In today’s modern world, not every cell phone does the same thing. This is because they are starting to get larger and have many more abilities than a basic cell phone. Technology is changing every day and letting us go from only being able to call someone on a cell phone to being able to listen to music, go on the internet, play apps, write email, and do basically everything they can on a computer on your cell phone. While some people believe this is the way of the future, others don’t exactly agree.
Some people, such as John D. Sutter, believe that cell phones are getting to be bigger than they should. In his article, “When phones are too big for pockets,” there is much debate about whether one would be able to fit the new Dell Streak, a cell phone made by Dell, into most pockets. This is because the Dell Streak has a 5” screen and has dimensions that are about 6” by 3.1”. This is bigger than any other phone that I have seen with its capabilities. This new cell phone can stream YouTube videos, multi-task playing games and music, connect to 3G mobile broadband, WiFi, and Bluetooth devices, play and store up to 42 full-length movies, and much more. Even though this phone sounds amazing to tech-savvy people like me, it can be too much for other people to deal with. In Lisa Katayama’s article, “In Japan, Cellphones Have Become Too Complex to Use,” she states that “most of the features [of the newest cell phones] are hard to use or not used at all.” This is not saying that they are impossible to use, but they are used by so few people that they are almost pointless in adding them to the phone.
In today’s technological world, people are always moving and things are always happening. While twenty years ago you could go on a vacation and literally not hear anything about what was going on at home for the entirety of your vacation, today you are always in contact with everyone. This can be through Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, text messaging, phone calls, or even YouTube. Because the ways of communicating with each other have changed, so must our devices that we use to communicate. Most people who were born into technology and have used it since their birth are attached to their cell phones. They bring their cell phones everywhere they go and are constantly using them to update their statuses, write emails, or text their friends. This is our main way of communicating with our peers. When I was growing up with my sister, she didn’t get a cell phone until she was 15 because that’s when my parents decided she was old enough to have one. As our world started to change into the digital world, however, that age decreased rapidly. Only two years later, at the age of 13, I got my first cell phone. The average age of getting a cell phone is going down as we progress with new technologies because now younger children can understand how to use and manage cell phones. Only a few years later, kids today are getting cell phones at ages of 10 and 11 years old.
Even though it seems that the more advanced cell phones are for the younger generations, this is not true. Businesses often hand out BlackBerry phones to their executives and higher-ups so they can be in contact all of the time. Because of these phones, one can work and send important business e-mail and documents if they are stuck in traffic or on vacation somewhere. Because one can also receive e-mail on a cell phone of this kind, it is a great convenience. This is because it reduces the stress of not being able to be contacted during some kind of emergency or change of plans.
Cell phones have advanced far beyond their original design. With advancements in modern software, one can do almost anything they could do on a laptop on their cell phone. For example, one could write Word documents, check and write e-mail, check almost every social networking site, access the internet and go to other random websites, have GPS and Google Maps depending on the service provider, as well as the basic cell phone features and many other applications. The average cost of a cell phone with these capabilities and its service plan would be around $280 for the phone without rebates and $80 a month (tmobile.com). The monthly price includes unlimited use of all of the phones features anywhere you get service. If you tried to buy a laptop that could do all of the things that a cell phone of this nature, or a smart phone, could do, you would be looking at a price tag upwards of $500. After that, one would need to subscribe to an internet provider, which usually costs $20 a month but is limited to the space that you set the wireless up. Even though this seems to be cheaper in the long run, one would still presumably buy a cell phone and calling plan that would end up costing around the same amount if not more. Because of this, cell phones today are becoming more and more popular, with a 24% increase in the average of year-to-year subscribers (researchandmarkets.com).
As new technologies develop, older technology becomes obsolete. For laptops and computers, this means that you would have to at least buy a new Operating System, which costs hundreds of dollars, if you want to keep up with the advances in technology. However, you can keep up with new cell phones by having a plan with your service provider that allows you to get significant discounts on new phones after you own your phone for a set amount of time, usually two years. This system works great because there usually are no major technological advances will be made within the first year and a half if you are getting one of the newest cell phones available. Conversely, when the two year period ends there will be a new phone with capabilities either much easier to use or completely new that you can get at significant discounts.
Being a technological native, I see the advantages to having a smart phone. I believe that the advances being made in cell phone technology are inevitable and worthwhile in our digital world. I also see how some people who don’t use the internet much, i.e. my grandparents, wouldn’t want to get phones that have all of these new capabilities because they wouldn’t use them. That is why there are still basic cell phones that can only call and text message people made today. There are new people getting their first smart phone every day as they become more available and affordable to the general public. Even though I do not personally have an advanced cell phone, I believe that they are an important piece of technology for the present and future.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
My final essay
Apple advertisements strategies in persuading people to buy their products.
What makes it so attractive to buy products from Apple Inc? This is an interesting question since Apple is developing new technology incredibly fast and their products keep improving in design and features. Do people buy their products just because of the sleek and improved designs or do they actually buy the electronics for what they’re able to do with it? When it comes to the topic of selling products most efficiently, most of us will readily agree that advertising is the best option to get people’s attention. We should ask ourselves: is Apple advertisement great or do they sometimes send the wrong message? Advertisement comes in many forms, but what makes the Apple Inc. advertisements so good, that people actually go down to the store and buy their product? Could it be the way they put humor into certain commercials or is it the design they put up on the billboards that attracts people towards their products? Humor is an aspect that people enjoy in commercials or just in general and billboards are shown all over the big cities, so people can’t really miss looking at these ad campaigns printed on the billboards.
In the past two decades Apple advertisements have become well known and are designed to reflect a business plan of marketing their products to creative individuals. Their most significant ad campaigns include the Super Bowl commercial from 1984, which introduces the Macintosh and the Think Different campaign (slogan) from the 1990s and the iPod commercials, which started introducing the more advanced MP3-players that Apple created in 2000. Since Apple created the Macintosh Super Bowl commercial in 1984, it has maintained a style of visual art in many more famous ad campaigns. Later in the 1990s they developed advertisements including famous social figures, such as artist John Lennon and social activist Mahatma Gandhi in the Think Different campaign.
Do Apple campaign draw more attention by involving famous figures into the advertising process? Personally I think that it helps Apple in a way to get the customers attention, especially when the famous figure is very well known with a good reputation. Teenagers might look at their favorite celebrity representing a certain product that is showing on a billboard and the teens decide that this is a good reason for purchasing the product that is displayed.
Many people might buy Apple products because they are overwhelmed by their ad campaigns and the whole image that the company has created over the years. The reason for the public to be overwhelmed by their campaigns is due to the fact that the advertisements are spread everywhere and sometimes really largely displayed too. Teenagers are known to be vulnerable to hypes that are going on at school; advertisements can therefore persuade them more easily into buying whatever product they’re selling. So if everyone at school or in someone’s class buys iPod’s all of a sudden, it is more likely hat others will follow since they’d want to be part of something, in this case, the hype. Does this make teenagers an easy target for persuasion through advertisements by Apple? This could very likely be because as Apple may have figured out, if they get the younger generation to purchase their products, they will probably be more successful over the years to come. `So this is an example of people buying items because of the image behind it.
Personally, I look at what the product is able to do and how it’s improved in comparison to previous versions of it. Other people might buy a computer just because everybody else has one or simply because of the beautiful, high-tech design. Is Apple then tricking us in buying their products based on the look/design of it? That is a question every person has to answer individually, because everyone has a different reason to buy Apple’s creations. The design and look of the product might be a nice bonus to the creation you bought, but I believe that the features of the items are most important when considering purchasing something.
