The Art of the Essay

With the passage of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, citizens have had the right to bear arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense. Then why have countless children and faculty members been shot and killed by those in possession of guns? Why have so many innocent people been gunned down for no apparent reason? While citizens should have the right and means to defend themselves, interpretation of the Second Amendment has become dangerously loose, resulting in dire consequences, and this is an indication that something must be done to tighten gun control and clarify what exactly the Second Amendment means.

Currently, Americans own millions of guns. In fact, 41% of American households have firearms, and this high percentage makes it no surprise that the death rate due to guns is among the highest in the world. In 2010 alone, there were 31,513 deaths from guns, 19,308 of which guns were used in suicide, 11,015 used in homicide, and 600 in gun accidents (Gun Control Issues), making guns one of the leading causes of death in America. Stronger gun control would decrease the number of gun-related deaths by keeping guns out of the hands of unqualified persons in the first place. It would also discourage suicide attempts, most of which involve guns, and eliminate the cause of gun accidents in the home.

Guns have a significant psychological impact on the user and on those around the user. One study compared the perspectives of those who were holding toy guns to those who were not. Undergraduates at Notre Dame and Purdue were divided into two groups, with one group given toy guns to hold. When all the individuals from both groups glimpsed scenes of people holding various objects and had to decide whether or not the figure in the scene was holding a gun, the study found that those holding toy guns were more likely to believe that the figure was holding a gun too, even if the figure actually wasn’t holding one (Ritter). The results of this study suggest that even just holding a gun can change one’s perspective of those around him/her, and this change in perspective may not be positive; other studies have well established that a majority of people feel less safe in the presence of guns (Foster). This uneasiness near guns is justified in that those with guns on hand are more likely to settle an issue violently, as opposed to talking a problem out. With a gun at ready, the use of a gun as a resolution becomes a possibility, and this increases the probability that it will be used impulsively when a nonviolent solution could be used instead.

But then there’s the popular saying: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” The truth is, guns make it so much easier to kill. When a criminal shoots someone with a gun, he/she can conceal DNA evidence more effectively, and kill multiple people quickly. And perhaps most frighteningly, he/she can kill from a distance, both physically and emotionally; the shooter can’t feel the bullet go into the body of the victim, while a criminal who stabs can feel the blade enter the body. Thus, it sounds reasonable that the shooting criminal would find it easier to kill than the stabbing criminal.

And there’s also the argument that gun control is ineffective because criminals steal guns or obtain them from the black market anyways. However, this argument appears to be made with unfound assumptions; out all of the mass shootings in the US from 1982 to 2012, more than three-fourths were committed using guns that were obtained legally, not stolen or from the black market. And from the rest of them that were obtained illegally by the criminal, in nearly 9 out of 10 cases the guns were originally legally owned by people with clean records, who later sold them to criminals through the black market. In the end, a majority of the guns involved in tragic incidents had been originally owned legally, indicating that the current gun control laws are too weak in even regulating people with clean records.

So how can this problem be solved? In my ideal modern world, people wouldn’t even know what a gun is. But in this world that we live in, there may not be any completely foolproof solution—it would be ridiculous and impossible to ban the countless number of guns, and attempting to do so would be a violation of the Second Amendment. As long as there are those who believe that guns are a necessity, the best choice of action is to effectively strengthen and regulate gun control laws so that tragic gun incidents are minimized. The Second Amendment says that citizens have the right to bear arms for self-defense and lawful purposes, but we can’t rely on just this statement; we must pass detailed laws to enforce this amendment, whether it be to rigorously monitor prospective gun owners, increase taxes on weapons, or make consequences for breaking gun control laws more severe. Guns were first created with the intent to destroy, kill, maim; gun control is not an infringement upon the Second Amendment, but a potent method to reduce violence in society.

“Oh crap, the police.” Why is it that every time you see that distinctive black and white paint job or those flashing blue lights a bolt of fear radiates through your body? Even if you’re just walking your yellow lab on a Sunday afternoon, you still feel that tingly panic. The police are supposed to be our friends, protectors of our rights and defenders of the law. No, that’s not a cheesy character description for Captain America. It is simply what we expect from law enforcement. We used to believe in that description. Police officers were applauded and thanked as they walked by, their hands constantly being held or high-fived or shaken. But somehow the reverence that we used to have for the men in blue has waned. Now, instead of applause, they get fearful looks. Instead of shaking their hand, we shy away, lest our actions seem suspicious.  It is plain and simple: police officers do not get the respect they deserve. The solution seems simple as well: change our attitude. However, the media throws a cog in the machine of change.

