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.
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
March 30, 2011
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)