However not all people agree with the way Apple approaches things. According to Lev Grossman, who wrote the article How Apple Does It, doubts the way Apple approaches things. Grossman says that Apple does everything at the same time and this is all wrong. Grossman says: “Try to do everything at once and you won’t do anything well.” So basically he thinks that the company won’t function well just because they take on all the different sectors of technology. I do agree that Apple doesn’t make everything as good as it could be, like the iPhone 4 (which still has a few technical problems), however I disagree with the fact that companies can’t function well if handling multiple technological sectors. Apple indeed proved that they most certainly able to grow out to be a successful business by expanding their horizon by creating not only computer, but also phones, iPod’s and various other accessories. This turned out to be a very smart decision, since it’s nowadays unlikely to find a person, who hasn’t heard from iPod’s or the iPhone.
The New Practicality of an Old Technology
Have you ever heard of e-books or e-readers? Most people have. People who have been newly introduced to them may be surprised to know that e-books and e-readers are not new. In 1971, Michael Hart, the founder of Project Gutenberg, invented e-books. E-readers were first introduced in 1998 with the making of the Rocket E-book and the Softbook.
You might be wondering why most people didn’t hear of them until recently; this is because early e-readers were introduced to digital aliens, a term used to describe people who were introduced to technology at an older age. These digital aliens preferred to stick to the physical books that they were used to. E-readers seemed like an impractical buy just as robots seem impractical buy for us. But when the Amazon Kindle was introduced in 2007, it was introduced to digital natives and digital aliens more attuned and open to technology and our world which is more digital than the world 12 years ago. The e-reader that seemed unnecessary in the 1990s is more practical now.
Many people have discovered the practicality and convenience of e-books and e-readers. On July 19, 2010, Amazon announced that during the previous three months, Kindle e-book sales were higher than the sales of hardcover books. Amazon said that during the three months they sold 143 Kindle e-books for every 100 hardcover books, including hardcover books that aren’t in Kindle book format (“Kindle”). This is important because this is the first time e-books have sold more than any kind of printed book, and soon it will out sell paper backs. In addition, an article in the International Business Times entitled “E-Readers at a Glance” by Gabriel Perna reports that although Amazon does not report exact figures on the Kindle, analysts estimate about 3.5 to 4 million devices have been sold. These are just statistics for the Kindle, so if we put into consideration all the Nooks and Sony e-Readers sold, not to mention all the other e-readers that are not as popular, but still part of the market, the number of e-readers sold in the past couple years becomes mind blowing. Plus, the sales of e-readers are predicted to rise incredibly. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) surveyed 12,717 web users from 14 different countries for two days. They reported on March of 2009 that 28% of all respondents and 51% of the people that said they were familiar with e-readers and tablets said they planned to buy an e-reader or tablet within the next year. Those percentages jumped to 49% and 73%, when they were asked if they'd buy a device within three years (Buledosh, “Surge in E-readers, tablets predicted within three years”). Now, we have to consider the fact that e-books are more widespread than e-readers since people don’t have to own an e-reader to read e-books. They can still read them on other devices such as iPhones, PCs, and Macs, just to mention a few, so the popularity of e-books rising at an even greater rate than that of e-readers.
Although the e-books and e-readers are becoming immensely popular and a large amount of
people like them, there are people who are still skeptical of them. Some of them love physical books and don’t like the thought of reading on a device. An associate director for the Center for the Humanities at Washington University, Jian Leng, wrote “The future of ink on paper: try this on a kindle” in the St. Louis Journalism Review. In this article, he expresses his love for physical books by saying, “… the physicality of a book is a much more beautiful information-storage device than an electronic machine, and provides a dimension of pleasure unequalled by the digital alternative.” This is not the only reason for skepticism; other reasons are: people are worried e-readers have a planned obsolescence, or in other words, the e-readers in the market now are planned to be unusable in the near future and whether e-readers can support all different e-book formats. Some people may even consider e-readers as unnecessary and a waste of money when people can just go to a library to get a book. Although these concerns are reasonable, they are flawed.
Like Leng, I am a huge fan of books. I love to read. One would think that as a lover of books, I would have been thrilled to learn of e-readers but I was apprehensive about it. I thought the whole experience of reading is more pleasurable with an actual book. I felt like the texture and weight of a book, turning the pages, and the smell of books was all part of the experience. Thinking about holding a cold, hard device instead of a book just seemed wrong to me. Although I was doubtful when it came to reading e-books instead of printed ones, I was curious of the new technology of e-readers. With this curiosity, I bought Barnes and Noble’s e-reader, the Nook. The e-reader was even more convenient than reading printed books. The device was not as different from a book as I predicted. Not only did the e-reader come with features such as storing thousands of books, changing the font, and looking up words quickly in the dictionary, but the reading experience was just as wonderful. I found that I didn’t miss the page turning, the smell, or any of the physical parts of reading. The main reason of why reading is so pleasurable and wonderful not because of the physical things, but the content of the book. Snuggling up with a good book on my Nook is just as comfortable as snuggling with a printed book. Buying the Nook made me realize that I would not mind if all printed books were replaced by e-readers and e-books.
My concern for the reading experience on my nook was a misconception and another misconception about e-readers is that they only allow someone to read books bought with the company of the e-reader. It is true that there are several different formats for e-books, but devices can support most of them. I would say all, but companies want to have some profit, so companies have their own format. E-books from Amazon cannot be read on a Nook, and vice versa, but if someone bought e-books from different sites before buying their nook, and the formats are EPUB, PDB, or PDF, they can just download the saved books from their computer onto the device. The only inconvenience that comes with buying e-books from other sites is the fact that the book is not delivered to your device in seconds.
Speaking of e-book formats, since they are set, e-readers introduced now will not become obsolete in the near future. We can see how the mp3 player or computer has evolved in time to prove this. Using an mp3 player from 10 years ago is not a big deal. They use the same mp3 file format to listen to music like the latest mp3 players in the market. Also, computers from the 1990s can be used today. People don’t use them because they want the new features and styles. Just as one can use an mp3 player from 10 years ago or use a computer from 20 years ago, we will be able to use devices many years from now. The only thing that would tempt anyone to get a new e-reader would be all the features that will come with advances in e-reader technology.
Now you might be thinking, “I get why people shouldn’t be worried about e-readers once they buy them, but why can’t people just go to the library? Why buy books when the American public library system is so great?” Going to a fantastic library may not be hard for those living in or near the city, but for all those in our huge country who don’t have access to a good library, e-readers can be a major help. Let’s say my research paper is due in a week. I would go to my library to look for a book, only to find out that they don’t have it. The librarians would help me and search to see if any libraries in their system have it but I would find that they don’t. If I am very intent on finding this book, I would go to a town bigger than mine, which would be an hour drive. I would drive an hour and search for the book to find that their system doesn’t have it too but I could have saved all that time if I looked to see if this book is in e-book format and downloaded it from the comfort of my home. Some may argue that there aren’t that many e-books out there and it wouldn’t be unlikely for me to find that there isn’t whatever I was looking for in e-book form. I would say, think again. Project Gutenberg, started with the invention of e-books and has a total of 33,000 public domain books, or books out of copy write date, available to the public. Along with all the books in the library of over a million e-books with Barnes and Noble, I’d say I have a good chance.