You never really see a positive story about the police in the news. Some recent headlines have been “Police Shoot Mentally Ill Homeless Man 46 Times[1]” and “Why Are Cops Picking on the Weak?[2]” Is this really all policemen do—scour the streets looking for their next innocent victim to terrorize? That’s what the media seems to believe, seeing as they spend a disproportionate amount of time talking about how Officer John Doe ruined an innocent old lady’s life or shot a man just because of the color of his skin. Stories like these help push the negative view of cops through the air until it pervades every city across America. And I’m sure some aspects of law enforcement are tainted, like the cash-for-freedom deals in Tenaha Texas. But most police officers are appalled at stories like this, just like the rest of us. They are not all vindictive soul-suckers who use their power for evil. They are regular people, like you and me, who are used by the media to create sensational stories.

Growing up, I had the sweetest nanny ever. She would never complain about anything, even when she broke her kneecap trying to help my sister cross a stream on a fallen log. However, about once a week, she would arrive at our house without her usual flurry of Spanish greetings. These were the days when she missed her husband; when his long hours on the night shift started to eat away at their family. He was Officer Norman, employee of the District of Columbia Police Force. He would put on his uniform every evening, strap on his gun, and head out to do his job: protecting the public. He sacrificed time with is wife and his two children, not to mention a good night’s sleep, for this sole purpose. He, like countless other police officers, was a normal person. He lived a normal life. Yet, when you Google “DC Police Department” headlines still read “DC police officer arrested for theft charges” and “DC Police Officer arrested for ‘Pimping’ Girls”.

Where are the stories about the officers who help a stranded teenager change a tire? Or the deputies who stopped traffic to help a woman cross the street? I am confident that the police do that. I was that teenager. But our story never made it into the Washington Post. I guess you can’t really blame the media for passing over these relatively mundane stories so they can get the “SHOCKER” headline. The economy sucks and people are doing whatever they can to survive. However, that includes law enforcement. If their name gets dragged through the dirt, how are they supposed to drum up donations and do their job effectively?

So next time you’re driving down a highway and see a police car in your rearview mirror suppress that bubble of panic rising in your chest. Remember that the police are not out to get you. They are not searching for any reason to pull you over. They are merely trying to do their jobs, despite what you read that morning in the paper. And be thankful. Thankful that they persist, despite negative attention, to make the world a safer place. So, maybe they are a little bit like Captain America after all.

Whether you turn on the evening news, check your favorite online informational outlet, or read your local paper each morning, the chances that you will see an article about citizen protests or a police brutality case seem to be increasingly higher with each passing year. What do these violent cases say about the harsh realities of the world that surrounds us? Perhaps more importantly, what does this say about mankind? It seems as though many of the bodies put in place to protect us have been slowly crumbling beneath society’s feet for the past several years, and I’ve had just about enough of it. From the police forces to the higher authorities of law, greed and corruption seem to have surpassed the important values that these sectors should be enveloping and encompassing.

Let’s begin with the police force. The police force is a body of people hired by the state to enforce municipal law, protect citizens’ property, and hinder civil disorder. The Los Angeles Police Department’s motto is a perfect exemplification of these officers’ duties: “To protect and to serve.” In a perfect world, that would be the only thing police would need to know before they could be cast out into the streets to, well, protect and serve. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world, and a simple Google or YouTube search will yield thousands upon thousands of results about police brutality and abuse of power. Have these brave, local “heroes” forgotten their very purpose? In New York, much controversy has arisen over the “stop-and-frisk” program, which allows officers of the law to stop and question any pedestrian and search them for illicit contraband or weapons without probable cause or any reason whatsoever. In 2011 alone, more than 685,000 people were stopped and searched. Not only is this program unconstitutional, but it also promotes racial profiling and other amoral practices. As a citizen of the United States, one is free to travel without being stopped or questioned if there is no probable cause. As such, the stop-and-frisk practice is a precise violation of the U.S. constitution. Moreover, of the 685,724 New Yorkers stopped in 2011, 88% were completely innocent and 87% were comprised of minorities. Obviously something must be done to change these corrupt and immoral practices.

