How would you relate deep ecology's questions (see handout) to the Internet? How about Postman's from the PBS interview? What is the key difference between their critique and Powers, if any?Do you agree with one or the other or all or none?
Your response is due by Wed., Oct. 10, at 4 p.m.
A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both. -- James Madison
“When a dog bites a
man that is not news,
because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a
dog, that is news.”
- Editor John B. Bogart, New York Sun
man that is not news,
because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a
dog, that is news.”
- Editor John B. Bogart, New York Sun
About Me
Followers
forthcoming
- "A Newspaper Is a Collection" (poem)
- "News Today" (music video)
- 20th Century Man
- A Walk Back Through a Day's New
- BBC Facebook Parody
- Breaking News
- Bullshit
- Citizen Journalism -- What Is It?
- Civil Rights Movement
- Class Project: Media Parody
- CNN War (music video)
- Colbert versus Keen
- Dead!
- Dirty Laundry (Remix)
- Electronic Book Burning
- F the CC (music video)
- FCCFU
- Future of Book Publishing
- Internet Art!
- Interview With Andrew Keen
- Journalism Back in the Day (short movie)
- Journalism?
- Locus Novus
- Logorama (short film)
- Monoculture
- Murrow Broadcast From London
- Neil Postman on Cyberspace (YouTube)
- New York Times Home Page
- Newsboys
- Newsboys Shooting Craps
- Newsies
- NPR (Your Brain on Computers)
- Penn & Teller on Marketplace of Ideas
- Penn & Teller's FCC
- Perez Hilton
- Postman Comic: Orwell vs Huxley
- Reconstruction of American Journalism
- See It Now
- Story of Electronics
- Story of Stuff
- The Yellow Kid
- Turkel
- Video Game Faces
- Whackamurdoch
- Who Owns the Media?
- Who Owns the Web?
- World of Blogging (music video)
17 comments:
Both Postman and the Deep Ecology questions seem to put more of the onus of technological overload on the internet and the technological industries themselves rather on the people. Even though Postman encourages critical thinking about your information consumption and how to change it, the overall tone of both pieces seem to be rather negative.
What I liked about Power's approach in the first section of his book was that he didn't go on some accusatory rant. He made a clear and calm argument about how technology and the internet can be good in lots of ways, we just need to take a step back every once in a while to process all that information or just to simply take a break.
Instead of focusing on the mass media and private companies, subjects I have no control over, he talked about the individual and how we have to change if we don't want to feel overcome by interconnected busyness. This felt really positive because it's something the everyday person can at least attempt to do. Today's forms of media often leave the average consumer feeling impotent, but Powers' is trying to give us back some of the personal influence we once had in our day to day lives.
Deep ecology stresses the importance of human beings interacting in order to maintain a well balanced society. Postman believes that we have abandoned this instinctual quality, lured away by the bright lights of technology and advertising. Postman sees our current society on a distracted downward spiral that was brought on by an information overload. He is right in some ways, but i don't think it is as extreme as he makes it seem. Powers explains that disconnecting is the key component because deep ecology is necessary, but the internet is not the problem rather the way it is used or abused. People take in and take in and take in but never for a moment sit and digest the information. If you were to do this with food you would throw up. It is a gluttonous way of living that has been programmed into the American citizen/consumer. If people were to limit the amount of time they sat in front of screens there would absolutely be some sort of stronger self realization from not just giving up their conscious state to a screen for 7 hours a day.
The Deep Ecology questions focus on systemic effects of technology while Postman's questions ask the user to analyze how the technology impacts them personally. Though Powers also asks us to step back and think about how the technology forces us to change our lives, I think a key difference in his reading is the context he provides. Though the Internet is difficult to compare to other technologies in the past, Powers gives us examples of how famous writers and intellectuals curbed their technology overload. He argues that technology in this time period is necessary for one's career but also makes it clear that taking a break or stepping back to think about your interaction with it can be a viable option, while Postman and the Deep Ecology questions don't propose this suggestion. Powers seems to be more optimistic that people can learn to ease their obsession with technology. I don't see that optimism with Postman. Powers also tells us about his experience as he turns off his modem. This chapter made me want to disconnect too. I think when you read or hear about someone trying to lessen their dependence on technology and they have a positive experience, it becomes more believable that we don't actually need to be connected 24/7. Though Powers' critique is more positive, I think it's important to use Powers, Postman, and the Deep Ecology questions to thoroughly analyze what technology gives us and takes away. Using only one critique doesn't effectively get at all the issues technology presents us with.