So is the e-reader an impractical device? I say, no. E-readers are just at the beginning of their existence in our technological lives. E-readers are not just a passing fad. As e-books become an even more popular and our world becomes increasingly digitalized, e-readers or devices that can read e-books will rise in popularity as well. E-readers will not become obsolete or have a planned obsolescence but will last for a long time. The accessibility of e-books will become greater as time goes on and the practicality of e-readers will follow suit. As practicality gets higher, everyone will own or have easy access to them, just as almost everyone in the world owns or has access to computers and e-readers will become a part of our technological lives. I believe it will change our lives.
You might be wondering why most people didn’t hear of them until recently; this is because early e-readers were introduced to digital aliens, a term used to describe people who were introduced to technology at an older age. These digital aliens preferred to stick to the physical books that they were used to. E-readers seemed like an impractical buy just as robots seem impractical buy for us. But when the Amazon Kindle was introduced in 2007, it was introduced to digital natives and digital aliens more attuned and open to technology and our world which is more digital than the world 12 years ago. The e-reader that seemed unnecessary in the 1990s is more practical now.
Many people have discovered the practicality and convenience of e-books and e-readers. On July 19, 2010, Amazon announced that during the previous three months, Kindle e-book sales were higher than the sales of hardcover books. Amazon said that during the three months they sold 143 Kindle e-books for every 100 hardcover books, including hardcover books that aren’t in Kindle book format (“Kindle”). This is important because this is the first time e-books have sold more than any kind of printed book, and soon it will out sell paper backs. In addition, an article in the International Business Times entitled “E-Readers at a Glance” by Gabriel Perna reports that although Amazon does not report exact figures on the Kindle, analysts estimate about 3.5 to 4 million devices have been sold. These are just statistics for the Kindle, so if we put into consideration all the Nooks and Sony e-Readers sold, not to mention all the other e-readers that are not as popular, but still part of the market, the number of e-readers sold in the past couple years becomes mind blowing. Plus, the sales of e-readers are predicted to rise incredibly. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) surveyed 12,717 web users from 14 different countries for two days. They reported on March of 2009 that 28% of all respondents and 51% of the people that said they were familiar with e-readers and tablets said they planned to buy an e-reader or tablet within the next year. Those percentages jumped to 49% and 73%, when they were asked if they'd buy a device within three years (Buledosh, “Surge in E-readers, tablets predicted within three years”). Now, we have to consider the fact that e-books are more widespread than e-readers since people don’t have to own an e-reader to read e-books. They can still read them on other devices such as iPhones, PCs, and Macs, just to mention a few, so the popularity of e-books rising at an even greater rate than that of e-readers.
Although the e-books and e-readers are becoming immensely popular and a large amount of
people like them, there are people who are still skeptical of them. Some of them love physical books and don’t like the thought of reading on a device. An associate director for the Center for the Humanities at Washington University, Jian Leng, wrote “The future of ink on paper: try this on a kindle” in the St. Louis Journalism Review. In this article, he expresses his love for physical books by saying, “… the physicality of a book is a much more beautiful information-storage device than an electronic machine, and provides a dimension of pleasure unequalled by the digital alternative.” This is not the only reason for skepticism; other reasons are: people are worried e-readers have a planned obsolescence, or in other words, the e-readers in the market now are planned to be unusable in the near future and whether e-readers can support all different e-book formats. Some people may even consider e-readers as unnecessary and a waste of money when people can just go to a library to get a book. Although these concerns are reasonable, they are flawed.
Like Leng, I am a huge fan of books. I love to read. One would think that as a lover of books, I would have been thrilled to learn of e-readers but I was apprehensive about it. I thought the whole experience of reading is more pleasurable with an actual book. I felt like the texture and weight of a book, turning the pages, and the smell of books was all part of the experience. Thinking about holding a cold, hard device instead of a book just seemed wrong to me. Although I was doubtful when it came to reading e-books instead of printed ones, I was curious of the new technology of e-readers. With this curiosity, I bought Barnes and Noble’s e-reader, the Nook. The e-reader was even more convenient than reading printed books. The device was not as different from a book as I predicted. Not only did the e-reader come with features such as storing thousands of books, changing the font, and looking up words quickly in the dictionary, but the reading experience was just as wonderful. I found that I didn’t miss the page turning, the smell, or any of the physical parts of reading. The main reason of why reading is so pleasurable and wonderful not because of the physical things, but the content of the book. Snuggling up with a good book on my Nook is just as comfortable as snuggling with a printed book. Buying the Nook made me realize that I would not mind if all printed books were replaced by e-readers and e-books.
My concern for the reading experience on my nook was a misconception and another misconception about e-readers is that they only allow someone to read books bought with the company of the e-reader. It is true that there are several different formats for e-books, but devices can support most of them. I would say all, but companies want to have some profit, so companies have their own format. E-books from Amazon cannot be read on a Nook, and vice versa, but if someone bought e-books from different sites before buying their nook, and the formats are EPUB, PDB, or PDF, they can just download the saved books from their computer onto the device. The only inconvenience that comes with buying e-books from other sites is the fact that the book is not delivered to your device in seconds.
Speaking of e-book formats, since they are set, e-readers introduced now will not become obsolete in the near future. We can see how the mp3 player or computer has evolved in time to prove this. Using an mp3 player from 10 years ago is not a big deal. They use the same mp3 file format to listen to music like the latest mp3 players in the market. Also, computers from the 1990s can be used today. People don’t use them because they want the new features and styles. Just as one can use an mp3 player from 10 years ago or use a computer from 20 years ago, we will be able to use devices many years from now. The only thing that would tempt anyone to get a new e-reader would be all the features that will come with advances in e-reader technology.
Now you might be thinking, “I get why people shouldn’t be worried about e-readers once they buy them, but why can’t people just go to the library? Why buy books when the American public library system is so great?” Going to a fantastic library may not be hard for those living in or near the city, but for all those in our huge country who don’t have access to a good library, e-readers can be a major help. Let’s say my research paper is due in a week. I would go to my library to look for a book, only to find out that they don’t have it. The librarians would help me and search to see if any libraries in their system have it but I would find that they don’t. If I am very intent on finding this book, I would go to a town bigger than mine, which would be an hour drive. I would drive an hour and search for the book to find that their system doesn’t have it too but I could have saved all that time if I looked to see if this book is in e-book format and downloaded it from the comfort of my home. Some may argue that there aren’t that many e-books out there and it wouldn’t be unlikely for me to find that there isn’t whatever I was looking for in e-book form. I would say, think again. Project Gutenberg, started with the invention of e-books and has a total of 33,000 public domain books, or books out of copy write date, available to the public. Along with all the books in the library of over a million e-books with Barnes and Noble, I’d say I have a good chance.
So is the e-reader an impractical device? I say, no. E-readers are just at the beginning of their existence in our technological lives. E-readers are not just a passing fad. As e-books become an even more popular and our world becomes increasingly digitalized, e-readers or devices that can read e-books will rise in popularity as well. E-readers will not become obsolete or have a planned obsolescence but will last for a long time. The accessibility of e-books will become greater as time goes on and the practicality of e-readers will follow suit. As practicality gets higher, everyone will own or have easy access to them, just as almost everyone in the world owns or has access to computers and e-readers will become a part of our technological lives. I believe it will change our lives.
