Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Deep Ecology
Read the handout from the book Deep Ecology. Now apply the questions it asks of technology to TV. Based on Postman's analysis in Amusing Ourselves. . . and your own experience, does TV meet the criteria for a "fully informed, appropriate technology"? Please post your comments (which should be proofread before posting; sloppy writing is simply unacceptable) by noon, Wednesday, Sept. 29.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I need everyone who hasn't done so yet to please do two things (which I requested in a reasonable tone of voice several times in the past):
1) Become followers of this blog, and
2) Declare his or her topic for the Wiki assignment, which gets seriously underway next week
(Oh, and if you've been missing a lot of class, I'd appreciate knowing where you've been. . .)
In terms of television I think that it does serve a purpose, which is mainly to entertain. I feel television is the kind of technology that anyone can understand and operate from a young age. I can’t remember the last time I turned on the T.V. to learn something. For the most part I see it as a relaxation outlet. It requires very little thinking and can be damaging if abused, which many people do.
I have seen people who are able to relate to one another due to a common television show or some families have times where they sit together to watch certain programs. I like that it can bring people together who may not have much in common. However, like I said before too much television can be damaging. While watching T.V. there is no thinking or processing of information. Television, for some is used to unwind after a long day or it may used to keep those from being bored.
I do not think television is “fully informed technology.” How can one be an individual when their trying to look like their favorite character on Gossip Girl. Then when you think about it, how many other people are striving to be just like someone they saw on T.V.
Before I realized how much trash was on T.V. I was one of many who preferred to sit in front of a box rather then read or do something productive with myself. At one point I thought the news was at least one thing that gave valuable information. What I have come to realize it’s just another form of entertainment. There are so many who believe what their told because someone on T.V. said it, therefore it must be right. Those who are smarter know that they must do their research in order to find the truth. This device does encourage people to behave like machines. I know people who have their T.V. set on the whole time their home, or people who have to be home at a certain time to watch a particular show. If you look closely its almost as if T.V. has imaginable ball and chain around everyone’s ankles. Regardless of how far you get, it always brings you back.
When reading the Deep Ecology passage, I kept thinking about Facebook. It is a new form of technology that can easily be judged by the seven principles listed in the passage. After rereading the original blog post, however, I realized I needed to alter my perspective.
The seven principles touch on many different aspects. All I feel lead to the question of whether technology is forced or voluntary. From there, I also feel like technology's validity is questioned. When TV is judged by these criteria, I think that overall it is a positive aspect of technology. While it does not serve vital needs, it is a good source of information. It is simple and can easily be understood by nonexperts as number 2 questions.
The rest of the questions are funny; they all really depend on a person's point of view and are determined by what extent people allow TV to influence them. I, personally, do not watch a lot of TV. I do not take it too seriously, but I admit, when I do watch the news, I don't usually question it; I often take it for what it is. There are times that I cringe and wonder why something is being reported on, but more often than not, I just take the information I'm given as true. I do feel like I have many outlets though, where the news is reported in different ways. Although the message is usually the same, some stations go into further depth than others. For this reason, TV definitely imposes a "centralized authority." People don't usually go out of their way to test the credibility of a story. It doesn't, by any means, enhance the individuality of persons.
Initially, I don't believe TV causes people to think like machines. I'm afraid that this may be due to the optimist in me. On a deeper level, TV does program us to think a certain way, and sometimes revolve our schedules around show times. It's embarrassing that TV often succeeds in doing so. Although TV is a good source to learn information from, it is flawed in the sense that what is being broadcasted is decided on by a person. All news is subjective; the TV reinforces that idea, especially when judged by the criteria in Deep Ecology.
Whether or not television serves a vital need is debatable. On the one hand, it could potentially be used in an emergency to alert the public (at least those watching television). However, I, like Postman, would say that it overall just provides us with a bunch of garbage entertainment.
I believe the second question is, for television, one of particular importance and relates to several of the other questions. Any "nonexpert" can turn on and watch a television, but only the people who own television broadcasting equipment and government permits can actually broadcast into other peoples' homes, which means that the conversation taking place is entirely one-sided. Because the same few people own all of the equipment and the permits, we are all exposed to the same things, which means that we are all dependent on the "centralized authority" of those who decide what we see and hear. Also, the "contextless" information that we are bombarded with is definitely causing us to think like machines. I knew one guy in high school who could barely speak unless everything he said was quoted from Dane Cook, and I don't think that is entirely uncommon.
Modern technology is extremely destructive to the environment. I read an article (I forget where) about this one city in China where televisions and computers are sent to be "recycled." The effect of this is that the city is now full of piles of broken computer parts, many people there survive by scavenging copper and other valuable metal components and the polluted water is too acidic to drink. While we may not be experiencing the ecological devastation of this technology in our own communities yet, it is happening.
