctors need the ability to cure people’s cancer, while others would be adamant that rogue nations should not have access to technology that could wipe out an entire country. As Sherri Chasin Calvo, a freelance science writer specializing in genetics has stated, “nanotechnology can be a double-edged sword”.
Responce 3
Whenever I went to my grandparent’s house as a kid, I would always play around with their technology. Now, by no means did they have much tech or even recent tech. That is what made it so interesting to me. The thing I liked to play with the most was my grandfather’s cell phone. It was much larger than any other I had ever seen. It was about the size of a brick, same weight too. In recent years, he has upgraded to a smaller, lighter phone but I remember always thinking that phone was odd.
The trend used to be that getting a small phone was better because all phones pretty much did the same thing, call people. However, in today’s world we seem to be reverting back to the larger, heavier phones. This is because phones do much more today than they used to. They can do the obvious things, such as call and text message people, but they can also do things such as using apps, connect to facebook or twitter, play music, watch videos on YouTube, go on the internet, etc. Some phones even have Windows Operating Systems and are basically small computers. These newer abilities are directly tied to the shape and size of cell phones. In order to only call and text message people, one would only need a small screen capable of displaying at least 11 numbers or a few words of text. However, one would need a much larger screen in order to see everything in videos, apps, or on facebook clearly.
This trend change is similar to the change from desktops to laptops as being the chief personal computer consumer product. Desktops and laptops now have almost the exact same functions though laptops are much more mobile than desktops. Now, cell phones seem to be starting to take over the job of a laptop as being the mobile device to bring and keep in contact on the internet. However, there are some laptops that are so big that they have consumer warnings on the bottom that say that the laptop should never be used on one’s lap. This basically defeats the purpose of a laptop if it can’t be used on your lap, right? What is the difference between a desktop and laptop if you can’t use a laptop on your lap? Other than the obvious fact that you can move a laptop easier to move than a desktop. This seems to be the same with cell phones now. A new cell phone a few years ago could be held up to your ear and work fine as a phone and no one thought that it looked strange or anything. Today’s newest cell phone model by Dell, called the Dell Streak, has a 5” screen that is about 6” by 3.1”. This is perfect for the internet and app use, but according to John D. Sutter’s article “When phones are too big for pockets,” there is much debate about if you would be able to fit this phone into most pockets. Some internet users don’t believe this is true.
Personal experience has shown that my pockets are sometimes too small to hold my cell phone along with other things at the same time. My cell phone is about half the size of the Streak and it can barely fit into my shorts’ pocket along with my iPod Touch and the usual pack of gum that I carry. I carry a tri-fold wallet in my other pocket so not much else can fit into that pocket either. If I had a phone twice as big, I don’t know how I would carry it, especially if I was wearing jeans because as we all know, jeans pockets are much tighter than pockets on a pair of shorts or sweatpants. I know I am perfectly fine with using my phone to mainly text, call, and sometimes go online for facebook. I don’t need a new big phone when I have a computer at home that I can use. What do you think? Would you sacrifice size for the new abilities available on the Dell Streak?
The trend used to be that getting a small phone was better because all phones pretty much did the same thing, call people. However, in today’s world we seem to be reverting back to the larger, heavier phones. This is because phones do much more today than they used to. They can do the obvious things, such as call and text message people, but they can also do things such as using apps, connect to facebook or twitter, play music, watch videos on YouTube, go on the internet, etc. Some phones even have Windows Operating Systems and are basically small computers. These newer abilities are directly tied to the shape and size of cell phones. In order to only call and text message people, one would only need a small screen capable of displaying at least 11 numbers or a few words of text. However, one would need a much larger screen in order to see everything in videos, apps, or on facebook clearly.
This trend change is similar to the change from desktops to laptops as being the chief personal computer consumer product. Desktops and laptops now have almost the exact same functions though laptops are much more mobile than desktops. Now, cell phones seem to be starting to take over the job of a laptop as being the mobile device to bring and keep in contact on the internet. However, there are some laptops that are so big that they have consumer warnings on the bottom that say that the laptop should never be used on one’s lap. This basically defeats the purpose of a laptop if it can’t be used on your lap, right? What is the difference between a desktop and laptop if you can’t use a laptop on your lap? Other than the obvious fact that you can move a laptop easier to move than a desktop. This seems to be the same with cell phones now. A new cell phone a few years ago could be held up to your ear and work fine as a phone and no one thought that it looked strange or anything. Today’s newest cell phone model by Dell, called the Dell Streak, has a 5” screen that is about 6” by 3.1”. This is perfect for the internet and app use, but according to John D. Sutter’s article “When phones are too big for pockets,” there is much debate about if you would be able to fit this phone into most pockets. Some internet users don’t believe this is true.
