Having a computer implanted into our brains sounds kinda cool. Cool in the sense that we would have something there to help us think, something there to give us access to the internet wherever and whenever we need it. In a world driven by competition, having a neural implant would certainly give the user a leg up on those around them. Without having to study, school would be easier; without having to know a trade, work would be a breeze. But as I've found in the first few chapters of Feed, having a direct connection to the "Feednet" has several downsides—loss of intelligence and privacy, to name two.
Having something there to answer all of our questions prevents us from learning. It's sort of like being young and asking our parents the meaning of a word. Mine usually told me to find out the old fashion way—dust off a dictionary and look it up. If they did tell me, I might remember it for the remainder of the day, but I would be lucky to recall it down the road. Somehow, the physical action of flipping through the pages of a dictionary and finding a word forces our brains to store the information away. For Titus, who's had access to Feednet since birth, functioning without a feed is difficult; when he wakes up in the hospital without access to Feednet, he can't even identify the action of a boat's rudder when examining the painting of a sailboat.
But there are more downsides than simply loosing intelligence; as Titus's and his friends trip the moon shows, with access to Feednet brings a loss of privacy. As soon as they step off of the shuttle, they are blasted by advertising from local stores. The ads, however, aren't intended for a mass audience. Instead, they are directed at an individual based on his or her particular interests. As Violet explains, companies gather statistics on what each user searches for, what they buy, what they bookmark, etc., and then sell the information to local stores, who then spam users with recommendations on future purchases. This massive loop leads to the overall loss of one's privacy.
Feed has shown us that the future of technology brings many detriments to humanity, including a loss intelligence and privacy. If society envisions the use of such neural implants, it is almost a sure bet we will end up like the characters in the novel. Hopefully this will not be the case.
March 30, 2011
March 28, 2011
Project 3 Rough Draft:The Affect of Genetic Engineering on Human Life Expectancy
The human body is fascinating. It is physically strong, chemically efficient, ultimately dependable, and is designed by a polymer comprised of four different compounds. This polymer, known as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), is the blueprint for every cell inside of us, and after the discovery of its molecular structure in 1953, the scientific community scrambled to unravel the answer behind its eccentric, trait coding capabilities (Nicholl 6). Since then multiple fields, the most important being genetic engineering, have emerged and provided promising developments for mankind. In fact, since 1900 we have seen a 30 year increase in human life expectancy alone (Scientific American). This statistic affirms the significance of developments made in the field of genetic engineering, and suggests that the further development of genetic engineering practices will influence an increase in human longevity.
Although the molecular structure of DNA was discovered in the early 1950s, progress toward developing techniques for gene manipulation was hindered until the early 1970s (Nicholl 6). According to Nicholl, the cause was a lack of technological advancement, and only after breakthroughs were made could progression toward these developments resume (6). To scientists relief, the breakthroughs arrived through the isolation of DNA Ligase and a restriction enzyme (Nicholl 6). While both molecules have separate functions in the grand scheme of recombinant DNA production—Ligase binds two separate DNA strands together, while the restriction enzyme specializes in cutting DNA at designated positions like a pair of scissors—together they make up the foundation of recombinant DNA technology, the splicing of one organism's DNA into a new host (Nicholl 6). As Jackson and Stich describe, "molecular biologists learned how to remove bits of genetic material (DNA) from various organisms and insert them into bacteria" (xiii). As the bacterial cells divided, the newly incorporated segment of DNA would be replicated along with the original bacterial genome, and could possibly be expressed depending on the type of gene inserted. "Recombinant DNA technology...provided scientists with a singularly powerful tool for studying the basic mechanisms of genetics in all organisms" (Jackson and Stich xiii).
Although genetic engineering hinges on the advancement of modern technology, it is important to note that its concepts have been around for thousands of years (Genetically Modified Organism). Sure, while it's obvious that medieval Europe did not possess the capabilities to splice together DNA from two separate organisms, they did understand that by breeding two animals together (both with a desired trait) they could produce offspring that would likely posses the desired trait as well.
In nature, this occurs even more readily and without human interference. Known more commonly as natural selection, an animal with a beneficial trait is more likely to survive and reproduce than one without the trait. Imagine a species of drab colored and white colored moths. In order to avoid predators, the moth must be able to blend in with its surroundings. For the drab colored moth, this is a simple task, yet for the white colored moth, it is much more difficult. Because of their lack of camouflage, the white colored moths will be eaten more frequently, while the drab colored will survive longer and consequently have a greater opportunity to reproduce. In the end, the drab colored trait will grow to dominate the moth species.