So no, I would not say that TV meets the criteria for a "fully informed, appropriate technology." I think that the internet does have the potential to better inform people, especially if we can revert the way we think to a pre-television state and use the internet for information instead of entertainment. The use of computers will continue to have a negative impact on the environment until we can figure out a better way to dispose of waste, but if these technologies are to have any use at all I think that is necessary.
TV is great for lazily, wasting away a couple of hours or for giving you something to do while you eat. It's something you learn to use without ever really being consciously aware that you are learning to use it. I don't think you can possibly call it a "fully informed appropriate technology." It it too easy to abuse. It is too easy to veg out for hours and hours and hours on end. It is extremely easy to never watch any programming with any shred of substance.
You'd have much better luck trying to stay abreast of current events by say reading the Post than watching TV news (especially judging from that clip you showed us). Everything on TV is trying to grab your attention so that you won't change the channel. There are scroll bars and sound effects to the point where sometimes a political debate can seem like an NFL game.
TV makes everyone a bit drone-like. We rush home to catch our favorite shows and watercooler talk to filled with speculations about next week's episode and critiques of so and so's actions the week before. We get to know and talk about television characters as much as the real people in our lives.
I don't think the Internet is much better. There is even more shit to sift through and now the flow of information depends solely on the user? At least on TV there are big, intrusive, "we interrupt your regularly scheduled programming" kind of news breaks. Not a chance that most people are getting into what is important on the Internet. Probably just catch up on their favorite TV shows.
When I answered those seven questions regarding television, I found that although there are an uneven number of questions, I felt a little split until I looked further. Although I do not personally feel that television serves as a vital need, it can in fact reach the masses, and be immediately understood by non-experts, as the article states.
The last four questions I answered a definite “yes” to, and these questions seem to be the most important and emphasizes technology and in this case television’s detrimental effect on society. Television does in fact help lead to bureaucratic hierarchies. It hinders imagination and individualism because everyone is being exposed to the same thing, but are not fully informed. Those who run the television and media are the ones deciding what and how much information they will relay to the public. Due to the lack of individuality, the audiences really end up becoming a slave to this technology. Televisions are seen in almost every room of some homes, some are on from the moment a child come home from school, or a person comes home from work, and do not get shut off until after they turn in for the night.
It is a little difficult to determine whether or not television is an “appropriate technology,” because there are some extremely harmful effects, but at the same time it has given us opportunities to see things we never would. We were able to see man walk on the moon, presidential speeches and debates and other important events that have shaped history. But on the other hand, when television replaces thoughtful and quality conversation or even family time and whole lives are based on what this box says, and takes everything the personalities on it say for truth, then we as society have a major problem.
Like Pierce and Melissa said, television serves a purpose: entertainment. Is t.v. a "fully informed, appropriate technology" that will educate the public on important issues? No. People do not need television-which answers the question raised in Deep Ecology "Does this technological device serve vital needs?" I think it's safe to say that one could never watch television and not miss anything important or newsworthy (provided they have access to newspapers and/or the internet). Television serves to satisfy people's cravings for salacious gossip, sex, crime and humor. It's instant gratification. Informed decisions are made by reading and digesting material--something that can't be done when you're staring at a t.v. screen and the show keeps rolling.
It's a shame that t.v. isn't more informative. It reaches so many on a daily basis that if it were used in the way Postman suggests it should, pop culture, gossip, and crude humor wouldn't take precedence over issues that directly affect the quality of our lives.
In reference to Deep Ecology's question of individuality, t.v., as a whole, definitely does not encourage any kind of uniqueness in individuals. As Melissa said, people are striving to be the people and characters they see on t.v. People have been aiming not only to look like their favorite t.v. stars (such as the 1990s phenomenon of the "Rachel" haircut Jennifer Aniston sported on Friends) but have tricked themselves into thinking they need the lifestyles they lead. It is the desire for and mistaken notion that being rich in material possessions and status will make quality of life better. The truth is that just being informed is the best way to improve quality of life.
I just realized, was this blog post due yesterday (which was the 29th) or on Wednesday (today by noon)?
But anyway, when man created the television, its original purpose was intended for people to stay informed of current news and events happening all over the world. Somewhere along the line, information evolved into irrelevant misinformation (Postman, 107).
Postman suggested that people are losing their sense of what is means to me well informed and that we get by on being entertained by ignorance. I remember a time when people would anticipate watching television for the latest news in order to stay informed and alert. Now, people turn on their TVs to catch the season premiere of The Hills. Television can be a fully informative medium that people can benefit from. The sad news is that people choose to abuse its purpose and technology.
This leads into how the news is defined and presented to the public. It's amazing how viewers can be more focused at how the news reporter or anchor is appealing to them instead of the news that s/he may be delivering (101). In addition to being likable and credible, the reporter also has to be amusing and entertaining on top of presenting information to the public.
