Nieman Journalism Lab

Hi Darlings. I am loving your posts. So smart! Share your ideas here or in class for how we can best integrate what is happening here with our class time.

I also wanted to direct your attention to the Nieman Journalism Lab, a ripe source for external links relevant to your posts. See you tomorrow.

Mo' Gadgets Mo' Problems? Unintended consequences

There is no doubt that a revolutionary piece of technology can change the way the world works. Apple, made the utility known as the Iphone, Gutenberg the printing press, and an unknown caveman crafted the wheel. These tools allow for great progress and efficiency which, shortsightedly, seem amazing. With progress comes an explosion of activity that many believe make the world a better place. Marshall McLuhan in his global village saw television as a tool that will make humanity feel more sense of connection with other cultures. Thus, this knowledge will create sense of communion and a peacemaking affect. The optimism surrounding the way that technological determinism shapes behavior almost creates the illusion of a Utopian civilization that some people hope for. However,  what is the extent that these new technologies promote positive action?. New products are often known not by the immediate function of the product, but by the unintended consequences that accompany them.

According to the assigned article, technological and cultural determinism illustrate technology as a cause and effect model. Technological determinism sees the technology as what changes humans while cultural determinism sees the need for an object as motivation for technological development. That being said the debate of violent video games is an ongoing battle that has swept America.  Many people in the technological determinism school of thought would see violent  behavior as a result of a technological advancement. Since kids have the exposure to these realistic games they are more violent than before. Because this technology is available there are unintended consequences causing some individuals to have a blurred distinction between game and reality and overly aggressive actions. These claims are general and there is certainly only a correlation between the two, but some aggression is innate within a developing child. The angst filled years of middle and high school can be rough on the fragile souls who are trying to figure out who they are, and there is going to be aggression no matter how many video games they play. The New York Times has been following this debate, and provides some insight towards the research behind the claims. Video games were intended to provide players fun escapes from reality, but unintended consequences tend to absorb the headlines rather than the fun that is had playing them. Whether or not these games change their players is still not concrete but the possibility for a causation is enough to be thought provoking.

A cultural perspective of determinism sees technology as an answer to the needs of people in everyday life.  Technology reflects needs and desire and If a society needs a weapon to kill, they will develop a gun and so on. When Americans needed a flame retardant material to put in schools, hospitals, and just about anywhere, Asbestos was the answer to their prayers.  Fire resistant and cheap, asbestos seemed to be the material of the Gods when it first was developed for use. Schools would be safer for children to play and grow, and fear of fire left the minds of many individuals. However, asbestos is a second example of a good technological advancement gone awry. Just as the reading highlighted, how no one predicted cars to produce greenhouse gas, neither did builders expect asbestos to cause mesothelioma. What was once a great idea that answered the needs of society, turned out to be harmful and dangerous. Sadly no one thinks of safety anymore when asbestos is brought up. Unintended consequences of technologies represent a lack of control that humans have over their inventions. Individuals make machines, but do not have the foresight as to how these machines could be harmful. I am sure the inventor of the gun had visions of food for his people, and safety from dangerous neighbors not mass shootings and dangerous riots. We think we own technology but unintended consequences tend to own us.

This entire essay seems very morose and depressing. Is any invention good for us? How do I know my life isn't being ruined by my smartphone? However, while I am still convinced that smartphones are the cigarettes of our generation, society is changed positively in a vast array of ways when technology is introduced. Literacy rates skyrocketed when the printing press was developed, the world is a faster and smaller place due to the internet, and I bet even the caveman who invented the wheel was pretty pumped when he didn't have to carry his crops anymore. As the reading suggests, we need to be able to "recognize the bad surprises early enough to do something about them". Technology's unintended side effects are not devastation, they are part of the trials and tribulations of innovations and needs time to develop. We may not be able to control all aspects of technology, but we can be proactive. so, buy the Iphone 7sp color special edition but if the way it changes you is recognizably hurting you, feel free to revert back to the Motorola Razr.