Similar to stop-and-frisk theory is civil forfeiture. In her shockingly expository article “Taken,” Sarah Stillman discloses the abuses and misuses of these laws in taking away citizen’s property. The basic application of civil forfeiture laws allows authorities to confiscate cash or property that has been “obtained through illicit means.” This newly acquired cash or property is reintroduced as income to the state department to aid in purchases of materials that directly relate to the fight against crime. While civil forfeiture seems logical in theory, its power is greatly abused in practice. For example, officer Barry Washington of the Tenaha police force often conducted illegal traffic stops based on profiling and his sense of smell (last year, the Supreme Court deemed those who used smell as a method of obtaining probable cause to be overstepping their rights as police officers as well as violating the rights of American citizens). Washington would then proceed to seize cash or other property (in one case, an iPod) from the driver because civil forfeiture laws enabled him to do so. Furthermore, when brought to court for one of these unjustified stops and asked if he had any evidence whatsoever that the seized property belonged to an organization of narcotics trafficking, Washington simply answered “I don’t have any evidence today.” These laws need to be fixed; it is clearly amoral for an officer of the law to seize cash or property from a law-abiding citizen perfectly within his or her rights. What was that thing about the police protecting civilian property again? Oh, that’s right, they’re supposed to protect the property, not steal it. Stillman goes on to comment that this is by no means an isolated incident. Cases of civil forfeiture have been on the rise as officers fueled by greed allow themselves to fall victim to the corrupt practice like a character out of Robert Penn Warren’s All The Kings Men.

Finally, arrest and ticket quotas pressure officers to give more meaningless tickets and make unjustified arrests so that they do not lose their jobs. These officers should be less concerned with traffic tickets and more concerned with protecting the people from real criminals. When I was about fourteen or fifteen years old, an officer stopped me while I was walking down Belle Meade Boulevard. Yep. For walking. Down my own street. In the middle of the day. She said I was lucky I did not get a ticket for “walking in the wrong lane.” Come on, Officer Howell, I know there has to be something better for you to do out there. Can you even issue a ticket for that? I digress. Meanwhile, a significant amount of robberies were taking place in the small township and the perpetrator was never found. Perhaps if more resources had been devoted to catching this serious threat to Belle Meade rather than stopping me, among others, for no apparent reason, something could have been done.

It isn’t that all police are bad. In fact, police forces sometimes do eliminate major threats to their respective municipalities. Unfortunately, more often than not, quota laws and procedures such as stop-and-frisk and civil forfeiture enable officers of the law to abuse their power for personal advancement at the cost of others’ freedom and their own moral fiber. Something needs to be done to reform these corrupt police practices. Perhaps if these jobs were rooted more in civil service than in turning profits for their respective departments, real change would start to take place. Please, officers, just do the right thing. Protect and serve.

Prohibition.  The 18^th amendment of the constitution banned the sale of alcohol in the United States.  During the years of prohibition the underground market for alcohol sales skyrocketed as many people ignored a law that they felt infringed upon their freedoms.  With the passing of the 21^st amendment, prohibition was repealed.  However, with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 the country has effectively entered a new era of prohibition.  This act successfully forced all states to change their drinking age to 21 by threatening to take away 10% of highway funding if they did not.  Because of this, people that fall into the 18 to 21 age group are alienated from the rest of the adult population.  These people are able to vote for the leaders of this country, may voluntarily (or be forced to) serve in the military and even pay taxes to the government.  Essentially these people are full acting adults in society, however they are denied their freedom and right to consume alcohol. While many blame those under 21 for drinking alcohol, the blame is to be placed upon a society that constantly tempts these individuals.

It is in human nature to desire what is forbidden.  In the biblical story of Adam and Eve, the two lived in paradise.  All was perfect for them, however, there was only one thing that was forbidden: the fruit of knowledge.  In this story, it didn’t take very long for the two to indulge in the fruit due to temptation and an inherent human nature to want what you can’t have.  Underage drinking is a very similar concept.  Adults younger than 21 see alcohol as their forbidden fruit.  Growing up, there are many things parents forbid, however none of these forbidden pleasures is as pervasive as alcohol.  Alcoholic commercials are constantly portraying the exciting life that goes with drinking alcohol, and even parents drink alcoholic drinks in front of children.  When something like this is surrounding children from a young age—yet is forbidden once you are an adult for no clear reason since everyone older does it— society has made alcohol even more attractive to underage citizens.  Because alcohol is forbidden, yet greatly desired, those under 21 go to extreme measures to obtain alcohol.