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 Internet Deteriorates Family Relationships
My mom walks into the TV room and gives my sister and I 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 so am I. 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 dominates the best methods of great communication and connecting with people. Although I agree that the Internet appears as an exceptional communicating device, I cannot accept the fact that families can become distant because of the Internet. For instance, in the documentary “Digital Nation,” one of the first things that occurred, included the narrator noticing how each of her family members acted 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. In addition, he states that “withdrawal from family relationships” caused “increases in loneliness” (1). Ultimately, I agree with him about increased loneliness and that people are addicted to the Internet because recent studies by psychologists have proven that 6-11% of Internet users are addicted. A study done by Stanford University explains how Internet usage has become worse. 13% of the Stanford students said that they need to reduce their time on the Internet.
Professor 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. Furthermore, she reports that there has been a decrease in “socialization and issues concerning friendship” (2). With similar views, the 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 in fact 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.
On the other hand, well-known authors of the “Psychologist Suite 101” blog argue that the Internet does not lead to non-social behavior. Moreover, they argue that the Internet increases “their face-to-face interaction with friends and families” (1). Though I concede that someone who emerges as anti-social in the real world can begin socializing on the Internet, I still insist that Americans live in the real world, not in the virtual world, so it proves necessary to communicate with people all the time.
Arguing with ambivalent views, Allen Harkleroad, the author of “The Internet- Good or Bad?” from the Statesboro Business & Lifestyle Magazine, suggests that the Internet has its positives and its negatives. One of the positives being that it exists as the best way to connect with family. I most definitely side with Harkleroad and agree that the Internet allows families to connect on opposite sides of the world. For instance, when I lived in England, I communicated to my family in the U.S. by Internet. Military families also find the Internet extremely helpful when communicating with their loved ones in combat. In those circumstances the Internet can be useful to connect with family, especially when having to communicate long-distance. Even though the Internet may seem useful, could it become just like the older technologies?
When the television was first introduced it was revolutionary technology, but has it decreased family time? Elena, a writer for Syntax, discusses how watching television gives the impression of being anti- social. Usually, people watch television to watch their favorite show, which most likely does not include watching it with a family member. Could this occur with the Internet?
In sum, many writers such as Ben Turner, Christine Morris, and the authors of the “American Psychologist” argue that Internet has caused family communication to decline as a result of Internet addictions. If familiar relationships continue to decline a positive solution for this problem would be family therapy or a less extreme solution would be to set times designated for the Internet and for family . As we look into the future, we want to be connected with our families. After all, it seems better to have wonderful family connections rather than great Internet connections.
Morris, Christine. "The Effect of the Home Computer on Family Relationships." University of Maine at Machias | Environmental Liberal Arts on the Coast of Maine. Web. 05 Aug. 2010.
Turner, Ben. "The Internet's Effects on Relationships: Detrimental OrBeneficial?" BenTurner.com. Web. 05 Aug. 2010.
"The Internet and Social Relationships: Facebook, MySpace, Online: Research Refutes Cyber Socializing Fears." Psychology. Web. 05 Aug. 2010.
Harkleroad, Allen. "The Internet - Good or Bad?" Statesboro | Statesboro Georgia Business and Lifestyle Magazine | Statesboro Ga. Web. 05 Aug. 2010.
Internet: An Addition Not An Addiction
Eyes glued to the iPod screen in your hands, you pry away for a couple minutes to watch the episode that’s running on HBO. Behind you, your mom is typing away on her computer and a couple steps away, your sister is texting her friends with her earphones in, blasting the awful music she has on her own iPod. Upstairs your dad is tending to a conference call on his computer. It’s the average Saturday morning. Nobody even gives it a second thought; that’s the way it works in the digital world we live in today.
Nicholas Carr in “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” expresses his concern for the future of the digitalizing human race. The fast-moving, vast pool of information that is the internet offers knowledge at its users’ fingertips, but with convenience comes consequence. The internet simplifies this knowledge to make it faster for the reader to consume at a glance. The way this type of information is presented – in short pieces – is what causes Carr’s worry. As internet users become more and more used to the idea of quick and easy information, the way they think becomes affected. When reading the traditional ink and paper, their ability to process the excess details on the page and interpret the deeper meaning is hindered. In Carr’s case and most of his other colleagues’ cases, the internet also affects their attention span. Concentration becomes difficult. Memory deteriorates. The Net has taken over the way they think in the real world.
I partially agree with Nicholas Carr, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the internet is affecting the minds of its users to the point that their ability to interpret and understand something is weakened. Undoubtedly, the Net is needed to move forward. Just like science would take forever or wouldn’t even be possible without the latest technology, learning and innovation wouldn’t be able to take place fast enough in our modern age without the internet. Using the internet should be encouraged, but not so much that we abandon the books and sources of the past. The internet should not replace the world we live in, but rather, it should complement it.
As a supplement, the internet can keep us from falling behind. Although part of Carr’s argument is right, the internet is still important to the daily lives of the people. We can’t discourage the continued use of the internet simply because of the small negative effect it has on us. In this case, the upsides of the internet generally outweigh the downsides. Without it, information would take hours or even days to find, talking to your friends would be rather inconvenient, etc. It should have the effect of adding to our lives, but not such that it makes us forget the other things we have around us.
I think that technology is, in the lives of people like the members in my family, taking over and becoming the daily life of the average American family today. According to mashable.com, a blog that posts about new social networks and websites, the average person spends about 68 hours online per month. That’s more than 10% of our lives spent clicking away on the computer. Maybe even more than that. Just think of what one could have been doing during that time: exercising, hanging out with friends, or even spending time with family. How much more will we give up to the clutches of the worldwide web in the future?
The internet does have its advantages, don’t get me wrong. Its capability to place the world of knowledge at one’s fingertips is unmatched by any other technology. Jamais Cascio gives his opinion about the importance of the Net in his article “Get Smarter.” He explains that the internet is simply a tool we must take advantage of as humans, and it is our key to becoming smarter in the future - smarter in a way that lets us survive in the ever-altering world. If we decide not to use it, we are at a loss. Technology is constantly developing, and the knowledge we have as a result is constantly expanding as well. Once you fall behind, well, then it’s hard to catch up.
Cascio points out that the internet is the key to the future of our human race. He argues that in order to survive in the ever-changing world of today we must utilize the latest tools like the internet to, as he puts it, “get smarter”. Falling behind is not an option. If we don’t smarten up, it’s over. Cascio is an avid technology supporter, a believer in the forward progression of humans. The internet is simply a way to keep up and keep going. The distribution of knowledge and information is important these days, he explains, and without the speed that the Net provides, it would be hard to get moving anywhere.
As people we need to be careful about how much of our lives we allow the internet to be. Sure, it makes life easier, but we must learn to control ourselves. It can only be helpful up until a point. Past that, it’s called an addiction. As a society, we should learn to view it as an addition to our current lives, not as a way to live them.
By now we must know that slipping away into obsolescence is not an option in modern-day society. Clay Shirky, in his article “Does the Internet Make You Smarter or Dumber?” poses the idea that perhaps the internet is not fully developed yet. At the moment, there is some pretty dumb stuff out there, and some pretty dumb people. The internet is what provided them the ability to spread that stupidity. Now obviously, this is a flaw. But this is all part of the process. There will be dumb people, and there will be smart people. Filtering out the bad stuff and leaving the good stuff is all part of the development. Without the internet, the dumb ideas wouldn’t be out there, but neither would the smart ones. The internet is a way to express ourselves and establish our position in the society. It is a medium that allows the sharing of all kinds of opinions, and gives the common people the capability to fully utilize their freedom of speech. The internet, as Shirky states, is somewhat similar to the introduction of the printing press a long time ago. The printing press allowed for the circulation of propaganda, mockeries of the Bible, and other unworthy pieces of literature. But without it, we wouldn’t have been able to spread information and most likely would never have been able to distribute the books, newspapers, etc. that resulted in an intellectual flourish at the time. The internet is similar in that it is crucial to the forward movement of human intelligence, but it is still a work in progress.