Who Run The World? - Technology

     It is undeniable that certain technological advancements have been life-altering in wholly positive ways. Innovative ideas in medicine and disaster relief have been responsible for saving countless lives over the past few decades. Increases in productivity and communication have made work and school life less of a hassle. Technology sounds wonderful, right? I mean, sure, but what about the repercussions? What happens when the power is taken out of our hands? The sad reality of the matter is that the good is often balanced out by the bad. The promise of new and exciting scientific breakthroughs is balanced out by the rampaging monster crashing weddings and destroying towns.
     As detailed in the example of Frankenstein’s monster, the chapter explains that technology has a way of getting away from us or “escaping human control”. This raises the question “are we able to control what we create?” Even in the most innocent and harmless of situations it is hard to control the outcome of anything when technology is involved. When iPhones were first released in 2007 no one could have predicted the change that would have occurred across the globe. As perfectly explained in this article the iPhone changed not only the face of cell phones, but also how humans interact and how we live our everyday lives. In many ways, especially in the United States, entire communities are controlled by Apple and Apple products.
     Every year new iPhone and Apple products are updated and improved for the consumers benefit (or…more realistically Apple’s benefit). These new updates are desirable and costly. Almost as quickly as something is released it becomes a social status symbol to own but just as quickly as it begins the trend switches to the next newest thing. Apple is able to make millions of dollars because of the control that they have over the market and the culture of its customers.
     I personally have just entered the world of iPhone users. I recently purchased an iPhone 5C for myself, upgrading from a pre-paid basic smartphone that could barely handle phone calls and texts let alone music or applications. Ever since I bought my iPhone things have sincerely changed for me. I now have access to friends, family, and entertainment at my fingertips. I don’t have to worry about being disconnected with the world. I have constant Internet access and can learn anything and everything that I want to know simply by reaching into my pocket. I make more plans with friends and I talk to my family more often. I have even become significantly more organized in my work and school related engagements by inputting all my appointments and schedules into my phone. I find it interesting and somewhat concerning how different my life in general has been since I switched a simple piece of technology. Why does a bit of wiring coated in plastic dictate so much of how my life works
     I want to know what the rest of you think about this idea of having no control over technology. Does technology control us instead? Is there a healthy balance? Or does it seem like we’re looking forward to some pretty cheesy horror movie-status things in our future?

Culturally or technologically determined?

            After reading chapter three of Culture + Technology by Slack and Wise, a succinct question lingered in my head: is the world we live in defined by technological determinism or cultural determinism? Technological determinism stems from the belief that technology is able to alter society. In other words, technology defines a culture. On the other hand, cultural determinism is when the existence and changing of a culture’s values, feelings, beliefs, and practices alter technology. Within the two terms, the causes and the effects oppose each other. So which one are we?

            From a technological deterministic stand point, I could easily say that, in my society, certain forms of technology define us. I do not think anyone could deny that. For example, we utilize our social media profiles to portray how we want the world to see us as individuals. We let technology take control of the task of creating our own selves through real experience. From my perspective, I see a lot of peers, and I included, attending a certain event, worrying about posting select pictures and quotes said by friends immediately after, and using that for future reference. From that point on, all they have to remember and share with others about such event is what is posted online and a few faint memories. Therefore, people pick and choose what to make of themselves in the form of technology. In turn, this is causing technology to define us as humans.

            In a cultural deterministic point of view, I would say that what my culture does and how they act changes the ways of technology. Humans are constantly changing, which calls for them possessing more wants and needs. Most of the times the wants and needs evolve from a desire of convenience. In our American culture, we want things to be as convenient as possible. Looking at something as broad as the iPhone, we can see that. Apple has transformed this product numerous times. Why? To make it better fit for our lifestyles. The iPhone went from 3G to 4G to LTE speed faster than our provider contracts expired. The American culture just craves tasks to be handled as fast as their brain can think of them. So, it is technological developers’ jobs to match to our personal wants, needs, feelings, beliefs, etc.

            Gillian Flaccus, for the Associated Press, wrote “Our Toddlers, Our Selfies: Child Researchers Alarmed by Smartphone Impact”. This article illustrates how the widespread dependence on technology is affecting those who have not even learned to read yet. Many toddlers have acquired the skill of taking “selfie” pictures on their parents’ phones. This research embodies technological determinism by proving that the advances in technology are changing society by broadening its target audience age. In addition, it alters the basic skills of a toddler. There are also points of cultural determinism. The article explained that to appease the tot-selfie craze, pillows with smartphone pockets were made so diaper changing time would become more enjoyable for the youngster. Overall, the need for selfies within this age group is just the advanced product of a child looking themselves in the mirror for hours. But is it culturally or technologically determined?

            Technology affects use in numerous ways day in and day out, and despite its unnatural characteristics, the cause and effect process of technology can be quite natural. So natural that we sometimes do not notice it until we have technological definitions and examples in front of our eyes. With this said, what do you think? Is the world we live in culturally or technologically determined?

Nora Kornfeld- Are we losing control of our technology and culture?