Deep ecology has to do with people in a society communicating and interacting with each other. At Postman’s interview from PBS, he talked about how the technology and the Internet cause people to annihilate themselves from the rest of the world. He asks everyone to ask themselves a few questions. The most interesting one to me was, “am I using the Internet, or is the Internet using me?” Postman talked about how there might be problems solved with technology, but was questioning what other problems technology actually caused to us. In Power’s book, he has somewhat of a similar view but varies at some points. He believes in creating “gaps.” He knows that the Internet is taking over, and does not necessarily think it’s a bad thing, but is aware that we need to take breaks from it. He talks about how we are always so busy now with the Internet at our hands 24/7. He gave the example where he was trying to watch and listen to a Jazz video on Youtube, but was unable to keep his mind only on that. He had other tabs up on his screen as well. The main difference between Powers and Postman is that Powers believes that if we are aware of the busyness that the Internet brings, that we can do something about it, whereas Postman does not really think there are any real answers to this problem. I agree with Powers. I think that if we really wanted to take “gaps” and create “depth” that we could, but no one is trying because being so interconnected is what we are all used to.
Deep ecology is concerned with human interactions with the environment and community at large. It believes that separate parts should function as a whole. This relates to this internet by way of taking its separate parts and utilizing them not individually but as a whole. One could look at only the cat videos on the internet and say that the internet is completely useless and only for entertainment. One could also look at the informative side, i.e. news articles and real news that is happening in our world, and how uniting it is to have direct contact with people from other nations and say the internet is purely for education. But what I think we need to do is look at it as a whole and take in all its parts and aspects to say that there are pros and cons of the internet and you cannot judge something so grand and widespread by only looking at half the picture.
As for Postman’s questions about what is the problem to this is the solution, I think there was no problem really. Postman is right. There was no problem to which the internet was solution but that doesn’t mean the internet still isn’t a cool, useful tool to have. Obviously there have been some other problems created by the internet such as internet bullying, wrong information, and the alienation of people and this is all of our problems now as we try to work together and overcome these issues.
I think one of the main differences between Postman and Powers is their tone. To me, Postman came off as very abrasive and condescending while Powers stated his argument calmly and carefully because he knew that saying the internet is dangerous to an audience of internet lovers would be difficult. He himself has the attachment to it and so he understands and likewise approaches the taboo topic with care and concern Postman it seems, just doesn’t care at all. He came off as argumentative like he was trying to pick a fight with the reader, which isn’t the way to go about it at all.
I agree to some extent with all the views. I think that there is an internet problem and I think that all these people are generally saying the same things just in different ways. However, I agree with deep ecology the most in believing that we need to look at the whole picture and not just part of it to really understand.
Deep Ecology is more geared toward the interaction between human beings than Power's argument. The text explains that being social and communicating properly both are key in maintaining harmony in society. This coincides with Postman during his PBS interview when he explained how people create a barrier between themselves and the rest of the world through the use of the Internet. Postman talked a lot about who is doing the using in a human and Internet relationship, which is something I have never considered. I am so compelled all the time to be checking my hundreds of accounts, and in reality it is crazy to think that I could have new messages or emails or tweets or posts from someone when I just checked it two minutes ago! It's a whirlwind of cyber-use, and at some point you really do have to step back and slow down your mind. I found Power's approach to his argument to be more efficient than Postman's, who came off a bit antagonistic. Powers was very methodical and fair. He expressed that while the Internet had its pros, the cons are certainly something we need to address. I also appreciated that he developed a solution: to take breaks and gaps of time away from technology in order to recover a sense of self and peace. He tells us that we are not as dependent on technology as we think - which he discovered in his own personal isolation period from the Internet - and if we just distanced ourselves from it every once in a while we would be more in control than we thought. I do, however, think there is value in all of these studies. Sometimes we need a slap in the face, like Postman provides, in order to really open our eyes to the truth. Coupled with Powers' more positive writings, I definitely think that both writers are effective in their books. I also agree with Deep Ecology when it talks about viewing everything as a big picture, and not just certain parts. When you only look at some parts and not others, you never get the full story.