Personal experience has shown that my pockets are sometimes too small to hold my cell phone along with other things at the same time. My cell phone is about half the size of the Streak and it can barely fit into my shorts’ pocket along with my iPod Touch and the usual pack of gum that I carry. I carry a tri-fold wallet in my other pocket so not much else can fit into that pocket either. If I had a phone twice as big, I don’t know how I would carry it, especially if I was wearing jeans because as we all know, jeans pockets are much tighter than pockets on a pair of shorts or sweatpants. I know I am perfectly fine with using my phone to mainly text, call, and sometimes go online for facebook. I don’t need a new big phone when I have a computer at home that I can use. What do you think? Would you sacrifice size for the new abilities available on the Dell Streak?
Free writing and brainstorming about observations and experiences.
The subject I may want to write about in the world of technology is the company Apple, since it is developing new technology incredibly fast and their products are more desired everyday. It is the history of the company that is very interesting, because as some of you may know, the co-founder of Apple, Steve Jobs, was once homeless and the fact that this man helped set up such a powerful company, is a lifetime achievement.
I stumbled upon this very interesting article on the New York Times site, which was listed under the technology subject. The article was about what effect of Steve Jobs’s departure have had on Apple and it’s sales. The facts are organized in a time line and you can review what happened with Apple during the time Steve Jobs took time off and during the time that he was working for the company again. Graphs and designs show that when Steve Jobs started working again in 1998, while having had a break from 1985 until 1997, the first iMac was unveiled. Does this have a connection between the fact that Steve Job started working again in 1997 and shortly after a new product comes on the market? I believe that it definitely has a connection and as shown in a graph of Apple’s 2009 sales, the sales were decreasing daily after Steve Jobs announced that he will temporarily step down as the company’s CEO, because of health reasons.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/22/technology/20090122_JOBS.html?ref=companies
Personally I have great experiences with Apple products, however the citizens of Holland are not yet very fond of the company’s computers. The iPhone and the iPod’s are very popular in the Netherlands, but it’s said that they still find the Apple computers very difficult and confusing to work with. Another experience of mine was in a Starbucks coffeeshop downtown near South Station. It was early in the morning and my dad and I decided to stop by Starbucks for an iced coffee, since it was already boiling outside. We got out drinks, sat down at a table, and we started observing the people around us. Next to us was a middle-aged man, who was busy scrolling across pages of the Internet on his brand-new iPad. At the back of the shop, we could see a businessman typing on his old-fashioned, heavy black laptop. He had all kinds of wires plugged into the wall and his laptop was a large format. Then I started to comparing the iPad with the old, black laptop and I thought to myself how far technology has gotten us. The iPad is a light weight computer, on which you can do everything from reading ebooks to surfing the Internet. This particulair computer would be great for travelling and every place downtown where there's a wi-fi connection. Isn't it amazing what technology has made possible for us to do and now we can easily transport our electronics too, due to the fact that they change the products to improve them even more.
Technology and the Internet is making us smarter according to Cascio and Shirky. I believe that both of them prove a very good point indeed by pointing out the positive effects of the Internet on our lives.
An article doubting the way Apple approaches things. According to this article, Apple does everything at the same time and this is all wrong.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1118384,00.html
This article give a positive review on the Mac computers and other aspects.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Apple/Does-Apple-Belong-in-the-Enterprise-690391/
by frederique swart
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
As we go further into the subject of “Digital Nation” and how technology is affecting us, I can’t help but the think of the advances in ebooks and eReaders. Ebooks have been around for much longer than many people think. When ebooks and eReaders were introduced in the late 1900s, business people were targeted and not the everyday consumer. It was not until recently, with E ink technology that has made the screen look like paper and the making of Kindle, Sony eReader, Nook, and iPad, ebooks have not been as known.