         This Slack and Wise reading echoed Monday's class discussion about Technological Determinism. Their example comparing technology's relationship with culture and gun control was very interesting. I don't think I would have ever thought about comparing the two topics. A technological deterministic view of gun control says that the gun is responsible for killing, almost as if the gun " does roam around the world, affecting culture in such a way that killing with a gun is inevitable" (45). If this interpretation is correct, guns kill people, not people. However a Cultural Deterministic view says that culture is the cause and technology is the effect. Using the gun example, culture is both the effect and the cause of the gun. A cultural deterministic understanding states that people kill people. I do not think its fair to view something either through technological determinism or through cultural determinism. I think that a combination of both describe the relationship between technology and culture. I believe that technology advancements are some of the most historical changes that define society, but I also believe that different cultural demands lead to advancements in technology. Revolutionary technologies like the printing press, industrial technologies, and computers have all accounted for some of the most important changes in society. These technologies have changed cultures but also have been by those cultures.
          The chapter continues by discussing the control technologies have over culture. As information becomes more accessible, we start to have little or no control over the technologies we (or others) create. I agree with the idea that as we try to control the nature of technology more, we actually lose control of it. The Internet is a great example of a technology that has control over our culture. The Internet and other information technologies have created crises of control. Once information is put on the Internet it is available for anyone to take advantage of.
          The music industry is a perfect example of a technology that has lost control. Industry execs realized that they could sell more songs and albums on the Internet then they could in store, but they didn't realize how easy it would be for users to illegally download their music. Illegally downloading music has become so common in today's society. Lets be honest, probably more than half of the class is guilty of illegally downloading music. Four out of five digital music downloads are illegal. I'm not trying to scold anyone who illegally downloads music, but when you illegally download you are not only hurting the record label, you're also hurting the musicians you love. This illegally downloading trend is an example of a technology that is shaping culture. The Daily Finance article says this "wide prevalence of music theft is changing the musical marketplace for the worse, reducing the incentive for musicians and labels to develop and finance new projects." If we continue to take advantage of this technology and illegally download music, the music industry might not ever be the same.  
           I agree with the idea in Chapter 9 that most people go beyond thinking about change through the narrow and extreme viewpoints of technological determinism and cultural determinism. Most people, the chapter says, think about technologies in more varied and complex ways. It is important to remember that every person is going to have their own interpretation of technology and culture depending on their personal experiences. While they might have a cultural deterministic belief in gun control they may have a different belief regarding someone else. It is important to note that different aspects of technological culture will take on different interpretations.

Cultural Determinism and Artificial Intelligence

Whenever I begin to discuss the need to control technology or the ability of technological devices to move on their own, I begin to think of artificial intelligence. Currently, programs like Siri, and Cleverbot are available to the public for use and right now, and they’re probably some of the closest things that we have to the type of artificial intelligence that we might see in movies or on TV. But what happens when we begin to develop programs that are able to make accurate predictions about our safety or well-being? What happens when our military begins to create weapons that can act and make moral decisions autonomously? And what would happen if we didn’t agree with those decisions but become unable to control the technology that we create? Would we blame the technology or ourselves? Both technological and cultural determinism could provide some answers to these questions and looking at the assumptions we make about technology can be used to explain why we think what we think about the potential effects of technology. 

In Chapters three, four and nine and ten of Culture and Technology, Jennifer Slack and John Wise discuss a myriad of terms that relate to technology and the way we use it. Cultural determinism in contrast with technological determinism seems to me a more feasible explanation of why society advances the way that it does. According to technological determinists, technology drives the development of society. According to cultural determinists, the culture that created the technology is the driving force of the society. If a person created a robot that caused harm to another person, it would make more sense to me to blame the person who created the robot rather than the robot itself. If a person used a weapon to kill another person, we would blame the person not the weapon used because the weapon has no agency.

Although we might try to escape it, we are slaves to technology. In general, we use alarm clocks to wake us up in the morning. We use toothbrushes to brush our teeth. We use the sink to wash our hands and the stove to cook our breakfast. How would we brush our teeth without toothbrushes? Would we chew on leaves or bark to clean our teeth? Would people even feel the need to clean their teeth? Simple actions like this one would be more difficult without technology. Many people don’t know how they’d live without it for example as the authors reference a bumper sticker that said, “I’d never survive in the wild” (111). In this case the “wild” is any place without technology. Technology provides us with a sense of safety and distinguishes “civilization” from the “wild.”

One of the most important points made by the authors in the chapter is the idea of causality. Symptomatic causality according to the authors, “assumes that broad parameters of effects are inherent in the technology, that a range of effects is inevitable, and that various social forces are responsible for steering or choosing from among those effects” (105). To me when I think of this idea presented by the author, I automatically focus in on one type of technological innovation that we currently heavily rely on, medicine. Almost all medicines have side effects and the side effects cause people to have to take more medicine to deal with those side effects. But if for example, a person needs to take a medicine that causes an increase in anger for a short time, for example, although they might need to take the medicine they might choose to take it at a time when they won’t be near people.