While natural selection plays a large role in the selection of a species traits, current human intervention through genetic engineering has allowed a species to almost evolve independently of its environment. The key difference here is that in nature, an organism can only reproduce with another organism of the same or a closely related species. In the hands of a geneticist, however, any desirable trait can be taken and inserted into another individual. In 1994 the "Flavr Savr" Tomato was the first genetically modified product to be tested by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Genetically Modified Organism). It was soon after released for commercial consumption, and because the modified tomatoes were resistant to "fruit softening," they could be transported more easily and were thus in high demand (Bruening and Lyons). The idea began when engineers at Calgene Inc. noticed that from the time ripened tomatoes were picked and transported to stores across the country, many had had become soft (Genetically Modified Organism). The protein known as polygalacturonase (PG), was identified as the compound responsible for dissolving pectin, a protein responsible for the structural strength in tomato cell walls. After making this discovery, the Calgene Inc. engineers worked on developing a way to silence the gene that produced PG (Genetically Modified Organism). They eventually came up with a PG-antisense gene and inserted it into a line of waiting tomatoes (Bruening and Lyons). Some tomatoes were detected to produce as little as 1% of the original levels of PG, and lasted significantly longer from farm to shelf (Bruening and Lyons). Though while the "Flavr Savr" tomato succeeded in proving that genetically modified plants could be marketed commercially, due to high production and distribution costs, the tomatoes never became a profitable product (Bruening and Lyons).
Although an organism may be modified by invasive genetic modification to produce a desired result, less invasive procedures may be used when choosing traits for our children. As Leon Kass M.D. describes, "this approach, less radical or complete in its power to control, would not introduce new genes, but would merely select positively among those that occur naturally." The process depends on in vitro fertilization (IVF) and screens unborn babies for desirable or undesirable traits (Kass). Known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), twelve eggs are fertilized and allowed to grow until they reach the four-cell or ten-cell stage. Then, one or two cells are withdrawn, and the DNA extracted is amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and then analyzed for several genetic disorders. Only those embryos that are not found to have genetic disorders are allowed to be transplanted into the mother. From here, the fetus will mature and will be delivered in due time as a regular baby.
Though the intentional examination of a fetus for genetic disorders may sound grotesque, the practice is generally limited to couples who have a higher chance of giving birth to a child with a genetic disorder (Kass). By screening the viable children in this manner, the chance that a child with a birth defect will get through is minuscule, which will help to prevent the need for prenatal care and possible abortion (Kass).
With the screening of human fetuses through PGD already a current development of genetic engineering, we wonder what new advancements will be next to develop. According to the President's Council on Bioethics, the next most foreseeable step is to develop a way to produce "better children" (Kass). While it seems that invasive, genetic engineering procedures would be required to produce children with superior traits, the process is actually quite simple. By changing the objective of PGD from child screening to "baby improving," fetuses with beneficial traits would be selected. This process is simply a form of natural selection, though we must ask ourselves 'are we going to far in allowing parents to choose from a list of several possibilities what their children will look like?'
With the possibility of choosing genetically superior children imminent, we should also ask ourselves if such improvements to the human body will lead to immortality. Though this would be considered an extreme form of genetic engineering, human immortality could theoretically be possible with the combination of "biotechnology, molecular nanotechnologies, artificial inteligence and other new types of cognitive tools" (Farrar).
 |
| DNA Image: iStockPhoto |
Although genetic engineering hinges on the advancement of modern technology, it is important to note that its concepts have been around for thousands of years (Genetically Modified Organism). Sure, while it's obvious that medieval Europe did not possess the capabilities to splice together DNA from two separate organisms, they did understand that by breeding two animals together (both with a desired trait) they could produce offspring that would likely posses the desired trait as well.