If an underage adult wants to drink, they will find a way to obtain alcohol.  There are many illegal and frowned upon ways for under 21 year olds to get alcohol such as going through a parents alcohol closet, purchasing a fake Id, asking someone older to buy it for them, or even stealing alcohol.  Practices like these are dangerous and often illegal for everyone involved.  There exists a great underground market for fake ID’s due to making the drinking age so high as adults in college wish to purchase alcohol and go to bars.  If a fake ID isn’t the answer, people will often just ask older friends who are 21 to buy alcohol for them.  Thus, by making the drinking age 21 the government has not stopped very many people from drinking.  Rather, they have created a very large market for illegal activities that should not have to exist.

Making the drinking age so high causes many adults lives to be ruined at a very early age.  As a high school kid, one of— if not the— biggest motivator in high school is to get into a good college.  Many students take insane amounts of AP’s and extra curricular activities just to make their resume look more attractive for colleges. In many instances, getting caught drinking under 18 can lead to minor punishments and getting the crimes wiped from your record once you turn 18.  However, if you are already 18 and get caught, the punishments can be much more severe and even cause you to not get into a dream school due to criminal charges.  It is very illogical for someone’s dreams to be ruined simply because they decided to drink alcohol once they are an adult.  Therefore, our society has created an ineffective and destructive system where adults can be punished because of their age, and have their lives greatly altered for a seemingly meaningless decision.

For those that believe that prohibition — whether for the whole population or just the 18-21 year old— is a good idea, consider this statistic.  During prohibition, consumption of alcohol initially decreased, however within very little time, alcohol consumption increased to roughly 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels.  This proves that people are more inclined to indulge in something forbidden, as well as that if people want something, they will find ways to obtain it.  Thus, it would be beneficial to our society to lower the drinking age to 18 and decrease the amount of lives ruined by having a high drinking age.

.

(http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675)

A Learning Enigma in the Information Age

Despite my youth and its coincidence with the advent of social media, online entertainment, and the decisive maturation of the internet as a whole, I have never really been all that excited about these technologies. I have two email accounts that I rarely check, and one Facebook account that I never check. I feel absolutely no connection with the online behaviors of many of my peers: the one hundred and fifty million Ansel Adams of Instagram, the seemingly limitless Benjamin Franklins and Confucian sages of the Twittersphere. I haven’t the slightest clue what Reddit is, and I’ve never even struck up a hearty game of Angry Birds to pass the time. But despite my abstinence from these myriad cyber frontiers, the internet is still a huge part of my life. I marvel at its ubiquity daily, and then I marvel some more at the astonishing implications of this ubiquity. My generation is the first to grow up under the completely novel paradigm of continuous access to the entire wealth of human knowledge, practically free of charge, at our fingertips, anytime, anyplace. The sheer volume of information that I can easily obtain from a device that fits in my pocket is staggering; and in an ideal world, this would be a pure ameliorator, the answer to the wildest dreams of anybody who has ever felt a thirst for knowledge.

But even the most beautiful rose has razor thorns, and the internet’s function as a dynamic, infinite encyclopedia is no exception. Nathanael Enwald of the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point asks the most pertinent question (and provides the most eloquent answer) regarding the unintended consequences of this reality: “…does information being so readily available really mean anything good for our intellectual capacity? If anything, the effect it has on our cognitive abilities is problematic. It’s because of the immense amount of data passing through our skulls that our thought processes and attention spans have grown shallow and aphoristic. If we need an answer to a question all we have to do is Google it, answer it, and forget it.”

I completely agree with this powerful statement. I am constantly whipping out my iPhone in order to look up some word that ought to be a concrete part of my vocabulary, but is instead hopelessly stranded somewhere between the back of my throat and the tip of my tongue; or to help myself remember a fact or an anecdote that I had once held dearly before it mysteriously slipped away; or to seek out, with the intention to truly learn, an author’s name, some song lyrics, a useful equation, a set of directions for any sort of process, an address, etc.

And this is exactly where the phenomenon Enwald describes comes into play. Instead of behaving like an incredible tool in these types of situations, the internet tends to function as a self-perpetuating crutch. The ease with which I can access information, along with the comforting knowledge that it will literally always be accessible, severely degrades the quality of my internalization of that information. I tend to easily forget things that I lookup online, simply because the process of retrieving information undermines the value of the information itself. Every time I search for something, the process reveals itself more and more as a devious reward mechanism that takes all of the attention off of learning and retention and transfers it to a fleeting rush of satisfaction, derived from merely having searched and found. And every time I search and find, I’m further tricked into believing in the absolute necessity of such convenience, and I’m further conditioned to fail in any attempts at actually obtaining new knowledge.