Because we are reliant on it, and at the same time able to blame it, technology takes on a different persona. In this video, Jason Silva discusses the future of innovations and makes a very interesting point about technology. About artificial intelligence, he states that, “We will be creating sentience that can upgrade itself… The human era will have ended. We will have become our creations. They will be our children but they will really be us.” That's a pretty creepy thought to think about but is the technology that we have today simply an extension of ourselves?

This view is pretty bold, but is he right? According to cultural determinism, he just might be right if we do end up creating technology that we can’t control. Lastly, can the effects of technology really be called effects of technology or, because technology is created by humans, are the effects inherently caused by us? 

What has technology done to us?

          After reading this section of Slack and Wise Culture + Technology, I realized how much of an impact that technology has in our culture.  It’s difficult to understand the plethora of technology that has been invented and how much it plays a role in our daily lives.  I agree with the point on page 43 that “writing technology is the cause of major culture change. Writing technology implants forgetfulness, it makes people mentally lazy. . . ”  It is something I can relate to because I don’t know any of my friend's numbers that I met in college or recently.  It’s just programmed in my phone.  However, I know my friend’s house numbers from when we were younger because it was something that had to be memorized if one wanted to easily call their friend.  However, today nobody will have to memorize a number if he or she can just easily look it up in their contact list.  Today, technology is all about convenience which we mentioned in class today.  It now caters to people’s needs to facilitate lives.  However, I want to know what would happen if cell phones just stopped working and we had to depend on our memory and ourselves to do tasks that cell phones do for us?

            I agree with the point that once you have technology, you have to use it because in today’s society people assume that everyone has internet access and cell phones.  At Ursinus, professors assume you have email and regularly check it.  For instance, I heard a professor get mad at another student for not answering her email.  Then I began to think about how different this was 20 years ago.  It wasn’t assumed that everyone had internet access.  Now a professor expects to always be able to contact students.  While there are benefits to this, it is difficult to disconnect from today’s society.  For example, my dad is never not on his phone because of work.  He feels the need to answer every call and not let his phone ring all the way through because he could be losing business.  However, do any of you agree that technology impedes on our daily lives and relationships? I found this article  about relationships and technology that summarizes main points about its effect on us.    

This article explains why we hide behind our phones and how it has had a negative effect on us and others which I agree with.  When I am sitting on my phone often efreshing Twitter and Instagram while my friends and I are together, I feel isolated and in a different world than them.  None of us are talking, each of us is just refreshing their phone.  When I talk about it, I realize how ridiculous it sounds.

This relates to the other point in the text that nobody forces us to buy any technology or download any apps.  We choose to do that.  All of these people willingly download it and it starts to dictate our lives because we let it happen.   Technology is the catalyst or instigator.  It causes people to become lazy or antisocial.  However, technology, like email, is one thing that people assume everyone has especially at Ursinus because that’s the school’s form of universal communication.  However, we control how we use technology.  The Columbine students learned about guns and decided to use them to kill students just like people use technology for whatever reason.  We cannot disown the things we create as the text states. 

            Have you guys realized the huge impact technology has had on us?  It has changed the way we interact, how we see ourselves, and what we do with our time.  For instance, we mentioned in class how people search for that external validation to get likes on their photos, but does that really matter to a person?  I don’t appreciate that today in society people need reassurance and they seek that through posting a picture and seeing how many likes they receive.  What should matter is that you like that picture and you want to post it because you like it not because you want feedback from others. 

  Cell phones and all these new inventions have caused a myriad of problems too.  For instance, cell phones cause the lethal texting and driving and distraction during work.  We have become so caught up in cell phones and getting the next one that comes out that we don’t realize how much it controls us.  We have become so dependent on technology that it is difficult for us to survive without it.  This is mentioned on page 61 how some people can’t imagine being without it.  However, how about during urgent times like a hurricane when all the power goes out?  For example, when Hurricane Sandy hit New Jersey my family was without power for a few days and it was very difficult to deal without power but we got through it.  However, it’s not the end of the world if that happens because people go through that a lot in certain areas of the world and have it worse. 