Television has and had the potential to serve conducive needs of communication and create some type of emotions for people. It can be destructive when they watch programs that either hinder or disturb their individual thinking. The challenge of TV's ecology is that people aren't disciplined enough to find meanings or substance in the programs that they watch.
Another sad fact is that I know people who plan into their planners what time their favorite shows and place a higher priority on that instead of a class assignment. Just like people can be socialized into making television and the internet a necessity, we can also be socialized into making such technology as a positive tool of information.
I’m really glad that Deep Ecology is so clear and concise. It seems like it was written specifically to denounce the TV. Many people seem to worship the TV, and refuse to see it for what it really is. These same people will be skeptical of other, less evil technologies such as Video Games and IM, which are evil is some ways but have much more in common with Deep Ecology than TV does. It is obvious that TV serves no vital needs. “You don’t need the weatherman to tell which way the wind blows.” IM, you could say, serves as another form of communication, and communication is a vital need.
I do not think anyone who isn’t a TV expert would be able to fix, or tell me exactly how a TV works. There is absolutely no flexibility in TV. It is a one way tube that Americans have defiantly been forever imprinted by. They have been made to only accept what the TV finds acceptable to broadcast, and have dumbed themselves down in order to stay entertained. This would be the “authority” that Deep Ecology refers to. The nature of show business decides how people think in the television universe. The TV eliminates all autonomy in our society, which I believe is the most dangerous part or it. Postman makes this clear by pointing out that everyone had an opinion about Iran, but no one really knew the basic facts about the place. They didn’t think they had to look it up, because they trusted the TV to tell them what was important.
The TV does not encourage individuality, but indeed leads to bureaucratic hierarchies where the network executive is on the top, and anything he says can be fed to the viewers. The TV does encourage people to think and act like machines. Wake up, turn the TV on, come home, turn the TV on, go to sleep, ect… This is what I would do as well, without even realizing that it sucks.
So, it is clear, according to Deep Ecology, we should probably remove the TV from America. As Postman says, there is no conspiracy that makes the TV so evil, it is just the nature of the medium.
After reading the excerpt from Deep Ecology and applying the questions to television, I would say that television is not a "fully informed, appropriate technology." However, there are some aspects of television that are. Television allows viewers to see presidential speeches and to be warned about potential dangers like floods or attacks. While it is good that the president can reach the masses from their television set to address the state of the union, what we don't need is the analysis of what he was wearing. Postman addresses this when he talks about the 1984 presidential debates in which the men were trying to make a good impression visually rather than intellectually. "Who KO'd whom? The answer was determined by the 'style' of the men-how they looked, fixed their gaze, smiled, and delivered one-liners" (97).
Some of the other questions that were posed also made me think that television is detrimental to society. The last question asks if the technology makes people think like machines. This is also addressed by Postman in his "now...this" chapter. When we watch the news on television we are not given time to process what has happened or think critically about it, instead it is replaced on screen by another unrelated story causing us to forget whatever we had just seen. This is not the way the brain works in which thoughts are a stream of conscious that are usually related to one another and don't quickly jump from one thing to the next in a flash.
While I don't think that the television is a complete waste of time that is destroying our society, I can understand the arguments that if one doesn't balance their in take of "junk" on television with actual useful information then our society might indeed end up like the world in "Idiocracy."
(Bah, sorry for last minute, my computer died, unbeknown to me, before it finished the post)
Devall and Session's criteria of a "fully informed, appropriate technology", as applied to Postman's analysis of television as a system, shows humanity falling very short of an intellectual "meeting ground of ethics, politics, mechanical understanding and deep ecological consciousness", again, according to the criteria. Does television serve a vital need? I would say if the technology was the Internet, one can argue that they "need" to stay connected and informed. However, it has been disproved, by myself and countless others, that you will not, I repeat, will not perish if away from the television set for more than 24 hours. Shocking I know. Is television user friendly? I don't think "they" could make it any easier for anyone to use a television. And there is programming even for your pets now-a-days.
The third criteria, "...impose a permanent, rigid, irreversible imprint on the lives of citizens?" brought to mind Rupert Murdoch owningMySpace , and the fact that a person's pictures are owned permanently by him, even if an account is deleted. Again, the threat is higher if applied to technology up to date, not just Postman's television.
The fifth criteria touches on the idea of deep ecology, in which human and non-human are equal in value. As opposed to the idea that humankind is destroying the earth, deep ecology describes humans as being a very important and integral part of environment. To ask the question, "Does this device or system encourage people to behave and think like machines?" after reading about deep ecology brings to mind a futuristic sci-fi world in which robots and humans are interchangeable and a clone/drone army starts an uprising. And then the planet explodes. Also see, the movie Wall-E.