If you view the internet through the lens of deep ecology,what becomes immediately apparent is that the answers to some of the questions reveal an unpleasant reality. For example:
1. Does this technology device serve vital needs? Yes and no. Rapid communication has become a vital need, however it is only because of the internet that this has become a need. Humanity was able to exit, function, and even flourish before the invention of the internet. It is only because of its existence that we are unable to exist without it.
2. Is this device or system of the sort that can be immediately understood by nonexperts? Yes and no. Yes, the internet is pretty easy to use, but only if you are literate, as in can read, and computer literate, as in can operate the technology already. Ask anyone’s grandmother if the internet is easy to use and chances are they’ll say no.
3. Does it have a high degree of flexibility and mutability or does it impose a permanent, rigid, irreversible imprint on the lives of citizens? I think the effects of the internet are pretty irreversible. Once the internet became universal, it’s pretty hard to go back. It can be hard to get an education or pursue a career without internet literacy and access.
4.Does this technological device or system foster greater autonomy of local communities or greater dependency on some centralized “authority?” Since the public depends on private multinational conglomerates to provide them with internet service, I would agree with the latter statement.
5. Is this device or system ecologically destructive or conducive to a deep ecology way of life?
If we look at all technology from a deep ecology perspective, none is good in an environmentally conscious way because mining precious metals is always ecologically destructive, not to mention the impact on the local communities and their way of life. Plus, the oil needed to make the plastic for the devices-- fossil fuel depletion is not conducive to deep ecology. The factories in China and elsewhere in “developing” or third-world nations are polluting our air, earth and waters with toxic chemicals and fossil fuel combustion, adding to human health problems and global warming. There’s also the socioeconomic impact on the low-paid factory workers who are most often prevented from unionizing, and who breathe in toxic fumes and touch carcinogenic materials. Often these factories use child labor, also. The list goes on. Overall, our technology is wholly unsustainable.
6. Does this device or system enhance the individuality of persons or does it lead to beurocratic hierarchies? I think the internet enhances the individuality of persons, because it can help to educate people to be more aware of what their interests, passions, and dislikes are, so it helps them to self-realize on a higher level.
7.Does this device or system encourage people to behave and think like machines? I am unsure of how to answer this question, but I think the internet is built by humans, and is pretty human-oriented.
(continued: ) The deep ecology model questions are very similar to Postman’s cyberspace interview on PBS. In that interview, he asked the questions, what problems does this technology solve, who does this problem affect, and does this technology create any other problems as a result of its existence? These questions are in the same vein of thought as the deep ecology question, does this technology serve vital needs? The example that comes to mind when considering Postman’s questions is the technology advertisement we watched in class yesterday for the Samsung Galaxy phone, where the new technology the phone offers is to be able to share data by touching your phone to someone else’s with the same model. I don’t think this new technology solves any existing problems. It’s cool, but pretty useless. To transfer data from your phone, you can email it, Facebook it, use Bluetooth to wirelessly transfer it, use a USB cord to manually transfer it, use a memory card, or upload it to a Dropbox application. There are literally dozens of ways to transfer data already. Not to mention there are so many different types of phones, especially Android models, so what are the chances that you will have the same model as someone else to be able to use this feature? Slim to none.
Like William Powers wrote in Hamlet’s Blackberry, on page 72, “If the digital era has taught us anything, it’s that a new technology frequently creates more work than it saves.” I think this is a very true statement. Like the advertisement for the IPhone 5 we watched in class, sure you can use a Starbucks QR code reader application linked presumably to your credit card or bank account to pay for your coffee, but there are so many steps involved in that, it’s actually more difficult than just paying with cash!
Overall, I agree with all of the different models presented for analyzing and critically viewing technology. It’s certainly something to consider when cruising the internet tech blogs for the newest gadgets and devices.
The deep ecology questions and Postman's are similar in nature because they both make us think about our relationship with technology and the effects it has on our lives. In relation to the internet, the answers that the deep ecology questions would reveal are totally depended on the person who answers them. Some may feel that the internet does serve some vital need, or that it does foster greater autonomy. I don't really know how to explain exactly what I mean, but I feel like those questions wouldn't really cause deep reflection. A person could simply answer 'yes' or 'no' to them. I guess it depends on who's answering them, as it may be the same with Postman's questions. The foundation of the deep ecology questions, to me, considers our relationship with the environment and the progressiveness of communities and such.
Postman's questions are more personalized, mainly because of the "am I using this technology or is it using me" question.
As I think about it, both are kind asking the same things. The deep ecology questions are just more elaborate. Both will bring us to the realization that we don't pay enough attention to our relationship with technology and how great that relationship actually is.