Things like that make me want to start having mini cleanses with technology.  Each week I’m trying not to use a certain social media app to see how I feel and how much time it saves.  I really want to find out why I use these apps and if they even benefit my daily life? Because I enjoyed the media fast I want to experiment with other technology and set rules for myself so then maybe I can appreciate technology and focus on other important things like schoolwork and sleep.  I think we could all use mini cleanses to remind ourselves of what is important and to see how much technology affects us.  Do you think you could do it? A greater appreciation and wiser use of technology may come out of it.  

-Bri Keane

Who's to blame: the gun or the gunman?

We have already discussed in class the theory of Technological Determinism. However, it was interesting to see the opposite stance in the "Determinism" section of the reading--Cultural Determinism. Each approach assumes a causal relationship between technology and culture. Technological Determinism is the idea that technology is the cause and it has cultural effects. Oppositely, Cultural Determinism says that cultural wants and needs cause technology.

The great example used in this section to illustrate how these theories work is the debate of gun control--should we impose restrictions on who can obtain a gun because the gun causes human death? Or is this unnecessary because the gun cannot work without a human to pull the trigger? Initially, before reading this piece, I would have taken a Technological Determinism stance and argued that guns kill people and should be restricted because of this. However, totally against my primary intuition, I would have to side with Cultural Determinism once learning the distinction between the two theories--and instead, I argue people kill people. The author writes how "an effect of thinking as a cultural determinist is the displacement of responsibility totally away from the technology." The technology of the gun was created for a cultural purpose--the desire to kill effectively and efficiently. Somebody thought up the idea of a gun and created it for human usage. The gun "does not care about intention," the intention is at the hand of the shooter. Inversely, the view from a Technological Determinism standpoint would be that "the gun introduced revolutionary new ways to kill...this changed the way that differences are settled..." And thus, since the gun birthed a "new" way of thinking, gun's are to blame rather than the person who's thoughts are now at the merciless hand of gun culture. This must be true because there weren't wars before guns, there weren't spears, swords, knives, bow-and-arrow, hand-to-hand combat--nope, before the gun, human's never had the (barbaric) idea that murder was an option to deal with an opposing force... Right. Genghis Khan begs to differ.

Technological Determinism argues that "people have no power to change or control things; only technology changes and controls things."  But that's not true. Here's a great example: we have discussed in class how access to the internet provides a lot of us with distractions against the tasks we need to complete everyday. This was surely not the intended usage of the internet. The internet was born to link the world together and provide a forum where people could communicate, learn, and even teach one another. The element of mindless internet usage is a side effect of the intended use of the internet. But why should we believe that this isn't something we can overcome as a technological determinist might argue? Dr. Woodstock's program "Anti-Social" is a prime example of Cultural Determinism, culture changing technology, at it's finest. The creator of the program had an intention in mind when he created it--to provide a way to use the internet in a more efficient and focused way, with zero distractions. (S)he had an optimistic stance that technology can be changed, and it does not have to dictate the way our culture progresses. Technology is irreversible, and stoppable, and all the other opposites of the dramatic fatalist description that the author provides for the impending doom of human culture at the hand of technology.

The author argues against Cultural Determinism by saying that the "problem with cultural determinism is that it discourages any response except optimism regarding technological change." And I say, what is wrong with that? Does Technological Determinism not assume a pessimistic outlook? I refuse to subscribe to a school of thought which displaces the notion of choice for fate, which trumps human willpower with technological momentum. Sure, Cultural Determinism depends on optimism--and that is not it's downfall but rather it's superior quality. The internet does not cause distractions, a person seeks out their own distractions! We choose to be distracted by the internet, much like a person with a gun chooses to pull the trigger. Cultural Determinism.

Chris Curran- Limitless?

The first two chapters of Slack & Wise Culture + Technology offers a couple interesting concepts about the progressive technological world but one concept really stuck with me. This concept is that limits are relatively non-existent. Limits are merely targets that get relocated once they are surpassed. The question I pose is are we truly limitless or is there ever going to be a point where we cannot progress a technological phenomena? Also, why is it that we seem to be more likely to innovate rather than go a new direction?

The reason I bring this question up is because I think of the concept of records, as brought up in the text. Records are meant to be broken and every time it seems to be shattered, the bar is set a little higher but inevitably falls. When conceptualizing the technological world and the constant advancements, I wonder why we seem to take one technology and further advance it until another concept comes along. Is the cycle of a technological product such as the smart phone going to last forever? Are we going to always use the "newest" cell phones? History has shown that we have been working in cycles with communication mediums but each has had their limit. We used morse code until it reached its limit. The limit was the newest technology. We strictly used land lines until the cell phones surfaced as the newest technology. The book refers to limits as constantly being broken and I can agree with that, but I cannot believe that there is no end to our "progress".