In nature, this occurs even more readily and without human interference. Known more commonly as natural selection, an animal with a beneficial trait is more likely to survive and reproduce than one without the trait. Imagine a species of drab colored and white colored moths. In order to avoid predators, the moth must be able to blend in with its surroundings. For the drab colored moth, this is a simple task, yet for the white colored moth, it is much more difficult. Because of their lack of camouflage, the white colored moths will be eaten more frequently, while the drab colored will survive longer and consequently have a greater opportunity to reproduce. In the end, the drab colored trait will grow to dominate the moth species.
 |
| Research on "Flavr Savr" tomatoes at UC Berkley |
Although an organism may be modified by invasive genetic modification to produce a desired result, less invasive procedures may be used when choosing traits for our children. As Leon Kass M.D. describes, "this approach, less radical or complete in its power to control, would not introduce new genes, but would merely select positively among those that occur naturally." The process depends on in vitro fertilization (IVF) and screens unborn babies for desirable or undesirable traits (Kass). Known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), twelve eggs are fertilized and allowed to grow until they reach the four-cell or ten-cell stage. Then, one or two cells are withdrawn, and the DNA extracted is amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and then analyzed for several genetic disorders. Only those embryos that are not found to have genetic disorders are allowed to be transplanted into the mother. From here, the fetus will mature and will be delivered in due time as a regular baby.
Though the intentional examination of a fetus for genetic disorders may sound grotesque, the practice is generally limited to couples who have a higher chance of giving birth to a child with a genetic disorder (Kass). By screening the viable children in this manner, the chance that a child with a birth defect will get through is minuscule, which will help to prevent the need for prenatal care and possible abortion (Kass).
With the screening of human fetuses through PGD already a current development of genetic engineering, we wonder what new advancements will be next to develop. According to the President's Council on Bioethics, the next most foreseeable step is to develop a way to produce "better children" (Kass). While it seems that invasive, genetic engineering procedures would be required to produce children with superior traits, the process is actually quite simple. By changing the objective of PGD from child screening to "baby improving," fetuses with beneficial traits would be selected. This process is simply a form of natural selection, though we must ask ourselves 'are we going to far in allowing parents to choose from a list of several possibilities what their children will look like?'
With the possibility of choosing genetically superior children imminent, we should also ask ourselves if such improvements to the human body will lead to immortality. Though this would be considered an extreme form of genetic engineering, human immortality could theoretically be possible with the combination of "biotechnology, molecular nanotechnologies, artificial inteligence and other new types of cognitive tools" (Farrar).
Works Cited
Ballantyne, Coco. Life From Scratch? Digital image. Scientific American. Scientific American, 24 Jan. 2008. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4hfaa9r>.
Bruening G., and J. M. Lyons. Research to control the ripening of tomatoes continues. At UC Berkley, Athanasios Theologis and colleagues have identified and blocked a gene responsible for ripening. Digital image. California Agriculture. University of California, July-Aug. 2000. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/6cddoow>
Bruening, G., and J. M. Lyons. "The Case of the FLAVR SAVR Tomato." California Agriculture. University of California, July-Aug. 2000. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/475j7f3>.
Farrar, Lara. "Scientists: Humans and Machines Will Merge in Future." CNN Tech. CNN, 15 Jan. 2008. Web. 15 Mar. 2011 <http://tinyurl.com/5u2azya>
"Genetically Modified Organism." Environmental Encylopedia. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context, 21 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4z59zpt>.
Hans Rosling's 200 Contries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four. Dir. Dan Hillman. Prod. Dan Hillman and Archie Baron. Perf. Hans Rosling. YouTube. BBC, 26 Nov. 2010. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/23dt9kn>.
Jackson, David A., and Stephen P. Stich, eds. The Recombinant DNA Debate. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1979. Print
Kass M.D., Leon R. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Rep. LSU Law Center. Oct. 2003. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/45lhjy9>.
National Council of the Churches of Christ/USA. Genetic Engineering: Social and Ethical Consequences. New York: Pilgrim, 1984. Print.
Nicholl, Desmond S. T. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.
Scientific American. "Life Expectancy." Scientific American. Scientific American, 13 May 2002. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4lz4uzt>.
March 23, 2011
"Welcome to the desert of the real"
It had been quite a while since I had last seen The Matrix so, with it assigned for next class' discussion, I thought it would be best to refresh my memory and watch it again. What a great idea that was! At first, I thought that I would recall everything: what the matrix was, why the resistance was fighting, and so on. Yet as I continued, it was evident that I was missing large pieces of the storyline (probably because my eight-year-old brain couldn't contemplate them at the time). So, now more attune to the actions and reasoning of each character, I picked up on a good deal of information with this second run through.
