Technology and Society

Preston Evans

Professor Barnett

ENGL 120w
01/26/14

Technology and Society

In their respective essays, both Thompson and Kaly provide insight into the negative implications of technological advances on modern society. While both essays make valid points about the harmful nature of some vastly used technologies today, such as social media platforms and convenience-based appliances, they fail to see the mostly positive roots of these technologies as well as their practical applications in the ever-mutable society that surrounds us.
In “Don’t Blame Social Media if Your Teen Is Unsocial,” Clive Thompson iterates that the rise of social media sites like Facebook and Snapchat as well as an increase in parental and municipal paranoia have led teens to solely focus on online interaction because they simply “do not have the freedom” to interact face to face, even if they would prefer it. Thompson’s claims resonate deeply with generation x, as almost 99% of all teens participate in some sort of social media outlet. However, I feel Thompson gives these avid Internet users the benefit of the doubt a bit too liberally. The fact of the matter is that social media and other similar Internet platforms, such as forum-based websites like Reddit, have allowed for a certain detachment to social interaction and face-to-face confrontation. It seems today the entire world can be viewed through a screen. According to a recent study done by technology corporation Cisco, not only does cell phone traffic contribute an astonishing 17% of Internet usage, but also the average person will own 1.4 screened, web-connected devices by 2015 (this includes children).

The other day I was waltzing through a busy airport, nose buried in my iPhone, daring not to make eye contact with any stranger in my path lest I need physically interact with him or her (so I perhaps am also victim to my own criticisms), and I see a small child, who could not have been older than seven, playing with an iPad. Since when did society necessitate giving an iPad to a near-toddler? I personally recall being briefed of the dangers and broader implications of the World Wide Web whilst in middle school. Is this unarguably important information not being taught anymore? Has technology really advanced so much within the last few years that children no longer need to learn about the Internet and it’s infinite (and sometimes harmful) possibilities? While I agree that society has become overly politically correct in the last several years, Internet safety and technological advances must be monitored so as to protect us from becoming lifeless robots, consumed by the very technology that was meant to entertain us. Although I myself am guilty of this unfortunate disgrace at times, seeing the world through a phone, tablet, or computer screen is boundlessly less momentous than experiencing nature in it’s rawest, most physical form. After all, senses and emotions are what comprise the human form. Without these earthly and corporeal traits, we will shuffle off our mortal coils. However, man has employed these technologies for reasons of convenience and knowledgeable development.

Similarly, Kaly states in the article “Robot Apocalypse” that humans are losing the ability to be human because of exponentially increasing technological advances. Kaly warns that man has lost touch with reality because technology has consumed, or will soon consume, each thought that is processed by his brain. Kaly continues that the significant augment in technological advances in recent years has “inhibited [man’s] ability to grow.” Kaly attempts to retain a more retrograde view of society and reality that strongly focuses on life before widespread accessibility to such technologies as automated machines that can perform more menial jobs (such as a factory worker placing glass screens on cell phones or screwing together two pieces of a final product). At one point, the critic even warns of the potential dangers of cyborgs taking complete place of human existence. Well, Kaly, while recent developments in robot AI and fluidity have been mind-blowing, to say the least, the thought that we will need to call in Arnold Schwarzenegger to defeat Skynet’s evil machines anytime soon seems highly irrational. Also, these automated machines protect humans from unreasonable and unfair working conditions and schedule hours. Previously, thousands of men and women would spend countless hours a day performing the same simple, mundane task in a factory with terribly poor working conditions. While this problem still very much exists, especially in countries like China and Vietnam, these “evil machines” seem to be a step in the right direction regarding fair labor rights and a much-needed ethical injection into big business practices.

While the wildly speculative responses of both Thomson and Kaly to recent technology seem justified, these critics fail to understand that society, along with man himself, are forever changing and progressing. Even if both authors raise valid points about the detrimental effects of modern technologies on contemporary societal trends, we must have faith that human kind will recognize these flaws and work to better society in a way that benefits both screen-lovers and screen-haters. I believe that technology constructed by humans will continue to be for humans, not against them.