My view on this aspect of the internet is completely in line with Shirky’s. With where we are at this point in time, the internet can only get better. It has definitely provided convenience for its users. Although Carr’s statements are rather extreme, one cannot deny that the internet can have negative effects on the mind. Thus we must refrain ourselves from the overuse of it. Again arises the idea that the internet should be a convenience, not a lifestyle. Imagine the world of tomorrow, filled with the plugged in teenagers and people of today. As the internet grows to be a larger and larger part of our lives, we have to be careful not to let it cross the line and become the way we live.
The Dangers 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. 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. Joel M. Kauffman, a professor of chemistry at the university of sciences, expands on this assertion in his article “Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) Drugs: More Risks than Benefits?” In it, he evaluates the adverse reactions of SSRI antidepressants and attributes them to the ways in which we diagnose people. 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 on 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. And so, it has become crucial amidst the progression of such an industry that these medications be re-examined and evaluated for their value in light of the many problems they induce. 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. Although these medicines are intended to nullify persistent sadness, the side effects are no different than the symptoms which call for the medicine. In the aforementioned article “Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) Drugs: More Risks than Benefits?”, Kauffman notes that only about 30% of patients who have been treated with SSRI reported a positive effect from the medication. Moreover, up to 75% of patients who took SSRIs claimed to have experienced the adverse side effects[1]. Another key point made by Kauffman is that much of the positive effect brought upon by SSRI medication may actually be attributed to the placebo effect. Indeed, our failure to address depression from a medicinal standpoint likely spurs from our understanding of the mind—we understand all the genetic and societal factors that affect an individual’s mind, but we are still in discord over how the chemicals in the brain work. We know that depression is usually linked with a serotonin imbalance in the brain, but yet we still have no way of measuring such to classify an individual’s condition like how we recognize a broken bone. When someone breaks a bone, we don’t treat them according to how they describe the pain, but rather what shows up on an X-ray. Because a mental disorder is so less tangible than a physical illness, we have other methods of diagnosing—more risky methods. We choose to base our diagnoses on 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 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. For example, exercise is known to increase levels of endorphins in the body, thus bettering one’s mood substantially. Also, yoga induces a serenity in the mind and is statistically proven to decrease levels of stress and anxiety. 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 addresses the claims against SSRI medication which assert that it does little for patients by suggesting that it only works well for people who are extremely depressed. She says that only people who exhibit symptoms of severe and persistent sadness benefit from the drugs, and that the adverse effects do not apply to these people[2]. However, it is well known that these adverse reactions have manifested specifically not in those who are not or mildly depressed, but rather in young adults and teenagers, regardless of their level of depression. 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 take 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 have consistently proven to help an individual without the many side effects associated with SSRIs and other neurological medicines may in fact be the most productive and safe solution for those who suffer from depression.
Sources:
1. Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
2. The Wrong Story about Depression
Sources:
1. Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
2. The Wrong Story about Depression
How Will We Use Nanotechnology?
It is commonly acknowledged that technology has made our lives 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, with this rapidly shrinking technology, nanotechnology, we will not only be able to help ourselves, but save ourselves as well.
In the most technical terms, nanotechnology is the study of the controlling of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Although nanomaterials have been in use since the 1990s, scientists are currently engineering 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 can 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 (“Nanotechnology and Medicine”). These new abilities guarantee “a quantum leap in our medical capabilities” says Ralph C. Merkle, researcher of nanotechnology and author of “It’s a Small, Small, Small World” (n.p.). Given that there is no end to the possibilities nanotechnology offers for the betterment of the health of the human race, it seems there is no possible way this new technology could fail us.
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 a 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 a reality.
The issue with nanotechnology is that its development cannot be either beneficial or detrimental to humans. Some critics have expressed their concerns with the more sinister potential these nanobots have to offer despite the strides nanotechnology has made to improve the effectiveness of modern medicine. Critics fear that where there is a way to heal, there is always many ways in which to hurt. “The safest way forward,” says Robert D. Pinson., author of “Is Nanotechnology Prohibited By Biological and Chemical Conventions”, “is to develop the technology and work to prevent accidents and misuse…with a regulatory scheme in place to provide guidance and ensure safety” (289-290). Like all technology, nanotechnology’s main problem is that it is manufactured by human beings who have demonstrated infinite capabilities for both good and evil. 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 sustain human life for a very long time, but, like with all technologies, if nanobots fell into the wrong hands, all of humanity could be in danger. As Sherri Chasin Calvo, a freelance science writer specializing in genetics has stated, “nanotechnology can be a double-edged sword” (n.p).
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 not attack the terrorists. Imagine that nanobots become so advanced that they could self-replicate until they formed an elite army of super humans. 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.
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 to embrace, as Jamais Cascio in “Get Smarter” says, “our ability to build the future we want” (8). Also, abstaining from further research and work on nanotechnology in one country would not guarantee that other countries will discontinue their work. Giving scientists the ability to work freely with nanotechnology is not an ideal solution either. “Nanotechnology could have an enormous impact on medicine but the regulations that govern new drugs and medical devices need to be updated before nanomedicine can be commercialized,” says Michael N. Helmus, the senior vice president for Biopharma at Advance Nanotech (333). Indeed, current regulations do not apply to nanotechnologies that can be considered either a drug or a device, or a hybrid of both. Also, the social and ethical issues raised by nanotechnology transcend the current environmental and medical regulations (Mehta). New regulations must encompass the all issues and abilities of nanotechnology.
Guidelines for nanotechnology development will 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. These policies and guidelines, however, will not be easy to establish and enforce. Obtaining absolute cooperation from every government in the world, finalizing the new laws, and hiring enforcers to see that international laws are followed before 2015 arrives will be difficult. Also, because nanotechnology applies to other fields beside medicine, regulations will have to be formed specifically to each field. Despite these obstacles, organizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development have formed groups, such as the Working Group on Manufactured Nanomaterials, to respond to the need for specific regulations for nanotechnology. In addition, countries such as the United States, Japan, Australia, and Canada, are currently regulating nanotechnology with the help of traditional environmental policies while beginning to debate new legislation (Ecotoxicology, 1328). If new regulations can effectively prevent the abuse of nanotechnology, I see no reason why we cannot reap the benefits of nanotechnology and remain confident of its safe use and application.
The importance of nanotechnology in medicine is that it can save a life. 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. Now is the time that we must decide our own fate. Should we do all that is possible to save lives? Or are the possible deadly consequences too much for us to handle?
Cascio describes the human race as an evolving and intelligent species with the ability to use technology for our own benefit. He establishes that “with augmented intelligence, we will have a far greater appreciation for the consequences of our actions” (7). Perhaps with this new appreciation and with the proper regulations in place, all of society will 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.
Works Cited
Calvo, Sherri Chasin, Peter Andrews, and M.C. Nagel. "Do the potential dangers of nanotechnology to society outweigh the potential benefits ." Science in Dispute 1 Jan. 2002: n. pag. Web.
Cascio, Jamais. "Get Smarter." the Atlantic 2009: 1-8. Print.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety Volume 72, Issue 5, July 2009, Pages 1327-1330.