Although her ultimate conclusion veers off into completely different territory, columnist Odelia Kaly’s remarks on the detriments of our society’s various advanced technologies still apply to this alarming issue of sacrificing quality for quantity and convenience: “…we’ve become so overambitious in wanting to improve ourselves that we are actually destroying ourselves without noticing. Instead of these devices (which are an incredible display of our intellect and abilities) representing our collective progress and enhancing our quality of life, in the long run they are depleting our quality of life by inhibiting our ability to grow. The technology will burgeon, but we will remain stagnant.” When we allow our technology to trick us like this, we remain stagnant because our intellects remain static. Our intellects remain static because we are only providing ourselves with an illusion of learning, a mirage devoid of all the meaty fillings that real learning must entail. Clicking on a link offers none of the difficulty, none of the struggle, and none of the tedious aspects of learning that make it effective. If I want to actually develop my intellect, or my understanding of a topic, I need to read a book, listen to a teacher, say a prayer, have a conversation with a friend, embark on an introspective journey, or come up with some of my own opinions on the matter. All of these examples are extremely worthwhile, yet often very challenging. But if I am content to remain with just the facade of learning, then all I have to do is search, glaze over whatever I happen to find, and repeat.

Works Cited

Enwald, Nathanael. “Is the Internet Making Us Stupid?” Is the Internet Making Us Stupid? University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point, n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Kaly, Odelia. “Robot Apocalypse.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 26 Sept. 2013. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

As Amanda Hess’ perfectly exemplifies, harassment and prejudice against women and minority groups hurts them professionally and personally. Harassment is immediately harmful on its victim. Yet harassment is only the directed expression of widespread prejudice against women and minorities online. As a person who spends a fair amount of time on Reddit, a website where users can post links to other sites and comment on them, evidence abounds given a few days aboard the site. It’s common for users to post mundane pictures, such as photos of pets, new hairdos, or funny happenings. Yet when a woman includes her face in one of these pictures (“Look at my Halloween costume, Reddit!”), it is common for the (mostly-male) commenters to rip her apart for so-called “attention whoring;” the perceived use of attractiveness to gain approval for submitted content. As if the implication was not enough, the doubly-misogynistic terminology drives the message home: the culture of many websites is one of suspicion and loathing of women. It isn’t surprising to see that such environments, combined with anonymity, spawn internet harassment. Targeted individuals must make a choice – endure abuse and toxic environments or miss out on what these communities have to offer. Yet few websites have taken strong action to mitigate these effects.

The availability of options to reduce online harassment and hate speechmakes the reluctance of internet communities to stop abuse doubly troubling. The obvious starting point to prevent harassment: ban offending users by their IP addresses, not their accounts with online services. As it is, harassment on online communities is trivially easy; it takes a few seconds of typing to send hate speech to an account of your choice. Even if “report abuse” functionality bans the offender, he or she can simply make another account on the online service, something which takes a few seconds in many online communities. Banning an IP address requires an individual to change the IP address with certain software or with a certain type of connection. At the very least, this serves as a form of deterrent. Meanwhile, controlling the terms of public communication online is within the bounds of practicality for most online communities as well. Sites can appoint or employ moderators who screen comments for hate speech and harassment, allowing them to prevent potentially harmful speech on forums and boards. Finally, a good deal of harassment and harm occurs within autonomous “communities” on certain sites, making it possible to remove wholesale the loci of discussion. In October 2012, Reddit removed the “/r/jailbait” subreddit (a self-contained Reddit discussion forum), where users posted sexually-suggestive pictures of underage girls, but only after a media firestorm surrounding the forum. June 2013 marked the removal of the “/r/n*****s” subreddit, devoted entirely to posting and commenting on race-baiting content and hate speech. Users commenting in this forum to show their horror were often messaged and harassed. The closing of these two forums alone removed a locus for harassers to communicate and infiltrate the entirety of the site. Considering that many websites organize themselves into subcommunities in this way, be it via particular blogs, hashtags, facebook pages, or subreddits, why is it not more common for website administrators to remove the problematic ones? The answer seems to lie in concerns about the perceived threat to civil rights associated with anti-harassment measures.