I didn’t know about ebooks and eReaders until my friend asked me if I heard about the Kindle. I hadn’t but I was interested so I went on the Amazon website and read about it. After seeing an introductory video and seeing the fact that it can hold up to 1500 books and how thin and portable it is, I definitely interested. Not only was I interested in the Kindle, I wanted to see what other devices there were and how they were different. Long story short, I waited a while to see if any new devices would come out. They did and I bought the Nook. I’ve had it for 7 months now and it is great. The fact that I don’t have to drive to buy a book, I have a whole library condensed in one device, and I can even put my own documents in it makes it super convenient. The pages actually look printed and it’s very easy to use.
What can this old but new technology offer us? I think that libraries could become totally digitalized. If eReaders become as popular as the computer, cell phone, and digital camera is now. It would make rare books more easily available while saving resources.
Another thing that interests me is the psychological effects of gaming. Are video or computer games an addiction? I feel like it can, considering the evidence. If it is an addiction, how can we solve this?
Gaming is an escape for many people. Using something as an escape is not new for mankind but games seem to have more dangerous effects. Reading many books or seeing a lot of movies to escape for a while does not seem as harmful. We watched the video about PC ë°©in South Korea and conventions for games and that caught my attention. Also, where do we cross the line when it comes to addiction? How can we prevent this? My brother likes to play a computer games and so do all his friends, their friends and so many others.
To solve the problem of gaming addiction, we have to prevent it first. I feel that parenting is a big way to prevention. Maybe we should have public service commercials to inform people on the effects of extreme gaming.
I didn’t know about ebooks and eReaders until my friend asked me if I heard about the Kindle. I hadn’t but I was interested so I went on the Amazon website and read about it. After seeing an introductory video and seeing the fact that it can hold up to 1500 books and how thin and portable it is, I definitely interested. Not only was I interested in the Kindle, I wanted to see what other devices there were and how they were different. Long story short, I waited a while to see if any new devices would come out. They did and I bought the Nook. I’ve had it for 7 months now and it is great. The fact that I don’t have to drive to buy a book, I have a whole library condensed in one device, and I can even put my own documents in it makes it super convenient. The pages actually look printed and it’s very easy to use.
What can this old but new technology offer us? I think that libraries could become totally digitalized. If eReaders become as popular as the computer, cell phone, and digital camera is now. It would make rare books more easily available while saving resources.
Another thing that interests me is the psychological effects of gaming. Are video or computer games an addiction? I feel like it can, considering the evidence. If it is an addiction, how can we solve this?
Gaming is an escape for many people. Using something as an escape is not new for mankind but games seem to have more dangerous effects. Reading many books or seeing a lot of movies to escape for a while does not seem as harmful. We watched the video about PC ë°©in South Korea and conventions for games and that caught my attention. Also, where do we cross the line when it comes to addiction? How can we prevent this? My brother likes to play a computer games and so do all his friends, their friends and so many others.
To solve the problem of gaming addiction, we have to prevent it first. I feel that parenting is a big way to prevention. Maybe we should have public service commercials to inform people on the effects of extreme gaming.
Response 3
My mom walks into the TV room and gives my sister and me a glare. All I could think was what could that possibly before or what did I do wrong now? As I look around the room I notice that my sister is on her IPod Touch and on her laptop, and I am watching television and on my laptop. Then, I see my dad walk in the door from work talking on his Blackberry. Now I understand my mother’s glare.
Americans today tend to believe that the Net is the best way to connect with people. On the Internet you can meet people and talk to your friends, but what about connecting with the people who are physically around you. My own view, however, is that the most important relationship to have is with your family and distractions, like the Internet, can affect the relationship between a family. In the movie, “Digital Nation,” one of the first things that occurred was the narrator noticing how each of her family members is in their own virtual world because they are on their laptop or Iphone. Do we want our world to become a place where we can only connect with people through a technological device?
Carr states in his essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” that the Internet is “chipping away” at our ability to concentrate and “scatters” our attention, which could one day lead to a world where our values and cultures are lost. I agree that the Internet is a distraction and that our culture could be lost because my experience with writing an essay and trying to be on Facebook at the same time confirms it. The same exact thing applies to being with my family. I don’t agree that being with your family is something that can go out of style or just be in the past. Could familiar relationships be taken over by the technological era and is our world now going to become a virtual world? I believe that the technological era is going to hurt family connections.