I would agree with most that Powers sings a more optimistic tune. While deep ecology and Postman present questions that bring us out of the darkness, so to speak, regarding technology, Powers pretty much tells us that the problem is that these machines are keeping us too busy to where we don't even have time for ourselves. He shows us the actual impact it's having our our lives. Deep ecology, Powers, and Postman all help us better understand or see what's going on with us and technology.
Deep ecology sees the internet as factor of breaking down the way humans interact. It’s like I’ve said before there is no reason to speak to anyone, because you can easily do it over Facebook. The questions that deep ecology ask supports Postman’s ideas about how humans only care about entertainment in relation to the development of technology. In Postman’s interview on PBS, he differentiates communicating between cyberspace and in person. He mentions in cyberspace it can end the sense of community life. To solve this problem, we need to identify it as an issue that we need to break free from. Powers acknowledges this in Hamlet’s Blackberry. He states in a blunt but rational way that we spend a good amount of time staring into screens. Unlike Postman and the deep ecology questions, I feel that Powers is giving the human race hope that as long as we are aware, we can change our habits. I feel like I am more gravitated towards Powers because of the hope, unlike Postman that thinks we are doomed.
The questions Postman, Powers, and the Deep Ecology reading all ask have different tones but can yield similar answers, and I agree with each of them to an extent. Postman slaps the reader in the face with a condescending, we-are-doomed style in “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” and the questions he asks in his interview reflect the questions in his book. Powers is easier to relate to, as he admits he is just as much of a slave to technology as the rest of us, but gives hope that we can end our codependency on technology, even if temporary. Deep Ecology questions our relationship with technology, and I found it to be reminiscent of Postman’s questions. The answers for the questions on Deep Ecology and Postman’s interview are pretty similar. For example, I’ll try comparing “Does this technological device serve vital needs?” and “What is the problem to which this technology is the solution?” A possible answer for the two is: This technology is a solution to a self-created problem, as people have convinced themselves the internet serves their vital needs of rapid communication and instantaneous responses. However, these needs only exist because the internet exists, and humankind was doing just fine until the internet was created.
I find myself agreeing with Powers the most, and the questions Deep Ecology asks as well. Powers is more sympathetic to his audience, and I think that is because he himself struggles with the problems he describes. Postman, on the other hand, truly practices what he preaches. That is not always the way to get an audience to identify with you though. Either way, Postman’s aim is to inform, while Powers’ is to inform and entertain to an extent, somewhat proving Postman’s point.
Deep ecology is how humans in a society interact and communicate with one another. More specifically, the deep ecology questions focus on how technology has effects on our lives and our culture. Postman proposes a few questions in his PBS special about technology and what it has done for us. One of the questions that mainly stuck out to me was when he asked, “Am I using technology or is it using me?” This question stuck with me because Postman just sees our society becoming more and more dependent on the advances in technology, that we can’t even think or do anything for ourselves anymore. In the beginning of Power’s book he states that technology can be beneficial if we learn to use it the correct way. Rather than take in a crazy amount of information all at once, actually sit back to process and understand everything. Power’s has a more positive outlook for us as a society saying that we can basically change our ways if we realize what technology is doing to us. Overall, Postman and Powers basically have the same views and feelings at the technological advancements, there is just more hope for us from Powers.
Deep Ecology emphasizes how our relationship to technology impacts our ability to relate to each other, and how necessarily that human-to-human contact is to the well-being of the community and society. Whereas, Postman's PBS interview focuses on our relationship with technology and how this bargaining with technology can change us in the most fundamental ways. He asks three questions which are: 1. What are the moral implications of this bargain? 2. Are the consequences more or less human? 3. Do we as a society, gain more than we lose, or do we lose more than we gain? The questioning of whether technology serves to make us more or less human is extremely important. Many people believe that the internet makes us closer and more empathetic because we are exposed to more news, but I would disagree with this (and I think Powers and Postman would too). We have become desensitized and disillusioned due to the fragmented and excessive amount of information we receive. I think asking these questions are extremely important because people should be aware, not only of how the technology they use daily affects them, but they should also be self-aware. Unlike Postman whose argument is quite bleak, Powers' Hamlet's Blackberry is more positive. He knows that it is nearly impossible to completely unplug because of how inextricably linked to our “screens.” Yes, technology amplifies how busy we are, but it also provides many of us with our fiscal well-being. I'd like to thin that all of these argument have their rightful place in the discussion on technology. Technology absolutely affects they way we connect to other people, mostly because it provides the illusion of proximity while being the poster child for distance. We have to question how technology enables and disables our ability to connect with other humans while also questioning what our personal relationships to technology say about us. Postman may be more bleak than Powers, but both their arguments are valid and have a place in the technology discussion.