Yet though critics of such measures attempt to frame them as a potential threat to free speech and privacy, this is not necessarily true. None of the measures above require the storage of additional personal data (websites often log the IP addresses of their visitors, if not their names and addresses). Meanwhile, critics harping on the potential threat to free speech are misguided. It is elementary to remind such critics that First Amendment rights only apply to government suppression of communication; individual private media, such as internet sites, can restrict communication as they wish. And legal protections to free speech under the First Amendment do not protect obscene and threatening speech, a category which internet harassment often falls under. Perhaps critics worry about a more abstract freedom that is upended with the removal of hateful or harassing comments or messages: the freedom of a person to express opinions without fear of monetary or social repercussions. But this freedom hardly seems applicable to disgusting and harmful internet harassment most victims face.

Granted, a committed attacker, like the cyber-stalker described in Ms. Hess’ article, can most likely circumvent the protection described here, requiring more sophisticated protection. Making such individuals accountable most likely requires more information collection and more privacy, which requires a more nuanced discussion on the trade-offs between liberties and protection for victims. Until then, however, there are actions website administrators can take to minimize harassment and prejudice with little impact on privacy.

In today’s world, you can hold “face-to-face” meetings online. You can ask your phone to send someone a text message. You can ask your car for directions. Technology has become an avenue by which you can accomplish almost anything. Countless innovative technological feats have been featured in popular culture throughout the years. From residential space stations to biometric classification, many of such technologies seem unimaginable within the span of our lives. But the real question: are these movies and stories an exaggeration of our reliance on technology, or could they be foreshadowing the technological future that lies ahead for us?

In “Her,” a recently released science fiction romance drama film, technology has developed to a point where operating systems are designed to fulfill individuals’ specific needs. They converse, learn and feel like real people, described in an on-screen ad as a “consciousness.” The movie depicts several relationships between the people of its fictional society and their respective operating systems.

Charles, though a rather minor character in the movie, is the ex-husband of Amy and original owner of an operating system. When he and his wife Amy divorce, he leaves behind their life together and his operating system. Amy, ex-wife of Charles and longtime friend of the main character, discovers the complexity of the new operating system when her ex-husband leaves it behind in the divorce. Amy embraces her relationship with her operating system, creating a happy and healthy friendship. By the end of the movie, she regards her operating system as a close friend. Theodore, the main character of the movie, is a lonely, introverted writer that ultimately falls in love with his operating system, Samantha. As the movie progress, the two become closer, ultimately even attempting to consummate the relationship through a surrogate body. His every day life becomes dependent on her and their relationship.

These varying relationships can be interpreted as predictions of the result of our growing technological dependences. Charles represents the in-control, technology consumer. He is the user that technology was originally meant for: the one who turns to it for convenience and utility, but is neither reliant nor overly attached. He treated his operating system as such, and was even willing to leave it behind. Amy represents the more invested user. Though she has some sense of boundaries, she heavily involves herself in her technology and uses it consistently. She illustrates the modern day consumer, the type of consumer we are starting to see more and more in our own society: attached, emotional, and willing to invest more of her life into it than is normal. She goes beyond the intended purpose of technological advancement and involves such innovations in her day-to-day routine. Lastly, Theodore represents the most extreme consumer. In his usage, he ignores all customary limitations and social norms. He not only is overly involved in his technology, he is consumed by it. Every day his thoughts, emotions, and routines are largely dependent upon his operating system. He reaches a point where technology becomes questionably the most integral part of his life.

Is Theodore merely a criticism of the slippery slope we have descended upon through our use of technology? Or is he a reminder of a concerning yet very possible future consumer? If I can leave my phone home on vacation can I be guaranteed to be Charles? If I rely on Siri every day will I become Theodore? Does our current attitude toward technology predict our future reliance? Can the lifestyles we lead now influence what they could be 20 years from now? The movie, though meant to be a fantastical love story, exposes this growing societal issue of our reliance on technology usage.

As we have become more and more innovative, we’ve also pushed the limitations and inclusion of technology in our lives. It is possible that one day we will develop operating systems advanced enough to mimic the human consciousness. It is possible that one day we will develop technologies advanced enough to customize themselves to your own needs. It is possible that we will one day develop such things that go beyond what we ever imagined possible. But is it possible that we will befriend such technologies? Regard them as our closest confidants? Will it ever be possible that we could really truly fall in love with them? Though technology presents us with opportunities that accelerate our lives in unprecedented ways, the attraction to such convenience and versatility can be a dangerous trap. Ultimately, it is up to us to determine the role technology plays, to determine if technology belongs to us or we belong to it.

“We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.”