Helmus, Michael N. "The need for rules and regulations." Nature Nanotechnology 2 (2007): 333-334. Web.
Mehta, Michael D. "The Future of Nanomedicine Looks Promising, But Only If We Learn From the Past." Health Law Review (2003): n. pag. Web.
Merkle, Ralph C. "Nanotechnology: It's a Small, Small, Small, Small World." actionbioscience.org. American Institute of Biological Sciences, 2010. Web.
"Nanotechnology and Medicine." The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Processwire, 2010. Web.
Pinson, Robert D. "Is Nanotechnology Prohibited by the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions." Berkeley Journal of Internaltional Law 22.279 (2004): 279-309. Web.
In the most technical terms, nanotechnology is the study of the controlling of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Although nanomaterials have been in use since the 1990s, scientists are currently engineering 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 can 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 (“Nanotechnology and Medicine”). These new abilities guarantee “a quantum leap in our medical capabilities” says Ralph C. Merkle, researcher of nanotechnology and author of “It’s a Small, Small, Small World” (n.p.). Given that there is no end to the possibilities nanotechnology offers for the betterment of the health of the human race, it seems there is no possible way this new technology could fail us.
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 a 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 a reality.
The issue with nanotechnology is that its development cannot be either beneficial or detrimental to humans. Some critics have expressed their concerns with the more sinister potential these nanobots have to offer despite the strides nanotechnology has made to improve the effectiveness of modern medicine. Critics fear that where there is a way to heal, there is always many ways in which to hurt. “The safest way forward,” says Robert D. Pinson., author of “Is Nanotechnology Prohibited By Biological and Chemical Conventions”, “is to develop the technology and work to prevent accidents and misuse…with a regulatory scheme in place to provide guidance and ensure safety” (289-290). Like all technology, nanotechnology’s main problem is that it is manufactured by human beings who have demonstrated infinite capabilities for both good and evil. 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 sustain human life for a very long time, but, like with all technologies, if nanobots fell into the wrong hands, all of humanity could be in danger. As Sherri Chasin Calvo, a freelance science writer specializing in genetics has stated, “nanotechnology can be a double-edged sword” (n.p).
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 not attack the terrorists. Imagine that nanobots become so advanced that they could self-replicate until they formed an elite army of super humans. 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.
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 to embrace, as Jamais Cascio in “Get Smarter” says, “our ability to build the future we want” (8). Also, abstaining from further research and work on nanotechnology in one country would not guarantee that other countries will discontinue their work. Giving scientists the ability to work freely with nanotechnology is not an ideal solution either. “Nanotechnology could have an enormous impact on medicine but the regulations that govern new drugs and medical devices need to be updated before nanomedicine can be commercialized,” says Michael N. Helmus, the senior vice president for Biopharma at Advance Nanotech (333). Indeed, current regulations do not apply to nanotechnologies that can be considered either a drug or a device, or a hybrid of both. Also, the social and ethical issues raised by nanotechnology transcend the current environmental and medical regulations (Mehta). New regulations must encompass the all issues and abilities of nanotechnology.
Guidelines for nanotechnology development will 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. These policies and guidelines, however, will not be easy to establish and enforce. Obtaining absolute cooperation from every government in the world, finalizing the new laws, and hiring enforcers to see that international laws are followed before 2015 arrives will be difficult. Also, because nanotechnology applies to other fields beside medicine, regulations will have to be formed specifically to each field. Despite these obstacles, organizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development have formed groups, such as the Working Group on Manufactured Nanomaterials, to respond to the need for specific regulations for nanotechnology. In addition, countries such as the United States, Japan, Australia, and Canada, are currently regulating nanotechnology with the help of traditional environmental policies while beginning to debate new legislation (Ecotoxicology, 1328). If new regulations can effectively prevent the abuse of nanotechnology, I see no reason why we cannot reap the benefits of nanotechnology and remain confident of its safe use and application.
The importance of nanotechnology in medicine is that it can save a life. 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. Now is the time that we must decide our own fate. Should we do all that is possible to save lives? Or are the possible deadly consequences too much for us to handle?
Cascio describes the human race as an evolving and intelligent species with the ability to use technology for our own benefit. He establishes that “with augmented intelligence, we will have a far greater appreciation for the consequences of our actions” (7). Perhaps with this new appreciation and with the proper regulations in place, all of society will 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.
Works Cited
Calvo, Sherri Chasin, Peter Andrews, and M.C. Nagel. "Do the potential dangers of nanotechnology to society outweigh the potential benefits ." Science in Dispute 1 Jan. 2002: n. pag. Web.
Cascio, Jamais. "Get Smarter." the Atlantic 2009: 1-8. Print.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety Volume 72, Issue 5, July 2009, Pages 1327-1330.
Helmus, Michael N. "The need for rules and regulations." Nature Nanotechnology 2 (2007): 333-334. Web.
Mehta, Michael D. "The Future of Nanomedicine Looks Promising, But Only If We Learn From the Past." Health Law Review (2003): n. pag. Web.
Merkle, Ralph C. "Nanotechnology: It's a Small, Small, Small, Small World." actionbioscience.org. American Institute of Biological Sciences, 2010. Web.
"Nanotechnology and Medicine." The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Processwire, 2010. Web.
Pinson, Robert D. "Is Nanotechnology Prohibited by the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions." Berkeley Journal of Internaltional Law 22.279 (2004): 279-309. Web.
Corrected Sources
Works Cited
Britt, Robert Roy. “Is the Internet Warping Our Brains?” Live Science. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Aug. 2010.
“How the Internet Affects Your Brain.” SherWeb. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Aug. 2010.
Richtell, Matt. “Hooked on Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price.” N.Y. Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Aug. 2010.
My Sources
And also Nicholas Carr and Clay Shirky's articles. |
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Essay
Without the consumer, technology would be obsolete. The good news is that there is such thing as a consumer and technology, in fact, does exist. But there are ways that tech companies attract buyers to their products. So we ask this question. What attracts buyers to their products? In my opinion, the answer is innovation and advertising.
There are two great examples. Apple and Facebook. Advertising is a method used to attract consumers to purchase a certain product. It can be portrayed through TV, billboards and online ads. Apple Inc. is a company that produces and distributes MP3 players, computers and cell phones. They use a style called minimalism throughout their stores products and websites. This style attracts many people to their products. Other companies use different styles to attract consumers as well.
Innovation is when something new is created. In todays world, there are new technologies being created everyday. Some give people fun and enjoyment experiences such as roller coasters and 3D video games. Other give people organization and communication. These factors can lure people to purchase the product. This is why technology is very popular these days.
As I already stated, Apple is a technology company that creates many interactive products. One of their most popular products, the iPod, is a MP3 player thats design is very minimalistic. The product is very user friendly and super portable. This is how technology attracts buyers. But some companies focus on other features such as radio FM and games. These just add to the complexity of the product and doesn't make the experience user friendly because it depletes the battery very quickly. In other words, Apples products are very simple.
Our brains crave networking. It is what helps us connect and interact with other human beings. Facebook is a website that you can network on. The user can add people as friends, chat with them, and write on their profile wall. Users can also post pictures of themselves and their adventures. It is a simple networking site that has become extremely popular and addictive with over 500 million members.
Basically, the objective of tech companies to attract buyers to their products is to keep everything simple. This creates a product that has quality and a user friendly experience.