First of all, I would say that Devall and Sessions' opinion has more in common with Power's view of technology than Postman's, at least in a very general way. Although Powers focuses on media, as opposed to his critique encompassing all of modern technology, one can surmise that his opinion of modern technology in general is as negative as his opinion of the specific technologies he comments on. His beef is not really with technology in itself, but the resulting effects technology has on society. Since he seems to holistically reject modern society, one can assume that he rejects all of modern technology, either because it is a product of a society deranged by modern media, or that other modern technologies are part of the same destructive influence ON society.
So, whereas Postman misanthropically rejects ALL modern technology and probably spends most of his time squatting in a cave somewhere, both Powers and Devall and Sessions have a more moderate view (though, it is important to point out, in a society where “the assumption that ‘technology will solve all problems’ is so deeply held,” ANY rejection of technology is considered extreme). Powers seems to think that modern media, emblemized by the “screens,” can actually enrich existing social connections. He believes that modern technology can actually be positive, as long as one is able to pick and choose the type of technology that one buys and absorbs.
Powers focus is less holistic and intellectual than Postman’s, and more focused on emotional connections as opposed to the larger, more abstract and decidedly less fuzzy issue of the “social discourse.” His issue is with form also (since the things he really focuses on are communication devices, and any issue he has with content would either be an issue with modern social discourse, which he doesn’t delve into, or with his Mom), but he believes that the only problem with the form is that is it over-present. He believes that the manner in which people communicate is basically the same, just that there is too much of it. He believes that picking and choosing when one wants to communicate will free us from the negative aspects of modern communication technology. I personally think that, at least at the point in the book where I’m at, Powers isn’t asking deep or astute enough questions, and his book is telling us things we already know.
I found the brief reading on Deep Ecology, which seemed to me to be a sort of treatise, to be a lot more thought-provoking. Like Powers, it doesn’t fully reject modern technology. As they point out, they are not against technological progress because it is technological progress; they simply believe that most of the technology is progressing in the wrong direction. Like Powers, it wants to pick and choose. However, it is important to point out that the Deep Ecology reading is a criticism of ALL modern technology, unlike Postman’s criticisms (on media) or Powers’ (on communication technology), and that, if we applied the listed questions to the subjects of either Powers’ or Postman’s criticisms, Deep Ecology would probably reject most of them.
However, I feel that Deep Ecology might not totally reject the internet. If we look at the questions that are to be asked, the internet (at least in it’s pre-corporate form) seems to respond to several of them the right way. The internet of 1999 fostered greater autonomy of local communities, for instance. It did this by allowing anyone on earth to have access to the larger information source ever created or envisioned. In 1999, the information was organized in an egalitarian manner, not giving more credence to a particular piece of information than another, except for that piece of information’s popularity on a search engine. Anyone on earth could access this egalitarian ally-organized information and do what they wanted with it. They did not have to rely on a governmental education system to tell them how to think, or to be limited in their knowledge by purchasing power. The internet was de-centralized, and power was given to people through the knowledge they were able to access.
If you believe in the theories of the free marketplace of ideas, that is.
I also believe that, if used correctly, the internet can ameliorate the downward trajectory of the environment (but a large part of this is because it makes humans stay at home more often, not a good thing in general) and can deconstruct “bureaucratic hierarchies.” However, I believe that the internet DOES get a definite F- on the last (and I believe most important) question, whether the device or system “encourages people to behave and think like machines.” I think the internet demands this. It takes the focus away from the holistic form of a human, completely disregarding the body, and instead demands that humans use a very small part of their cranium. Creativity is encouraged only within narrow bounds, spirituality is completely disregarded, human interaction is limited and directly experiencing things dies off. The end product? A machine with skin. This thought scares me a lot.
All in all, I believe that the part of the Powers I’ve read is fluff, Postman is deeply interesting and mostly right, and that the Deep Ecology reading asks ALL the right questions. Deep Ecology/Primitivism is always something I've been interested in and probably have not read enough about.
Post a Comment