What I learned, however, only frightened me. In this futuristic, Terminator-like story line, a battle is being waged between humans and machines over the freedom of human kind. And freedom from what? Well, for those of you who haven't seen the trilogy, it's freedom from slavery. Here, after the surface world was destroyed, humans were either driven underground or captured. Those that were captured were stored in pods and used as, for lack of a better word, batteries—their body's naturally produced electrical currents absorbed to power the machines. While in these pods, they are connected to a virtual reality known as the matrix. Here, their lives are kept under control by "agents," giving the seemingly picturesque world a prison-like feel. Yet, even under the oversight of the agents, life progresses as normal, and few suspect that the world they inhabit is little more than a dream. On the contrary, scenes like this make us question the world we live in. Are the things we feel, taste, and smell existent, or are they simply signals fed to and then interpreted by our brains? For all we know, we could be hooked up at this very moment, and not even realize it. Disturbing, don't you think?
In the movie, the war between humans and machines began after the creation of AI, and with current computer intelligence increasing exponentially, it seems to be only a matter of time before computers will be able to think freely and generate complex thoughts. Some predict that this event, known as the singularity, may occur in 2029 or maybe even sooner. Personally, I believe that the singularity is right around the corner, and I am quite concerned. Alongside Sven Birkerts, let me also warn of the dangers of artificial intelligence; we should be careful with what we create. Yet with the new age of AI already underway, all we can hope is that our world isn't brought to ruin.
Sources Cited
 |
| The desert of the real; Photo from Tala Oszkay |
In the movie, the war between humans and machines began after the creation of AI, and with current computer intelligence increasing exponentially, it seems to be only a matter of time before computers will be able to think freely and generate complex thoughts. Some predict that this event, known as the singularity, may occur in 2029 or maybe even sooner. Personally, I believe that the singularity is right around the corner, and I am quite concerned. Alongside Sven Birkerts, let me also warn of the dangers of artificial intelligence; we should be careful with what we create. Yet with the new age of AI already underway, all we can hope is that our world isn't brought to ruin.
Sources Cited
- The Matrix. Dir. Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski. Perf. Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, and Carrie-Anne Moss. Warner Home Video, 1999. DVD.
- Oszkay, Tala. Desert of the Real. Digital image. Miss Electric. Miss Electric, 31 Jan. 2011. Web. 22 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/48tq9a6>.
March 16, 2011
Project 3 Proposal: The Affects of Genetic Engineering on Human Life Expectancy
As a pre-medical student, I know a good deal about the human body, and take its efficiency, durability, and strength for granted. What has truly fascinated me, however, is how a complex organism like Homo sapiens only requires a simple mechanism to keep track of all of its physical traits.
When examining DNA, it is important to note that it consists of four different compounds arranged along two separate strands. To the untrained viewer, the sequence in which the compounds appear may seem arbitrary, yet as we have all learned—whether you are a science major or not—there is nothing arbitrary about the human body. Everything happens for a reason. As it turns out, the sequence in which the compounds are bound together is the secret to DNA's coding properties. With this discovery in the twentieth century, a new scientific field emerged—genetic engineering—and showed great promise. Soon after, researchers from around the globe all began innovating, and the modern practice of genetic engineering was born.
During this research project, I aim to explain how genetic engineering has affected human life expectancy. This will involve answering questions such as can genetic engineering influence life expectancy in the first place? Were there genetic engineering methods before the advent of modern technology? What are the ethical and moral concerns of this practice? Will our innovation reach a point where we can become immortal? Are there alternative means that will similarly affect life expectancy? Overall, these questions will help to develop my thoughts on genetic engineering and lead me to formulate a conclusion, yet I should say beforehand that I am already biased in my prediction of the end result. Having done research in similar areas before, I expect to see that there will be an increase in life expectancy, corresponding to the use of genetic engineering. Based on the little research I have done thus far, my prediction holds true, and it can assumed that progressive use of genetic engineering will lead to an exponential increase in human life expectancy.
As a final note, I don't expect to run into many problems during my research. In fact, unless I come across a shortage in data, I don't believe there are any other possible problems. Of course, if I do stumble upon one, I believe it will be beneficial for me to describe it in the final paper.
Annotated Bibliography
Written by Lara Farrar, this article matches one of the points that I wish to investigate during my research: the possibility of man becoming immortal by merging with machines. On the contrary, the article is fairly short and only discusses the possibility of a Gibsonian style human-computer combination in the last two paragraphs. So, while I may be able to pull some information out, it may be wise for me to find another article.