As I compare my life before and after my laptop, IPod, and Facebook, I know an enormous amount of time has been lost to using those tools. Cascio argues that technology is improving our society and is making us smarter. Our society has not been improving since we were introduced to technology, it has become worse. Do you believe that improvement would be spending two hours a day on Facebook aimlessly looking at friend’s pictures and statuses? This is not the kind of activity that is going to improve our society. Instead of being on Facebook we should be spending time with the people we love, who are a lot more worth our time. We don’t want to be older and wish we had been closer with our family when we could have just made a simple change and not been on the Net for so many hours of the day.
Cascio suggests that it is important to keep using technology as much as we do and to develop it to its full extent, but try to picture a family of four all in separate rooms each on their separate laptops or phones. This does not sound like a happy family and it shouldn’t be because you have your family for life and you may have a phone for a year or two years. After all, it is better to have an exceptional family connections rather than great Internet connections.
Americans today tend to believe that the Net is the best way to connect with people. On the Internet you can meet people and talk to your friends, but what about connecting with the people who are physically around you. My own view, however, is that the most important relationship to have is with your family and distractions, like the Internet, can affect the relationship between a family. In the movie, “Digital Nation,” one of the first things that occurred was the narrator noticing how each of her family members is in their own virtual world because they are on their laptop or Iphone. Do we want our world to become a place where we can only connect with people through a technological device?
Carr states in his essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” that the Internet is “chipping away” at our ability to concentrate and “scatters” our attention, which could one day lead to a world where our values and cultures are lost. I agree that the Internet is a distraction and that our culture could be lost because my experience with writing an essay and trying to be on Facebook at the same time confirms it. The same exact thing applies to being with my family. I don’t agree that being with your family is something that can go out of style or just be in the past. Could familiar relationships be taken over by the technological era and is our world now going to become a virtual world? I believe that the technological era is going to hurt family connections.
As I compare my life before and after my laptop, IPod, and Facebook, I know an enormous amount of time has been lost to using those tools. Cascio argues that technology is improving our society and is making us smarter. Our society has not been improving since we were introduced to technology, it has become worse. Do you believe that improvement would be spending two hours a day on Facebook aimlessly looking at friend’s pictures and statuses? This is not the kind of activity that is going to improve our society. Instead of being on Facebook we should be spending time with the people we love, who are a lot more worth our time. We don’t want to be older and wish we had been closer with our family when we could have just made a simple change and not been on the Net for so many hours of the day.
Cascio suggests that it is important to keep using technology as much as we do and to develop it to its full extent, but try to picture a family of four all in separate rooms each on their separate laptops or phones. This does not sound like a happy family and it shouldn’t be because you have your family for life and you may have a phone for a year or two years. After all, it is better to have an exceptional family connections rather than great Internet connections.
Technological development plays an undeniable role in modern times. We see it in almost every facet of our culture—transportation, business, communication, etc. One of such aspects that has stirred much controversy among people would be how we receive news and information from the outer world. In a nation founded upon transferring data from one another by means of newspapers, books, and magazines, it isn’t surprising that some still hold a conservative view in this regard. The article Is Google Making us Stupid? touches on this topic as well as various other components of the digital age and their effect on people. In it, Nicholas Car evaluates this effect and balances the many pros and cons that come with it.
The new wave of technological development and the usage of it as a medium through which one may educate himself is by all means a contentious issue. The internet is often attacked for being a commercial enterprise through which one may acquire knowledge while at the same time be subjected to endless advertising. Although, yes, the web does in fact harbor a great deal of commercial outlet, many people tend to overlook the many benefits it offers in comparison with books and newspapers. Never have people been given a source that is so readily accessible to various kinds of news from the outer world. The internet has proven itself to be an immensely reliable medium for finding even the most particular and specific types of data—something which any type of print, whether it be magazine articles or encyclopedias, could never grant. If one were to, hypothetically speaking, want to know the normal climate in Buenos Aires, Argentina, or the time in Oslo, Norway, or maybe the population of South Dakota, all it takes is one Google search. Whereas in an atlas, one would have to search throughout it with some considerable patience.
The United States is a nation well-known for its progression in a vast array of different topics. For the most part, such progression has been restricted in its means of being broadcasted to the rest of the world by some form of print. However, with the onset of an unprecedented age of technological development, it is time to move on from our old standards and pursue the more innovative and promising road of the internet.