My rationale for this is based on the fact that we have taken the concept of communication and made it as "convenient" as possible. In more simple terms we have made communicating with each other effortless regardless of distance between. I find it hard to believe that we can make communication any more "advanced", considering we can real-time talk and watch each other from anywhere in the world. I believe smart phones can only be so smart. I believe Televisions can only be so clear. I believe that eventually the demand for a more advanced product will hit a wall. In this case it will have a limit.

Now I understand that I do not have any evidence but I believe the concept of advancement or progress in the technological world can have a limit and it is worth thinking about. I totally agree that limits are meant to be broken but I believe eventually the advancements will have less and less to offer. If you compare a smart phone to morse code then of course there is a huge benefit. But if you look at our smart phones, I believe the difference between that and the "newest technology" will not be a huge trade off. I think we will continue to innovate our technologies and progress will continue to be misconstrued for innovation.

Paige Barbour- The Ever-changing Idea of Progress

After reading chapters one and two of Slack and Wise’s “Culture and Technology: The Received View,” the main idea that I was stuck on was about how the definition and ideas behind progress have changed over time. Now, as demonstrated in this reading, there are new terms to further break down the ideas behind progression such as “Technological Progress” (p. 23). This is the idea that links new technologies with progress; however, my main question is that do people actually see “progress” as it is happening, or is it defined as progress when we look back on it?

                When thinking of new technological progress, I automatically thing of smart phones and social media. There is much to be debated if these are actual progress or if they are hindering humanity in different ways. Some say that communication is improved between people because distances do not appear as far online as they are in “real life.” Yet, others believe that communication between people is being made worse because face to face communication is being lost as technology keeps improving. There have been many types of technology along the way that can be seen as improvements and progressions from the past. Telegraphs, phones, television, and internet are all examples of technology that have been marked as progress from the past. Yet, these things were all met with resistance when they were first introduced. For example, the television was seen as harmful because it was damaging for reading capabilities, and today there are still some reservations about exposing people to too much TV, but the product as a whole is seen as progress because of the industry it has created.

                A specific section on page twenty-three in the reading was talking about politics and I could not help but think about the role of technology in politics. In the 1960 election for President, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson held the first televised Presidential Debates. This was a major progression, but it was not immediate. Research shows that the debates did not have an enormous impact on the election, but they did impact the idea of creating a public image and using media exposure. This can be seen as a progression because Presidential Campaigns have more substance and parts to them now; however, it can also be seen as a distraction from the issues that are being passed over to keep up a "fake façade" of a TV image of the person research is saying people would most likely vote for.

                Another example that is within politics is the past election. Barack Obama was discussed numerous times for “tweeting” information and promoting himself on Twitter. This is a new tactic used by a politician and many thought it was ingenious to take part in such a relevant mean of communication; whereas others think that it is unprofessional to have a twitter account and be running for President of the United States. Also, a recent “scandal” that took place was the selfie taken at Nelson Mandela’s funeral with Barack Obama, Danish Prime Minister Helle-Thorning-Schmidt, and British Prime Minister David Cameron. Forbes posted an article discussing a different side of this story, that being the social ramifications of this selfie between prominent figures at a funeral. The article explains how yes, this act is wrong, but they go on to write that this event is a perfect example of how society does not know what is going to happen in 2014. A year ago, I don’t believe anyone would have imagined a news story would be Obama taking a selfie at a funeral, but on a different topic, before the iPhone, no one imagined what it would be like to have a phone with music, a camera, email, internet, and phone capabilities. I do not believe the selfie in this case is in fact a progression, but it can be seen through this example that something may seem strange at first and find glory in time. 

              Now the question that is left is to look at these things and try to explain what is progress and what is not. I think what Slack and Wise were trying to say is that there is no true definition of progress because it is always changing as time, inventions, technology, culture, and people change.

                Overall, I think it is extremely hard to try and define progress because of the numerous opinions in the world. Progress is not definitive and may not even be visible until time has passed. For example, movies have progressed in such a short time from silent films, to tapes, to DVDs, to Blu-ray DVDs. We can see the progress today because all of the steps are visible, but when each was released the possibilities were not known. HD DVDS were produced for a few years and were competing with Blu-ray DVDs; but, they never caught on. This product of technology can be seen as a failure because it was unsuccessful or it can be seen as a progress because new types of technologies were being tried. Thus, it is extremely hard to define the ever-changing aspect of life know as progress.

Harmful of Helpful?