When examining DNA, it is important to note that it consists of four different compounds arranged along two separate strands. To the untrained viewer, the sequence in which the compounds appear may seem arbitrary, yet as we have all learned—whether you are a science major or not—there is nothing arbitrary about the human body. Everything happens for a reason. As it turns out, the sequence in which the compounds are bound together is the secret to DNA's coding properties. With this discovery in the twentieth century, a new scientific field emerged—genetic engineering—and showed great promise. Soon after, researchers from around the globe all began innovating, and the modern practice of genetic engineering was born.
During this research project, I aim to explain how genetic engineering has affected human life expectancy. This will involve answering questions such as can genetic engineering influence life expectancy in the first place? Were there genetic engineering methods before the advent of modern technology? What are the ethical and moral concerns of this practice? Will our innovation reach a point where we can become immortal? Are there alternative means that will similarly affect life expectancy? Overall, these questions will help to develop my thoughts on genetic engineering and lead me to formulate a conclusion, yet I should say beforehand that I am already biased in my prediction of the end result. Having done research in similar areas before, I expect to see that there will be an increase in life expectancy, corresponding to the use of genetic engineering. Based on the little research I have done thus far, my prediction holds true, and it can assumed that progressive use of genetic engineering will lead to an exponential increase in human life expectancy.
As a final note, I don't expect to run into many problems during my research. In fact, unless I come across a shortage in data, I don't believe there are any other possible problems. Of course, if I do stumble upon one, I believe it will be beneficial for me to describe it in the final paper.
Annotated Bibliography
- Benetos, Athanase et. al. "Telomere Length as an Indicator of Biological Aging: The Gender Effect and Relation With Pulse Pressure and Pulse Wave Velocity." Hypertension 37.2 (2001): 381-85. Hypertension. American Heart Association, Feb. 2001. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4epk32o>.
- In this scientific study, Athanase Benetos and his team examined telomere length as a possible indicator of a human's age. It was found that telomere length is inversely correlated with a subject's age, indicating that the longer the telomere segment, the younger and perhaps even the healthier a person is. While this article includes little, if any information on genetic engineering, it does provide valuable background information on the aging process, which as noted in Leon Kass's report, is an important factor when evaluating life span.
- Farrar, Lara. "Scientists: Humans and Machines Will Merge In Future." CNN Tech. CNN, 15 Jan. 2008. Web. 15 Mar. 2011 <http://tinyurl.com/5u2azya>.
- "Genetically Modified Organism." Environmental Encyclopedia. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context, 21 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4z59zpt>.
- This article explains genetic engineering at a basic level, and shows how it is used in various fields (pharmaceuticals, agriculture, etc.) Furthermore, it discusses the use of genetic engineering before the advent of modern science, which may prove to be a useful discussion point later on. Most importantly, however, it illustrates several pros and cons of genetic engineering. I believe that I will draw upon this article a lot when drafting my paper.
- Hodge, Russ. Genetic Engineering: Manipulating the Mechanisms of Life. New York: Facts on File, 2009. EBook.
- Russ Hodge's Book begins with a broad discussion of several theories associated with genetics—Mendelian inheritance, natural selection, and evolution. While these first chapters may be useful for small amounts of research, I doubt that I will use them for broad support. In fact, I am only interested in the preceding chapters which cover genetic engineering, along with ethics and chronology. For the most part, however, the information covered in this book seems to only reiterate what Leon Kass's said in his report. So, I may replace this source during the actual drafting of the paper.
- Kass M.D., Leon R. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Rep. LSU Law Center. Oct. 2003. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/45lhjy9>.
- Leon Kass outlines many ways in which a human can be modified, whether it is through invasive "genetic manipulation" or the non-invasive selection of embryos. Although the report doesn't seem to propose any new aspects of genetic engineering to write from, it instead deeply describes topics such as the aging process—perhaps the most critical element to understand when examining life expectancy. Additionally, it analyzes the moral and ethical aspects of genetic engineering that other literature may not cover.
- Thompson, Tamara. "Social Implications Of Life Extension Debated." How Far Should Science Extend the Human Lifespan? Greenhaven, 2009. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/68wg8zk>.