The new wave of technological development and the usage of it as a medium through which one may educate himself is by all means a contentious issue. The internet is often attacked for being a commercial enterprise through which one may acquire knowledge while at the same time be subjected to endless advertising. Although, yes, the web does in fact harbor a great deal of commercial outlet, many people tend to overlook the many benefits it offers in comparison with books and newspapers. Never have people been given a source that is so readily accessible to various kinds of news from the outer world. The internet has proven itself to be an immensely reliable medium for finding even the most particular and specific types of data—something which any type of print, whether it be magazine articles or encyclopedias, could never grant. If one were to, hypothetically speaking, want to know the normal climate in Buenos Aires, Argentina, or the time in Oslo, Norway, or maybe the population of South Dakota, all it takes is one Google search. Whereas in an atlas, one would have to search throughout it with some considerable patience.
The United States is a nation well-known for its progression in a vast array of different topics. For the most part, such progression has been restricted in its means of being broadcasted to the rest of the world by some form of print. However, with the onset of an unprecedented age of technological development, it is time to move on from our old standards and pursue the more innovative and promising road of the internet.
Response on the Nicholas Car essay
Response on the Nicholas Car essay Frederique Swart July 27, 2010
The issue of the effect that the Internet has on us is very important and we should not underestimate the impact it has on our lives. In discussions of Nicholas Car’s essay, one controversial issue has been the fact that Internet is making it more difficult for people to concentrate on reading. On the one hand, he argues that Internet makes us ‘power browse” and so we just look at things fast without taking the time to read anything with deep thought. On the other hand, Car mentions that reading has become a struggle, due to the lack of concentration. My own view is that the Internet most definitely distracts you from reading, and I personally can often not concentrate on the book that I’m reading, just because I feel the urge to search on the Net.
It is often said that Internet has a bad impact on people and causes many troubles, however I believe that having access to the Net is very helpful and educating. Bruce Friedman states that he “almost totally lost” his ability to read and in my opinion I think that his example might be slightly exaggerated or in this case an extreme form of Internet addiction, because I don’t believe that many people lose their ability to read long pieces of writing by using the Internet.
Internet has a lot of positive and negative side to it, so in order to reduce the negative sides, I think the amount of time we spend on Internet should be carefully checked in order to prevent an addiction of some sort. So are we able to control our amount of time that we use the Internet? Some people might and others maybe not so much. A good and solid solution to avoid Internet changing your way of thinking, might be to take some time off and away from Internet every once in while. From my personal experience I can conclude that being without any Internet or TV access for over two weeks, was truly deliberating. It was during that time, that I regained my deeply concentrated reading again. If only we could all do this by ourselves we wouldn’t have a problem I believe, however people who can’t stay away for the Internet for longer than a week, might want to seek some help and guidance.
A response to the articles
According to Nicholas Carr in his essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, “what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation.” His evidence for this statement is all about how he used to be able to read long books such as War and Peace and be able to really get into the story. However, he claims that now he cannot keep reading one story or article that is over a certain length because he is used to the way you receive information over the internet, in short concise statements. People today use the internet every day and while adults can remember before the internet was created, kids these days are absolutely devastated if they are not allowed on the computer or cell phone. At the same time that I believe this, I also believe Jamais Cascio when he states that the internet could actually be making us smarter. The internet is a source of an extraordinary amount of information. This allows us to store more information that our minds cannot hold at the moment to use for a later date. The internet is basically a never-ending sheet of paper that we can write on and refer back to at any time. As living beings, we change to fit the environment around us. Before we had paper, people used to remember many more things than we do today because there was no other way to store the information. When the Printing Press was invented, Hieronimo Squarciafico thought that it would lead to men becoming lazy and it would do no good for the human race. He did not have the foresight to see the potential benefits of such a device. It spread ideals, ideas, religions, and all kinds of information around the world, enlightening many more men to what a few others knew. The same limited foresight is being applied to today’s technology which in a few years will seem to be out dated. Even if one did think that the internet was detrimental to one’s self, there is almost nothing you could do about it. Every day more and more people and businesses require you to go online for one thing or another. The internet is an extremely useful tool and while it might cause a few minor problems in the way humans act, is worth it in the end for the sheer amount of information that it holds and ability it has.
Response 2
A man by the name of Nicholas Car recently published an article stating a theory about technology and its effect on the human way of thinking and understanding. Basically, Carr writes that the often usage of technology, more specifically the Internet, has caused his own attention span and concentration to decrease. The article says that after usage of the Internet over a long period of time caused Carr's concentration to drift away from long paragraphs and chapters to about 2 or 3 page. He also states that "The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.