Have you ever heard of electronic books, or more commonly called, e-books? It seems that almost everyone has. Some people may be surprised to know that e-books and e-readers are not new. E-books were invented in 1971 by Michael Hart, the founder of Project Gutenberg and e-readers grabbed people’s attentions when they were introduced in 1998 with the making of the Rocket E-book and the Softbook. They did not become as popular because the early e-readers were introduced to digital immigrants, or people who were introduced to technology at an older age. These digital immigrants preferred to stick to the physical books that they were used to. E-readers probably seemed like an unnecessary device. But when the Amazon Kindle was introduced in 2007, it was introduced to digital natives and digital immigrants that were even more attuned to technology and more open to it. Not to mention, our world has become way more digital in the last 20 years so the e-reader that seemed unnecessary in the 1990s, is more practical.
I am a digital native, but I am also a huge fan of books. I love to read and it has always been my favorite hobby. One would think that as a lover of books, I would have been thrilled to learn of e-readers. Surprisingly, I wasn’t. I was very apprehensive about it. To me, reading felt like such a non-digital thing to do. I felt like the texture and weight of a book, turning the pages, and the smell of books was all part of the experience. Thinking about holding a cold, hard device instead of a book just seemed uncomfortable for me. Although I was doubtful when it came to reading e-books instead of physical, printed ones, I was curious as a digital native of the new technology of e-readers. With this curiosity, I bought Barnes and Noble’s e-reader, the Nook. I found that having the e-reader was even more convenient than reading printed books. Surprisingly, the device was not that different from a book and with the e-reader, I could store 1500 books into one lightweight device and could buy books in the comfort of my home. The stylish design was appealing and the E Ink® technology made the print look exactly like a printed page. I could also change the font style and size. For all the large font book buyers, this is a very convenient feature. With my e-reader, I am even able to lend books to others. I found that I would not mind if all the books of the world were replaced by e-readers and e-books. My fear of changing from a physical book to an e-reader was irrational and even unfair to e-readers.
I am not the only one that has discovered the wonderful convenience and pleasure of e-books and e-readers. On July 19, 2010, Amazon announced that during the previous three months, Kindle e-book sales were higher than the sales of hardcover books. Amazon said that during the three months they sold 143 Kindle e-books for every 100 hardcover books, including hardcover books that aren’t in Kindle book format (“Kindle”, New York Times). An article in the International Business Times entitled “E-Readers at a Glance” by Gabriel Perna reports that although Amazon does not report exact figures on the Kindle, analysts estimate about 3.5 to 4 million have been sold. These are just statistics for the Kindle. Put into consideration of all the Nooks and Sony e-Readers sold, not to mention all the other e-readers that are not as popular, but still part of the market. The number of e-readers sold in the past couple years becomes mind blowing. Plus, the sales of e-readers are predicted to rise incredibly. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) surveyed 12,717 web users from 14 different countries for two days. They reported on March of 2009 that 28% of all respondents and 51% of the people that said they were familiar with e-readers and tablets said they planned to buy an e-reader or tablet within the next year. Those percentages jumped to 49% and 73%, when they were asked if they'd buy a device within three years. ("Surge in E-readers, tablets predicted within three years", Library Journal) But when we talk about the popularity of e-books, people don’t have to own an e-reader to read e-books. They can still read them on other devices such as iPhones, PCs, and Macs, just to mention a few. This means that the popularity of e-books will rise at an even greater rate than that of e-readers.
Although the e-books and e-readers are becoming immensely popular and are now part of a mass market, some still favor the printed page. An associate director for The Center for the Humanities at Washington University in St. Louis, Jian Leng, wrote an article “The future of ink on paper: try this on a kindle” in the St. Louis Journalism Review. In this article, he writes about how he read about a prep school in New England who digitalized their library and now has TV screen showing data from the internet and 18 e-readers. He also talks about the history of books and how he believes that even if e-books become our next form of reading, physical books will still be around, possibly just more expensive. He expresses his love for physical books by saying, “… the physicality of a book is a much more beautiful information-storage device than an electronic machine, and provides a dimension of pleasure unequalled by the digital alternative”.
The printed book might have “a dimension of pleasure unequalled by the digital alternative” for some people, but they probably have not used an e-reader for more than a short trial, if they even tried it. E-readers are not different from other forms of technology. When cell phones were first introduced, people thought they were immensely uncomfortable and different. If they only played around with one for a little bit, they would never think about ever learning how to use it and become comfortable with it. Plus, the fact that they could not become comfortable with in the first five minutes of use makes them close their mind to it. So, the people who say that the pleasures of reading that are in books cannot be replaced by e-readers probably have not opened their mind to the new technology. Change is always uncomfortable at first and the generations that went from tablets to scrolls, or scrolls to books, and now books to e-readers will hold on to what they are used to at first. People will transition and everyone will be more comfortable with e-readers. Just as no one expects people to own a scroll from the ancient libraries of Alexandria, no one will expect people to own books.
Although some may express the opinion of how physical books are more pleasurable to read, I feel the generation who had to transition from scrolls to books felt the same way about the change. Printed books only seem more pleasurable for many because they are more used to them. Not only did they learn with them and use them as young children, they used them as adults so printed books are part of their comfort zone. These people should be more open minded and try to adjust to the new ways of the digital world. I believe that even if the digital immigrants don’t prefer the e-reader and e-books over printed books, the digital natives and generations of readers afterward will enjoy reading e-books and using e-readers if not much more than printed books.
I am a digital native, but I am also a huge fan of books. I love to read and it has always been my favorite hobby. One would think that as a lover of books, I would have been thrilled to learn of e-readers. Surprisingly, I wasn’t. I was very apprehensive about it. To me, reading felt like such a non-digital thing to do. I felt like the texture and weight of a book, turning the pages, and the smell of books was all part of the experience. Thinking about holding a cold, hard device instead of a book just seemed uncomfortable for me. Although I was doubtful when it came to reading e-books instead of physical, printed ones, I was curious as a digital native of the new technology of e-readers. With this curiosity, I bought Barnes and Noble’s e-reader, the Nook. I found that having the e-reader was even more convenient than reading printed books. Surprisingly, the device was not that different from a book and with the e-reader, I could store 1500 books into one lightweight device and could buy books in the comfort of my home. The stylish design was appealing and the E Ink® technology made the print look exactly like a printed page. I could also change the font style and size. For all the large font book buyers, this is a very convenient feature. With my e-reader, I am even able to lend books to others. I found that I would not mind if all the books of the world were replaced by e-readers and e-books. My fear of changing from a physical book to an e-reader was irrational and even unfair to e-readers.
I am not the only one that has discovered the wonderful convenience and pleasure of e-books and e-readers. On July 19, 2010, Amazon announced that during the previous three months, Kindle e-book sales were higher than the sales of hardcover books. Amazon said that during the three months they sold 143 Kindle e-books for every 100 hardcover books, including hardcover books that aren’t in Kindle book format (“Kindle”, New York Times). An article in the International Business Times entitled “E-Readers at a Glance” by Gabriel Perna reports that although Amazon does not report exact figures on the Kindle, analysts estimate about 3.5 to 4 million have been sold. These are just statistics for the Kindle. Put into consideration of all the Nooks and Sony e-Readers sold, not to mention all the other e-readers that are not as popular, but still part of the market. The number of e-readers sold in the past couple years becomes mind blowing. Plus, the sales of e-readers are predicted to rise incredibly. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) surveyed 12,717 web users from 14 different countries for two days. They reported on March of 2009 that 28% of all respondents and 51% of the people that said they were familiar with e-readers and tablets said they planned to buy an e-reader or tablet within the next year. Those percentages jumped to 49% and 73%, when they were asked if they'd buy a device within three years. ("Surge in E-readers, tablets predicted within three years", Library Journal) But when we talk about the popularity of e-books, people don’t have to own an e-reader to read e-books. They can still read them on other devices such as iPhones, PCs, and Macs, just to mention a few. This means that the popularity of e-books will rise at an even greater rate than that of e-readers.