- This article begins with the announcement that life expectancy may increase by several decades in the near future. Yet, after this dissertation Tamara Thompson begins to describe the affects that could arise from a lengthened lifespan, including living in a world where the generation gaps were almost nonexistent and children could "be born 40 to 50 years apart." By listing all the downsides of an increase in life expectancy, this article will provide the opportunity to seek out counterpoints to discuss in my paper.
March 15, 2011
The Unabomber
Having just finished spring break, I must say that the flight back to Richmond was unbearable. It wasn't the unclean airports, mediocre food, or even the jarring turbulence that annoyed me. Frankly, being cooped up in a small seat for two hours, jostling with my neighbor for control of the arm rest, and all the while refrained from making any comfortable adjustments was enough to drive me mad. I'm sure that most of you would agree. So how does a sensible person cope during the flight? Most choose to sleep or read, or both. So sleep and read I did, slowly working my way through the unjustly assigned homework assignments until I came to "The Unabomber's Manifesto," which, due to length, I saved for last.
As mentioned above, the first thing that caught my eye was the sheer size of the document—roughly 250 paragraphs—which rivals that of most short stories. Yet, buried in the sea of words, "Ted" Kaczynski makes numerous well-thought-out points, primarily focusing on technology's detrimental affects on mankind. For instance, he claims that "drastic changes in technology...inevitably break down traditional values," which in turn lead to "the disintegration of small scale social groups." In my opinion, he is correct in coming to this assertion, because while each new communicative innovation (say texting) brings the capability of carrying on ten times the number of conversations, in the process our individuality that played such an important role in small social groups is lost. This in fact reminds me of Sven Birkert's article "Into the Electronic Millennium," where he similarly argues that through continued technological usage, we will see a "Waning of the private self."
What Birkerts and Kaczynski differ on, however, is the way in which they wish to accomplish and maintain their anti-technological revolutions. While Birkerts believes that stopping cold turkey is the best solution, Kaczynski says that in order to maintain the movement, technology must be used—primarily for communicative purposes—to a small extent. Either way, both believe that their ideas will be influential, and will bring a stop to the widespread usage of technology.
Towards the end of the manifesto, I was intrigued to look at the Unabomber's Wikipedia page. What I found shocked me. Born in '92, I was maybe 2 during the height of the bombings, and up until today, except for the occasional mention of his name, I had no idea who the Unabomber was, what his/her motives were, or how many people he/she had killed. So, looking through the paragraphs, I was shocked to see that he had killed 3 and injured 23 more. What still nags me, however, is what drove him to become a domestic terrorist? Why did he quit his job at Berkley to live in a cabin and make bombs? I suppose I will never know, but after finishing, I was glad to stand up, grab my things, and disembark from the plane.
What Birkerts and Kaczynski differ on, however, is the way in which they wish to accomplish and maintain their anti-technological revolutions. While Birkerts believes that stopping cold turkey is the best solution, Kaczynski says that in order to maintain the movement, technology must be used—primarily for communicative purposes—to a small extent. Either way, both believe that their ideas will be influential, and will bring a stop to the widespread usage of technology.
Towards the end of the manifesto, I was intrigued to look at the Unabomber's Wikipedia page. What I found shocked me. Born in '92, I was maybe 2 during the height of the bombings, and up until today, except for the occasional mention of his name, I had no idea who the Unabomber was, what his/her motives were, or how many people he/she had killed. So, looking through the paragraphs, I was shocked to see that he had killed 3 and injured 23 more. What still nags me, however, is what drove him to become a domestic terrorist? Why did he quit his job at Berkley to live in a cabin and make bombs? I suppose I will never know, but after finishing, I was glad to stand up, grab my things, and disembark from the plane.
March 02, 2011
Pitfalls of an Internet Dependent Society
What do we, or rather I, use the Internet for? I don't know how many times I've answered this question already, but once more shouldn't hurt. Aside from looking up class assignments, I utilize the Internet for just about everything: reading news updates off of MSN, watching videos from YouTube or Hulu, and browsing through Facebook—if you recall from my post "How much Facebook is too Much?," I almost always have a browser tab dedicated to the site. So, it's safe to say that I am an Internet junkie, and as a consequence, my laptop is rarely more than a few feet away. Instead of reanalyzing the symptoms of my Internet addiction as I have done in past posts, however, I think it might be interesting to subject them to the critical ideas of Sven Birkerts.