Now there are differing views to this theory or opinion that Carr has formulated. The book 'Get Smarter' by Jamais Cascio says that the formation of technology and the Internet can only have one effect, and that is to expand our intelligence. On the other hand, Clay Shirky stated that if the Internet is used widely, then the opposers will have a reason to criticize the growth of the Internet because it will obstruct peoples 'intellectual attainment'.
My position on the issue or contorversy is that the Internet is 'godsend' to us (the human race) because it gives the people so much more information in so little time that there is no reason to criticize the Internet at all. It is one of the most technological acheivments we have at ourfinger tips and I feel that we should have every right to use it and protect it
Response to Articles
When it comes to the topic of the Internet, most of us will readily agree that it is extremely convenient and changing our world. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of “Is this change beneficial or disadvantageous?”. Whereas some are convinced that it is good, others maintain that it is bad. I believe that this change is good.
Although Nicholas Carr admits the Internet is a great tool for everything from research, to communication, to entertainment, but is convinced that the Internet’s way of changing the way we think is a disadvantage. In an essay entitled “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, he emphasizes that the Internet is changing the way we think so that we cannot concentrate on one thing for a long period of time and do not “make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply” or in other words, think deeply. He admitted to not being able to do these things as well since “spending so much time online”.
On the other hand, I believe that the shorter attention spans, although they seem problematic now, will benefit future and not worsen it. We are changing how we think to adapt to the new way we obtain information just as many people of different eras did when there was an advance in technology. Each advance has profited society overall. This is why I feel we should embrace new technology and the vast amount of data available to us. Jamais Cascio, a person for the changes, also explains his theory about the shorter attention span. In the article “Get Smarter”, he calls the shorter attention spans are like an “induced form of ADD” but that he is convinced that when we develop “the ability to find meaning in confusion to solve new problems” it will give us a way to think deeply. I also believe these things and think that we should not be afraid or worried about the change in our way of thinking. Like I pointed out before, every major advance in technology has brought a tremendous amount of change and each time, our world has moved along well.
In conclusion, I feel that the Internet is changing the way we think is a positive thing. With good skills and tools we will be able to navigate through the vast amount of data and can to become a smarter or more intelligent race in the end. I want to emphasize the fact that change is never comfortable, but it is usually for the better.
Although Nicholas Carr admits the Internet is a great tool for everything from research, to communication, to entertainment, but is convinced that the Internet’s way of changing the way we think is a disadvantage. In an essay entitled “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, he emphasizes that the Internet is changing the way we think so that we cannot concentrate on one thing for a long period of time and do not “make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply” or in other words, think deeply. He admitted to not being able to do these things as well since “spending so much time online”.
On the other hand, I believe that the shorter attention spans, although they seem problematic now, will benefit future and not worsen it. We are changing how we think to adapt to the new way we obtain information just as many people of different eras did when there was an advance in technology. Each advance has profited society overall. This is why I feel we should embrace new technology and the vast amount of data available to us. Jamais Cascio, a person for the changes, also explains his theory about the shorter attention span. In the article “Get Smarter”, he calls the shorter attention spans are like an “induced form of ADD” but that he is convinced that when we develop “the ability to find meaning in confusion to solve new problems” it will give us a way to think deeply. I also believe these things and think that we should not be afraid or worried about the change in our way of thinking. Like I pointed out before, every major advance in technology has brought a tremendous amount of change and each time, our world has moved along well.
In conclusion, I feel that the Internet is changing the way we think is a positive thing. With good skills and tools we will be able to navigate through the vast amount of data and can to become a smarter or more intelligent race in the end. I want to emphasize the fact that change is never comfortable, but it is usually for the better.
My Position
The use of the internet has become commonplace and almost necessitated in the modern society of today. Its effects on the people that use it, and the future it holds for us as a human race is debated by several different authors. Nicholas Carr, author of "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", takes on a skeptical perspective of the internet's long-term effects on the human mind. He points out that the use of the fast-moving, all encompassing source of information that is the internet will eventually mold our way of thought and wear away at our concentration, focus, and ability to interpret. Jamais Cascio, author of the article, "Get Smarter", believes almost the opposite; that utilizing the technology we have around us is the key a bright future in the intellect of the human race. Clay Shirky contemplates the pros and cons of internet usage and the effect it has on the society around us in his article, "Does the Internet Make You Smarter or Dumber?"As he sees it, starting way back when the printing press was first invented, the development of technology that allows for the circulation of ideas and opinions has "increas[ed]...the intellectual range and output of society."