Although the e-books and e-readers are becoming immensely popular and are now part of a mass market, some still favor the printed page. An associate director for The Center for the Humanities at Washington University in St. Louis, Jian Leng, wrote an article “The future of ink on paper: try this on a kindle” in the St. Louis Journalism Review. In this article, he writes about how he read about a prep school in New England who digitalized their library and now has TV screen showing data from the internet and 18 e-readers. He also talks about the history of books and how he believes that even if e-books become our next form of reading, physical books will still be around, possibly just more expensive. He expresses his love for physical books by saying, “… the physicality of a book is a much more beautiful information-storage device than an electronic machine, and provides a dimension of pleasure unequalled by the digital alternative”.
The printed book might have “a dimension of pleasure unequalled by the digital alternative” for some people, but they probably have not used an e-reader for more than a short trial, if they even tried it. E-readers are not different from other forms of technology. When cell phones were first introduced, people thought they were immensely uncomfortable and different. If they only played around with one for a little bit, they would never think about ever learning how to use it and become comfortable with it. Plus, the fact that they could not become comfortable with in the first five minutes of use makes them close their mind to it. So, the people who say that the pleasures of reading that are in books cannot be replaced by e-readers probably have not opened their mind to the new technology. Change is always uncomfortable at first and the generations that went from tablets to scrolls, or scrolls to books, and now books to e-readers will hold on to what they are used to at first. People will transition and everyone will be more comfortable with e-readers. Just as no one expects people to own a scroll from the ancient libraries of Alexandria, no one will expect people to own books.
Although some may express the opinion of how physical books are more pleasurable to read, I feel the generation who had to transition from scrolls to books felt the same way about the change. Printed books only seem more pleasurable for many because they are more used to them. Not only did they learn with them and use them as young children, they used them as adults so printed books are part of their comfort zone. These people should be more open minded and try to adjust to the new ways of the digital world. I believe that even if the digital immigrants don’t prefer the e-reader and e-books over printed books, the digital natives and generations of readers afterward will enjoy reading e-books and using e-readers if not much more than printed books.
The Internet
Eyes glued to the iPod screen in your hands, you pry away for a couple minutes to watch the episode that’s running on HBO. Behind you, your mom is typing away on her computer and a couple steps away, your sister is texting her friends with her earphones in, blasting the awful music she has on her own iPod. Upstairs your dad is attending to a conference call on his computer. It’s the average Saturday morning. Nobody even gives it a second thought; that’s the way it works in the digital world we live in today.
Nicholas Carr in “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” expresses his concern for the future of the digitalizing human race. The fast-moving, vast pool of information that is the internet offers knowledge at its users’ fingertips, but with convenience comes consequence. The internet simplifies this knowledge to make it faster for the reader to consume at a glances. The way this type of information is presented – in short pieces – is what causes Carr’s worry. As internet users become more and more used to the idea of quick and easy information, the way they think becomes affected. When reading the traditional ink and paper, their ability to process the excess details on the page and interpret the deeper meaning is hindered. In Carr’s case and most of his other colleagues’ cases, the internet also affects their attention span. Concentration becomes difficult. Memory deteriorates. The Net has taken over the way they think in the real world.
Jamais Cascio holds the exact opposite view. In his article “Get Smarter”, he explains that the internet is simply a convenience we must take advantage of as humans, and it is our key to becoming smarter in the future. If we decide not to use it, we are at a loss. Ask yourself, what’s the point of suffering through the painstaking hours of traditional research when you can just access the information you want at the click of a mouse? Technology is constantly developing, and our knowledge is constantly expanding. What happens when the bandwagon of the future gets rolling and you’re not on it? Well, good luck catching up.
Although I agree with Nicholas Carr up to a point, I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the internet is affecting the minds of its users to the point that their ability to interpret and understand something is weakened. I mean sure, the internet tends to “dumb down” its users a bit, especially the constant users that glue themselves to the screen. But it definitely doesn’t have that mind-changing effect. Take me for example. I would say I use the internet a lot but I definitely don’t see the effects that Carr points out; my attention span is fine, my memory isn’t all that different from the average kid my age, and my ability to understand and comprehend the meaning behind an article or a reading is still pretty sharp. The extremity of his argument describes the internet as a brainwashing, overwhelming consumer of our minds. When really, it’s nothing like that. The internet is helpful and convenient, it’s not the harmful thought killer that Carr says it is. Would you rather go back to the times without the internet? Without computers? Who would want to do that?
I acknowledge that the internet does have its downsides, as Carr describes, but they definitely aren’t as extreme as he makes them out to be. On the complete other side of the spectrum, Cascio points out that the internet is the key to the future of our human race. He argues that in order to survive in the ever-changing world of today we must utilize the latest tools like the internet to, as he puts it, “get smarter”. Falling behind is not an option. If we don’t smarten up, it’s over. Cascio is an avid technology supporter, a believer in the forward progression of humans. The internet is simply a way to keep up and keep going. With him as well, I agree only to a certain extent. Technology and the Net are definitely useful and convenient for almost anything, if used in moderation. Research especially. The distribution of knowledge and information is important these days, and without the speed that the Net provides, it would be hard to get moving anywhere. It should be used especially for its convenience, and it would quite simply be a waste not to use it.
My personal opinion about the Web is that it is a tool that should be taken advantage of. Why not? If you didn’t grasp the opportunity, it would be wasted. Slipping away into obsolescence is not an option in modern-day society. Clay Shirky, in his article “Does the Internet Make You Smarter or Dumber?” poses the idea that perhaps the internet is not fully developed yet. At the moment, there is some pretty dumb stuff out there, and some pretty dumb people. The internet is what provided them the ability to spread that stupidity. Now obviously, this is a flaw. But this is all part of the process. There will be dumb people, and there will be smart people. Filtering out the bad stuff and leaving the good stuff is all part of the development. Without the internet, the dumb ideas wouldn’t be out there, but neither would the smart ideas. This is a perspective that I share completely. The internet is a way to express ourselves and establish our position in the society. It is a medium that allows the sharing of all kinds of opinions, and gives the common people the capability to fully utilize their freedom of speech. The internet, as Shirky states, is somewhat similar to the introduction of the printing press back then. The printing press allowed for the circulation of propoganda, mockeries of the Bible, and other unworthy pieces of literature. But without it, we wouldn’t have been able to spread information and most likely would never have been able to distribute the books, newspapers, etc. that resulted in an intellectual flourishment at the time. I fully support the idea that what we have now – the internet – is similar in that it is crucial to the forward movement of human intelligence, but it is still a work in progress.
Essentially, I feel that we need the internet to progress. Just like science would take forever or wouldn’t even be possible without the latest technology, learning and innovation wouldn’t be able to take place fast enough in our modern age without the internet. Using the internet should be encouraged, but not so much that we abandon the books and sources of the past. The internet should not replace the world we live in, but rather, it should complement it. As a supplement, the internet can keep us from falling behind. But once addicted, take caution or you will find yourself plummeting into the virtual world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)