Birkerts, an essayist widely known for writing The Gutenberg Elegies, is, as Scott Stossel describes in an Atlantic Online conference, a technophobe. He doesn't own or use a computer, and certainly doesn't plan on it during his lifetime. In fact, he scorns the use of electronics altogether, stating "[cell phones, television, and computers threaten] to swamp us in an element of connectedness." While we, the members of the current generation, clearly enjoy the creativity and mobility that the Internet and other technological devices offer, it is obvious that Birkerts doesn't share our enthusiasm. But why? To cite another of Birkert's articles, "Into the Electronic Millennium," there are three ramifications —the erosion of language, the flattening of historical perspectives, and the waning of the private self—that he believes will emerge during the development of the "'proto-electronic' era," all of which seem to hinge on the replacement of written text by online media. Yet only his first idea can be seen as a critical judgment of our Internet dependent lives.
While we will not literally see an end to the spoken English language, Birkerts claims that increased usage of the Internet will encourage users to develop a sort of "'plainspeak.'" In cases such as this, it is suggested that syntactical elements such as wit-fast and ambiguity will be replaced by "simple linguistic pre-fab." This is what he describes as the erosion of language. In any case, it is unfortunately an accurate assault on my Internet addiction, because I often use simple sentences when typing having a conversation online. But, after all, this is because the speed at which you type literally determines whether or not your idea is heard or rather seen by the other person. So, the more easily you can sum up your ideas in a smaller sentence, the easier it will be to rapidly convey them to the other person. On the contrary, this "'plainspeak'" only stays within the boundaries of social networking sites, while in other places (here, for example) I continue to use the traditional English language, still full of imagery and irony.
So, although Sven Birkert's idea of the erosion of language strongly criticizes my use of the Internet, it is clear that I have managed to keep separate the domains in which I use "'plainspeak'" and regular English. I believe that this is the most important way to keep the erosion that Birkerts speaks of to a minimum. Yet, with the continual development of technology, who knows how long this simple precautionary measure will hold? When technological innovation ultimately destroy society?
Works Cited:
Birkerts, an essayist widely known for writing The Gutenberg Elegies, is, as Scott Stossel describes in an Atlantic Online conference, a technophobe. He doesn't own or use a computer, and certainly doesn't plan on it during his lifetime. In fact, he scorns the use of electronics altogether, stating "[cell phones, television, and computers threaten] to swamp us in an element of connectedness." While we, the members of the current generation, clearly enjoy the creativity and mobility that the Internet and other technological devices offer, it is obvious that Birkerts doesn't share our enthusiasm. But why? To cite another of Birkert's articles, "Into the Electronic Millennium," there are three ramifications —the erosion of language, the flattening of historical perspectives, and the waning of the private self—that he believes will emerge during the development of the "'proto-electronic' era," all of which seem to hinge on the replacement of written text by online media. Yet only his first idea can be seen as a critical judgment of our Internet dependent lives.
While we will not literally see an end to the spoken English language, Birkerts claims that increased usage of the Internet will encourage users to develop a sort of "'plainspeak.'" In cases such as this, it is suggested that syntactical elements such as wit-fast and ambiguity will be replaced by "simple linguistic pre-fab." This is what he describes as the erosion of language. In any case, it is unfortunately an accurate assault on my Internet addiction, because I often use simple sentences when typing having a conversation online. But, after all, this is because the speed at which you type literally determines whether or not your idea is heard or rather seen by the other person. So, the more easily you can sum up your ideas in a smaller sentence, the easier it will be to rapidly convey them to the other person. On the contrary, this "'plainspeak'" only stays within the boundaries of social networking sites, while in other places (here, for example) I continue to use the traditional English language, still full of imagery and irony.
So, although Sven Birkert's idea of the erosion of language strongly criticizes my use of the Internet, it is clear that I have managed to keep separate the domains in which I use "'plainspeak'" and regular English. I believe that this is the most important way to keep the erosion that Birkerts speaks of to a minimum. Yet, with the continual development of technology, who knows how long this simple precautionary measure will hold? When technological innovation ultimately destroy society?
Works Cited:
- Birkerts, Sven. "Into the Electronic Millennium." Boston Review Oct. 1991. Boston Review: A Political and Literary Forum. Boston Review, 1993. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. <http://bostonreview.net/BR16.5/birkerts.html>.
- Stossel, Scott. "Is Cyberspace Destroying Society?" The Atlantic Online. The Atlantic Monthly, 30 May 1995. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. <http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/aandc/trnscrpt/birkerts.htm>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)