My personal opinion contains a little from the ideas of all three authors. It is often said, as in Carr's case, that the way the internet displays information - short and to the point, without much elaboration and depth - is beginning to succeed in transforming the minds of its users into looking for information of that form instead of focusing, slowing down, and digging for it in books. Carr, in his article, is right to some extent that the internet has started to cause a decline in its users ability to pay attention. But I wouldn't go as far as saying it will break down our memory or capability to interpret and contemplate. At the same time that I acknowledge that the internet is slowly affecting people as a whole, perhaps negatively in terms of intellect and attention span, I also believe that the internet is an incredibly resourceful and useful tool, placing all kinds of information at your fingertips. It definitely has made life easier, especially for research and academic purposes. It does seem like it could hold great promise for the intelligence of all humans. But in terms of what it can or can't do, my opinion is on the same track as Shirky's. You would think that the internet is useful now, and will most likely stay useful in the future, but no one can say it is fully developed. The way Shirky sees it, the internet today has undoubtedly produced stupid things and stupid people. But, by the way it conveniently allows for the freedom to express one's opinion, the future can only get better. The world will have to adjust to the new amounts of information and accessible knowledge the internet provides, as well as how easily it distributes that information, just like how the world adjusted to the rise of the printing press. With all that is out there, there will be the people that don't produce something useful with it, but there will definitely also be the people that do. As for now, keep trying.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Position on Internet Controversy
A number of authors have recently suggested their contrasting views on the use of the Internet and its technology. Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, cautions against the use of the Internet because of his belief that frequent use can result in the loss of the abilities to focus, process, and understand information for oneself. Jamais Cascio, author of “Get Smarter”, proclaims that the development of Internet and its technology can only sharpen and increase people’s intelligence. In regard to both Carr and Cascio, Clay Shirky, author of “Does the Internet Make You Smarter or Dumber?”, toys with both the benefits and the drawbacks of Internet use and technology development. Shirky argues that although the Internet is currently overrun by “endless streams of mediocrity”, the further development of the Internet and its technology allows for the making of “good new stuff”. While the controversy over the usefulness of the Internet and its technology remains one sided for both Carr and Cascio, Shirky recognizes the truth in both stances.
Although I agree with both Carr and Cascio up to a point, I cannot accept their overall conclusions that the Internet is either all bad or all good. While I understand that Internet use can change the way people think and read for the worse, as a student, I must attest to the Internet’s helpfulness in finding reliable information efficiently. I am convinced, therefore, that Shirky’s stance in the controversy is the most correct. Considering the development of older technologies, such as the printing press, I believe that the Internet needs more to develop before we can decide its worth. Shirky acknowledges that the invention of the printing press caused “chaos and the dismemberment of European intellectual life”. Despite the negative effects of the printing press, today we only remember the many benefits of its development: book, newspapers, and novels. Perhaps the Internet is today’s printing press. Given adequate time to fully develop and despite a few bumps along the way, the Internet could become the most beneficial technology to human intelligence.
Although I agree with both Carr and Cascio up to a point, I cannot accept their overall conclusions that the Internet is either all bad or all good. While I understand that Internet use can change the way people think and read for the worse, as a student, I must attest to the Internet’s helpfulness in finding reliable information efficiently. I am convinced, therefore, that Shirky’s stance in the controversy is the most correct. Considering the development of older technologies, such as the printing press, I believe that the Internet needs more to develop before we can decide its worth. Shirky acknowledges that the invention of the printing press caused “chaos and the dismemberment of European intellectual life”. Despite the negative effects of the printing press, today we only remember the many benefits of its development: book, newspapers, and novels. Perhaps the Internet is today’s printing press. Given adequate time to fully develop and despite a few bumps along the way, the Internet could become the most beneficial technology to human intelligence.
Response 2
It is often said that the Internet is more efficient and immediate then getting information from a book or encyclopedia. Is it possible that the Internet could be diminishing our mental capacity? Carr believes that the Internet is “chipping away” at our ability to concentrate and think deeply. He believes that from not contemplating our ideas we will lose our culture. At the same time that I believe the Internet can be distracting, I also believe that the Internet is a powerful source of information and can be extremely helpful when used appropriately.