After reading Culture and Technology by Jennifer Slack and John Wise, the reader is forced to examine the entwined nature of culture and technology, as each one shapes the other through growth and expansion. One particular concept that I found very interesting was the idea of progress. The authors write that just because new technologies are invented does not mean that progress has been made. This made me think. I have been conditioned to believe that with more technology in the world, the better off we are. I equated new technologies with progress, and not only progress, but the betterment of society. Before this reading I never thought about how technology does not always mean progress. The authors use the example of email. Slack and Wise discuss how just because our society has email does not make us better.

This led me to question the link between the idea of progress and our culture's belief that America is the superior nation. I asked myself, "Is it because of the technology, and the idea that technology equals progress, that Americans are egocentric?" While this may be farfetched, I think that technology has a lot to do with many American's mindset. Before this reading I did not question the link between technology and progress. From early on, I have been taught the more technology, the better off our society is. I think that with all of the technology, which people equate to progress, is a reason why Americans are egocentric. They believe, just like I once did, that the technological advances are making for a better nation and people. The more America has, the stronger the nation is. While there are other factors that contribute to the nation's belief of superiority, I think that technology is a big factor.

This question continued to make me think. While it may promote egocentrism, technology also allows for many positives outcomes. So, another question was raised; is technology doing more good than bad? This is a very broad and hard question to answer, but I personally think that technology helps, not only America, but the world, in so many ways. As I continued to read on, Robert Nisbet talked about his views on the progress story. Nisbet believes that “change is good and that change promotes a better life” (Slack et.al). I agree with Nisbet’s statement, change is good. Innovations bring about changes and while those changes might not always be beneficial, they allow for people to adapt. People grow from change, it allows for them to progress. When it comes to technological advancements, I feel that these changes create a faster, closer, and opportunistic world. After I read about David Noble’s mother losing her job I became curious about how technology shapes the job market. I was very surprised in what I learned.

Paul Krugman, an American economist, believes that the advancements with technology will actually lower wages and reduce job opportunities. He explains that over time, more jobs will become available, but not right away. In his article, “Does Technology Create Jobs?” Krugman explains how technological advancements increase productivity, but hurt workers. According to his article, people will lose their jobs to technology, and for those who keep their jobs, will begin to make less money. Krugman writes, “prospect of unemployment will drive down wages, and at sufficiently lower wages, employers will find it profitable to offer more jobs after all.” So eventually, there will be more job opportunities, but even then, people will be making less money. I was very surprised to learn this. I think this goes back to how people link technology and progress. While technology does a lot for our society, it is interesting, as well as scary, to learn how harmful it can be, too.

Positive or Negative Progression?

   The reading discussed how technology has changed us and brought about problems based on the progress we have made. This section definitely stood out to me the most. Watching the Frontline documentary showed positive and negative outcomes of technological progress and made them more understandable. What all of this shows is that we must begin to focus more on both the positive and negative outcomes to see if certain progress is really worth what it will do it our culture.
    The authors of the text define progress, "...In it’s cultural use, [as] not just movement forward, but movement toward something: a goal or endpoint" (Slack and Wise 10). With each technological innovation, we try to achieve an endless amount of goals, but one of the main ones is to achieve what Slack and Wise call "the good life." Have we really achieved this good life with all of the technologies that surrounds us today? Sure, they may look nice and make us feel better about ourselves, but the negative side effects of them should outweigh the positives. In the documentary, we viewed Korean students who were severely addicted to online gaming. It has affected their social skills, their vision, and their hearing. Some students have even died from spending 50 hours or more on the computer. They are referred to as addicts.
    Clearly, this is not the good life. In 2012, PLoS One Magazine studied several men and women who were diagnosed with Internet Addiction Disorder. They found that these addicts have the same problems as addicts of cocaine and other drugs. If we try to prevent addictions by making certain drugs illegal or by regulating them, should we not do the same for technology? I would suggest regulating the use of an online gaming system to prevent more deaths or addictions from occurring. That could be a way to progress positively and help end some of the negatives.
    In the same section as progression, Slack and Wise discuss evolution. One interesting point they bring up is how various species have evolved differently. They state, "Consequently, evolutionary theory resists the notion that humans are necessarily better or more advanced than other species. We have merely evolved differently" (Slack and Wise 17). Certain areas in our culture have let technology advance so rapidly that they have failed to keep up, specifically in education. By this, I mean that we have not evolved to handle these technologies since we have examples of students in Korea dying from misusing technology. One way to correctly evolve is to properly educate students on how to use technology. An example of this was the I.S. 339 school that was featured in the documentary. The school was on the verge of collapsing until a new principal came in and let the students use technology. With the correct education and use of beneficial websites and programs, the school has turned around. Violence is down, daily attendance is up 90 percent, math scores went up 40 percent, and reading scores improved by 30 percent. This shows that if we evolve correctly, technology can benefit us.
    In terms of development, technology separates us. "The progress story thus discriminates among different cultures, promotes a particular version of technological development for those 'less civilized,' and generates problematic dependencies among nations" (Slack and Wise 22). America would be considered more civilized than a country like Iraq due to our creation of drones. In the documentary, American pilots who fly the drones use them to shoot potential threats in Middle Eastern countries. An issue arises when innocent civilians are injured or killed. The problem with this is the pilots have no idea if they kill innocent people. A Huffington Post study found that about three percent of those killed by drones were civilians. While this number is low, it still gets across a message that these lives are meaningless because we are still using drones. It relates to the 'Progress for Whom?' point that the authors conclude the first chapter with. Clearly, this progress benefits the United States. There is no progress for those in the Middle East, and because civilians are being killed by technology that they do not have, it seems as though they are being punished for not developing as quickly as the United States.