Bill Hicks

I write this page, as I do most, on an Apple computer, an inch-thick laptop whose inner-workings greatly exceed my own technological understanding. I use this machine to write because it is efficient, accurate, and quite frankly, my handwriting is less than exceptional. In addition to state of the art word processing, this same machine offers the most advanced video and music reproduction programs, a truly remarkable volume of data storage space, and, with increasingly-ubiquitous Wi-Fi availability, access to an expanse of information so vast that any number of descriptive examples could not do it justice. Phenomena of technology such as this have become the tools of daily human life the way sticks and stones once were. New advancements perpetually expand our capabilities and further our social connectedness as the telegram and telephone each once did. Yet, despite having been consistently quieted by progress in all senses throughout history, there remain those who resist and warn their audiences and readerships of the mal-effects and societal tolls of the evolution taking place. In this instance, the loss of social skills, the risk of cyber-bullying and sexism, and the lack of accountability associated with anonymity supposedly brought upon by technology have each been widely referenced in disparaging arguments. But evolution, as it has, continues to shape the human condition in ways that advance the species and improve our quality of life.

In so much as the technology we create is an extension of the collective intellect and creativity humanity, technology itself is an extension of the natural evolution of our species. As a result of our tremendous mental capacity, physical adaptations, and social nature, we as a species have managed to refine the resources of the Earth into tools for survival, then basic and more advanced amenities for comfort, then goods for our enjoyment, and finally in more recent years into technologies which provide all of the above. We have and continue to evolve, as all species do, to live in a manner that yields the highest chance of survival and proliferation of the species. But we’ve evolved so far that for a large portion of our population, survival is no longer an all-encompassing concern. We as a species have the ability to improve the quality and fulfillment of our lives at an extent to which no other species can. That in and of itself should be enough of testimony to the wonder that is modern technology, yet every day cynics find compelling examples of the way this progress is destroying our society.

It would not be an earnest exposition without acknowledging the fact that there are consequences, as there always are, of this type of evolution. Technological institutions have become deeply ingrained in the way people live every day, particularly among younger demographics. Recently, social media has been deemed public enemy number one by commenters like Sandy Hingston of Philadelphia Magazine who argues that institutions like Facebook and Twitter are making young people dumber and less sociable. These claims do hold weight, as texting, tweeting, poking, and snapchatting have taken the place of old-fashioned face time for many kids. There is something to be said for those who are wary of Generation Y forgetting how to hold a conversation a few years down the line. It is clear that the use of social media and other forms of electronic communication have changed the way we interact. Friendly small-talk in an elevator has been replaced by reading emails or perusing the latest posts from your friends on Instagram. It can be difficult to see the legitimacy of these new forms of communication when friends are texting each other from across the room.

Do these new popular idiosyncrasies, admittedly somewhat ridiculous, really warrant the damnation of the progress and opportunity brought about by technology? From a personal standpoint, I see communication via text message, email, or any number of social media outlets not as a detriment to social interaction but as an incredible breakthrough which allows me to keep in touch even more closely with the people I care about. From an evolutionary standpoint, we are perpetuating the advancement of our species at an exponential rate with every new technology we create and as a result, we are ever in greater control over the way in which we live. As there always have been, there will be those who seek fault in new ideas and in progress, but it is those who understand and embrace the natural order of evolution who are in position to decide where it goes next.

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.

Writing about technology is risky business. Today, it’s hard to develop an argument
free of bias or group identity. We judge someone as young and intelligent, or
old and stale based on which side they are on. But instead of asking, “is
technology good for us or will it eventually lead to a robot army takeover?” we
can ask “what has changed in our society since the technology boom? What about
our ability to think for ourselves? What about our ability to socialize?”

Ben Wiseman has a lot to say about the latter – how technology has changed the way
we socialize with one another. He tells us to take it easy with laying the
blame on the technology, and instead, blame the parents. Blame ourselves.

The idea that we are at fault for our own degenerating ability to socialize is
interesting not only because it is different but because it raises important
questions. What are we doing wrong now that we weren’t doing before? Wiseman
answers the question in his article by proposing that parents hold their
children to too many regulations, that the media has been projecting false
images, and that children are under so much pressure and such a tight schedule
that socializing with friends in person, simply isn’t possible. The argument led
me to put some deep thought into the differences between myself and my parents.
I do believe that both of my parents socialized more than I do. My dad grew up
in China during the 70’s and wears his childhood with a lot of pride.