Cascio emphasizes that the technological era can’t be stopped now, we the people are now living in a more complex world and have to continue to develop this era. He observes that the Internet is in no way the problem, it is actually “the beginning of a solution.” I fully agree that we can’t turn back time and pretend that the technology era is not in process. The Internet is our basis for further development in improving our society and making discoveries that could solve global issues right now. We are known to experience “co-evolution” because we are able to adapt to the developments in technology and we will become more intelligent to meet the complex technological innovations.
It has become common to dismiss using the Internet as not being as educational as reading a book. Shirky explains how the Internet is a replacement for reading and writing. I agree that the Internet can be an exceptional replacement for reading and writing because my experience with using the Internet for educational purposes confirms it. I am able to do research on the Internet and feel that it is as educational as reading a book. Overall, the Internet can be a distracting source but not if used appropriately. It is the first step into the technological era and brings opportunities in improving our society. The Net is the key to the future.
Cascio emphasizes that the technological era can’t be stopped now, we the people are now living in a more complex world and have to continue to develop this era. He observes that the Internet is in no way the problem, it is actually “the beginning of a solution.” I fully agree that we can’t turn back time and pretend that the technology era is not in process. The Internet is our basis for further development in improving our society and making discoveries that could solve global issues right now. We are known to experience “co-evolution” because we are able to adapt to the developments in technology and we will become more intelligent to meet the complex technological innovations.
It has become common to dismiss using the Internet as not being as educational as reading a book. Shirky explains how the Internet is a replacement for reading and writing. I agree that the Internet can be an exceptional replacement for reading and writing because my experience with using the Internet for educational purposes confirms it. I am able to do research on the Internet and feel that it is as educational as reading a book. Overall, the Internet can be a distracting source but not if used appropriately. It is the first step into the technological era and brings opportunities in improving our society. The Net is the key to the future.
My Position on the Readings
A number of authors have recently suggested different views on the growth and impact of the new digital era on society. According to Nicholas Carr, the increased use of the internet over time has essentially robbed him of his natural intelligence and has replaced it with a shorter attention span and little ability to contemplate literature the way he once was able to. On the other hand, Clay Shirky views this digital era a little differently. To an extent, he agrees with Carr in that if the internet is put to good use, the pessimists will have a good reason to bash the growth of the internet because it could potentially impede peoples “intellectual attainment.” On the total opposite side of the argument, Jamais Cascio believes that internet growth is an inevitable aspect of technology that will continue to grow and flourish, and those who choose to not keep up will be at a disadvantage because of their own personal decision. Overall, I agree with these three different authors to an extent, but also disagree with them for a number of reasons.
Carr has stated that when a person uses the internet, they will have lose their acquired skills in absorbing information from literature and will not be able to focus. I think Carr is mistaken because he overlooks the effort portion of learning. I think that if a person puts in the time and effort into reading text, they can stay focussed on what they are doing. The ability to concentrate is not a guarantee and is something that needs to be constantly worked on. On a different note, I would have to agree with Cascio because I think that the world is constantly evolving, and in this highly digital era the internet is constantly changing. Cascio insists that we need to adapt to these changes because they are made to assist us and help our digital experience be more beneficial. Regarding Shirky’s statement, I mostly agree but think that the internet can be used for a multitude of reasons and I think that the said “good reasons” that the internet should be used for is up to the writer themselves. Overall, all the authors have reasons backing up their theories, however I believe that in general the growth of the internet is a positive aspect of our technological world.
Carr has stated that when a person uses the internet, they will have lose their acquired skills in absorbing information from literature and will not be able to focus. I think Carr is mistaken because he overlooks the effort portion of learning. I think that if a person puts in the time and effort into reading text, they can stay focussed on what they are doing. The ability to concentrate is not a guarantee and is something that needs to be constantly worked on. On a different note, I would have to agree with Cascio because I think that the world is constantly evolving, and in this highly digital era the internet is constantly changing. Cascio insists that we need to adapt to these changes because they are made to assist us and help our digital experience be more beneficial. Regarding Shirky’s statement, I mostly agree but think that the internet can be used for a multitude of reasons and I think that the said “good reasons” that the internet should be used for is up to the writer themselves. Overall, all the authors have reasons backing up their theories, however I believe that in general the growth of the internet is a positive aspect of our technological world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)