Rachel Brown, How is technology affecting our health?

       One of the central assertions around which Slack and Wise structure “Culture and Technology: The Received View” is that the modern, westernized perception of progress is indiscernibly entangled with changes in technological capabilities. The connotations commonly associated with “progress” are largely positive, a product of the assumption that moving forward toward technological advancement is ultimately ameliorating the human condition. Slack and Wise challenge this view in this section of their book, and I agree with many of the points that they are raising. Technology and the conveniences that it offers can feel like they are saving us time and effort, particularly in terms of the exertion required to communicate with others. But are those technologies implemented in ways that holistically improve human life? Do we as a culture take the time to evaluate the health risks associated with blindly adopting new technology? I would like to further explore the ways in which the technological “advances” that the authors largely condemn have improved and detracted from the quality of human life.

            Slack and Wise make the point that one of the goals of technology is to cope with “the ultimate inconvenience” of death, a limitation of the human body that, as of now, cannot be surmounted. Technological advances have significantly changed the duration and quality of life that is possible. It is difficult to discredit the merits of technology that has enabled people with medical problems to function more normally, such as expanded treatment options and less invasive surgical techniques. However, many of these advances would not have been possible without the preceding development of technologies that initially appeared to be less applicable in the basic sense of fulfilling human needs, a criterion Slack and Wise posit that our culture has departed from in its evaluation of “useful” technology. For example, the discovery and harnessing of radio waves was initially implemented as a medium of communication, and later, for entertainment. Following many years of research, scientists were able to implement radio waves in the medical field in the form of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MRI is an effective diagnostic tool that has saved innumerable lives by providing early diagnosis of brain tumors, strokes, and many other medical conditions that can have a serious impact on a person’s ability to meet their basic needs. While the technological discovery of radio waves in itself may not have directly assisted in human survival, later technologies founded on that advancement have benefited people in meeting their basic needs.

However, some technology is an active detriment to our health, a risk that we often accept without question for the sake of convenience. When technological “progress” produces a new product that is revered for improving an aspect of life, such as the ability to access information more quickly, our culture tends to neglect the impact that it could have on our actual human needs. As exemplified in the documentary “Digital Nation,” the detriments of technology use can range from social ineptitude to eye problems. Similar problems can also be linked to smartphones, a technology that is widely regarded as a major achievement in convenience; this acceptance is reflected in the fact that 56% of American adults own a smartphone according to the Pew Research Center. But as our culture moves toward technologies that are increasingly convenient, are we sacrificing the foundation of our survival, our health?  No one can be certain of  the extent to which cell phones negatively impact our health. Studies have suggested that excessive light exposure from cell phone use can result in sleep disruption and even an increased risk of cancer. Even if we are measuring success in terms of cultural necessities and not survival, both of those effects will negatively impact a person’s ability to perform at work. Smartphones and other technologies may assist us in exceeding the limitations of time and space, but if we don’t have our health, what use is convenience?

When examining the role of technological progress in our culture, it is impossible to claim that technology has had an exclusively positive or negative affect on the human condition. This is particularly evident through the perspective of human health as an indicator of the fulfillment of basic human needs, which as Slack and Wise suggest in the example of the ancient Greek’s perception of convenience, is simply “meeting the demands of the body.” While modern western culture has altered this definition to value “overcoming the limits of the body,” I believe that it is important to assess whether technology is ultimately helping us become more efficient or undermining the progress we have made by deteriorating our health. When following the progression of technology, it becomes apparent that some advances have had direct benefits in helping humans meet their basic needs and others have a more ambiguous role. When evaluating progress, our culture values newness highly enough that we will risk our health for it, and this is a sacrifice that should be taken more seriously.