Taking Postman's view, as well as a personal one, of course television does not meet the criteria of a "fully informed, appropriate technology". What's scary is that the majority of the population gets their information from this technology that they unknowingly think is totally appropriate.
i just wanted to say that those of you who answered the question have, almost to a person, done an outstanding job. these are probably the most thoughtful and incisive responses i've ever received to a blog post. thanks -- i needed that!
TV. Does it serve as a vital technological need? I don’t think it’s necessarily vital. I believe that people need a source of information to go to. People need to be able to know if there’s a flood in their neighborhood so they can escape or if there’s been a mass killing spree in the area and they should be wary of scary individuals creeping around the neighborhood. People need access to THAT kind of information. But the radio or the internet could be used to serve that purpose, we don’t NEED TV.
Yes, it is a device that can be used by really anyone. We’re raised on it, and even if we weren’t, it’s easy enough to figure out. It’s also, like many other products, marketed for idiots. They know what people want to see, entertainment, and that’s what their job is. By they, I mean the group of people in charge of what goes on our television sets.
I think the third question really changes per person because I think that it can be flexible for a lot of people who don’t depend on it and only use it when they want certain information but it can cause an imprint on certain people’s lives that are dependent on TV to get through the day. If they base their whole persona on someone they see on the screen then yes, TV has made a permanent imprint on that one person.
Of course TV can be destructive. To people as a whole or ecologically. Too much of anything is bad for you, it’s proven in the obesity studies, the lung cancer studies, etc., etc.
I definitely believe that TV encourages people to behave and think like machines. As a few people have previously mentioned viewers are too busy trying to become the characters that they love to have any individuality about them. When you’re young, you’re becoming the person that you’re going to be, and the influence of TV takes a huge role. It tells everyone what’s cool and what’s not. This rules out any form of individuality and without that, everything becomes a little bit more monotanous and boring. Everyone starts acting like each other to not be seen as “the weird kid,” and to fit in. So yes, I do believe it trains us to think and act like machines.
I believe that television was once used as a useful means of communication for IMPORTANT information. It was seen as a faster way to communicate to the general public about current events and things that are happening locally. People became too comfortable and saw it as an outlet to entertain people. I do think people can learn from the stuff that is put on television rather than just absorbing all the junk.
As for it being fully informed technology I think it depends on how one views it. You can either see it as it not being fully informed technology because of the nonsense that is being put on for rating purposes. The media puts on whatever society asks for and people build their lifestyles around what's on TV and believe that they are being fully informed through this medium. As Postman highlights, television is too trusting in society and in turn, no one actually finds out the truth or does any concrete research about different topics.
This can also be viewed as fully informed technology because this is something that people, like ourselves, look at and become stimulated by it. We begin to view things differently and research what is actually going on. The media is informing the public in all the wrong ways. Look at the Chelsea Lately & David Letterman shows. We look at this and become "fully informed" in different ways. This reminds me of thinking out of the box and we become informed by thinking out of the box and learning in our own way by becoming apart of the change.
For the majority who allow the change, which is rapidly taking over the culture and mind of society, to become apart of them, television is a fully informed technology. For them it's just entertainment and anything that is actually "fully informed" is boring and that is why society has altered it's original purpose behind broadcast.
After reading Deep Ecology, I have to say that television is not being used very well. Television now more than ever is just a way to distract people more than to inform people. The television and the original reason why it was created is a revolutionary idea. Being able to find out things that are going on around you and through one source is an amazing idea, however television, I feel, does the complete opposite now and days. THe things they put on television today are not helpful to people's lives in any way. Sitting in my colleges today, I could argue that at least 50% of the class is more "entertained" by television than "informed." Postman I believe is correct when he says that Americans are the most entertained and the least informed. Although the intentions the inventors of television had were great and seemed almost brilliant to some, it has turned into one of the biggest flops in history. Rather than sit and watch the evening news or debates or anything that television was "made to do," teenagers would rather watch Gossip Girl or The Office over dealing with things that actually pertain to their life.
I feel as if television could meet the terms for the deep ecology passage, but it currently does not. As many people have said in class and as Postman believes, one needs to take television with a grain of salt and realize as of now it if for entertainment purposes.
As Nicole states in her post, it can be a useful tool to get information to the masses and to people who wouldn't normally read a newspaper or magazine. Though what needs to stop is what Postman calls his "Now... this" theory. Information is not explained in it's full extent for everyone to understand government policies and world happenings. Like we discussed in class, it is left to the people to go and research further. How many people are actually going to do that?
As of now, television is for entertainment. Sadly, not everyone realizes this. However, if changes were made, it could be turned into a fully functioning tool. Though, doe to the loss of money that would entail, will never happen.
Post a Comment