“I played pretend war with my classmates, and it often got rough.” he would tell
me, spreading his feet apart and squaring his shoulders.

My mom grew up as an adopted child in Norway (her biological parents are Korean
although she identifies herself completely as a Norwegian) and I can say much
more about her childhood than I can about my father’s. The apartment in which
my mom grew up in is still home to most of her friend’s families. On summer
trips to Norway, my mom and I would walk from one friend to the next, often
making the two minute walk to the nearby grocery store and café together.

In summary, both of my parents were social. In different ways, yes, but very
social. The article by Ben Wiseman made me think about these things in a way
that left me with a sense of longing. My story – the one I’m going to tell my
children is much less interesting. It’s not as social or full of life.

My response to this article, however, is a double-edged sword. I think that some
of Wiseman’s reasons are wrong, or at least not all-encompassing, and that the
experience of my parents, together with my own experience, can provide a
different perspective as to why we may not be as social as we once were.

To address the argument of pressure: Both of my parents, my father especially,
grew up with pressure. Pressure isn’t something that only comes from the
outside. Pressure comes from within anyone who is self-motivated, and who has a
dream. We shouldn’t assume that the pressure from our parents can measure up to
the pressure we put on ourselves. Therefore, I don’t believe that pushy parents
have driven teenagers to use Facebook and twitter as an alternative to
face-to-face social interaction.

To address the media: First of all, media is a projection of the technology we
have developed. The Vietnam War was the first to be broadcasted on television,
on which everyday Americans were exposed to the propaganda put forth by the
United States government. It may be true that parents have increasingly begun
to shorten leashes when it comes to curfews, but I see this more as evidence
that our society has less faith. Houses are farther away from one another, and
the rise of the service industry has made us more independent, such that no
longer need, rely on, or even trust each other.

Wiseman argues that Facebook and Twitter shouldn’t be held responsible. I agree – but I
do think that technology in general has played a much larger role in de-socializing us than our parents have. Technology makes things too easily accessible. Technology, not each other, is what we turn to when we’re bored.

It helps to approach the situation by performing an exaggerated thought experiment. What
would you do if you had nothing to do except talk to someone? I would choose to
talk. Talking builds upon itself. It’s one of those things that gets better as
you keep doing it.

I think my parents, and parents everywhere, lived a life much more similar to this than
our lives are. Neither my mother nor my father had a computer or a PlayStation.
My dad didn’t have a television and my mom confessed to finding it boring as
watching TV hadn’t become so teenager friendly yet.

My dad enjoyed playing fighting games, just like boys do today. The difference is that
the fighting game was real, and physical. He couldn’t play video games, so he
had to play it with other people. Danger aside, it was a source of social
interaction. My mom always had her friends nearby. She and her friends took
turns walking over to each other’s apartments and having sleepovers.

Meeting up with friends was a major part of life – just as big as being on Facebook and
watching YouTube videos is for us now. Today, there are a lot of other options
– and thus our inner lazy kicks in. Technology isn’t something that we get
bored of. You can’t read it too many times like you do a novel.

Logistically speaking, it’s easier to access the entire world, and catch up with all of your
friends via the internet than it is to physically be with friends. Expansion,
because of westward exploration, the Civil War construction of railroads, and
invention of automobiles, has brought us closer together and farther apart at
the same time. The ability to drive makes it easier for my parents to get from
Houston to Nashville in thirteen hours. It also makes it more reasonable to
build houses farther apart, and meeting spots more isolated from residential
areas. Both of my parents lived next door to their friends, and so socializing
face to face didn’t require much planning or scheduling. In the subdivision I
lived in it was much harder to get in touch with friends. My closest friend was
a half an hour walk away, so meeting up required driving around and we didn’t
always feel as though making the drive was worthwhile.

Despite all of this, I’ll never look at Ben Wiseman’s article with negative eyes. It
was thought provoking and rebellious – something I really appreciate after
having read much of the same in many different articles. I truly believe that
“teens are addicted to each other” and I know that my arguments and experiences
don’t represent the experiences of the whole society. However, I just don’t
think that the reasons are as simple as Wiseman’s. De-socializing is the price
we have paid for exploration and innovation. Technology is our friend that’s
always there. Our “real” friends are irreplaceable, but they’re also far away.
Expectations haven’t changed; our inner desires haven’t changed, and parents
haven’t suddenly gotten meaner. Our social lives are different from our
parent’s because our environment is different and it is technology that
ultimately shapes this.