Read the handout from the book Deep Ecology. Now apply the questions it asks of technology to screen -- TV, laptops, portables, etc. Based on Postman's analysis in Amusing Ourselves. . . and your own experience, do screen media meet the criteria for a "fully
informed, appropriate technology"? Please post your comments before midnight this coming Sunday.
FYI:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/technology/personaltech/ignore-the-looks-and-embrace-the-phablet.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/02/28/283523473/a-smartphone-that-tries-to-slip-you-off-the-grid
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)
24 comments:
When it comes to T.V media the questions listed in the handout can truly distinguish whether it is a harmful thing to society or actually beneficial. T.V is something that does not serve a vital need for any human universally. Instead it is just a form of entertainment. Although T.V is something that can immediately be understood by non-experts, in today’s day and age certain beneficial features may be not as easily accessible. As for question 3 I believe that T.V does impose a permanent, rigid, irreversible, imprint on the lives of citizens. I believe that it just continuously feeds a template over and over of how we look at the world around us. Certain things mentioned on the news for instance are pointless. In terms of question 4 I believe that T.V fosters both localized communities as well as the centralized federal government in different ways. T.V is something I believe is ecologically destructive only if used in the wrong way. Otherwise I believe it can be used to portray information of the ways of living a deep ecology way of life. In my opinion T.V does not enhance individuality in ant way unless that person is the one creating the content. Otherwise bureaucratic hierarchies are the ones primarily benefiting from T.V culture. And lastly for question 7 I do believe slowly but surely T.V has become something that has encouraged people to behave and think like machines in certain aspects.
If Postman were to shed light into these questions on T.V I would think he would agree that T.V does not serve as a fully informed, appropriate technology. Postman believes that the written word has more meaning than the image that is being portrayed on screen. In my opinion I believe that T.V these days is not nearly as informative at it was when I was growing up. Most programs do not have true meaning and do not invite viewers to enhance their individuality. Overall I believe T.V is becoming a primarily money driving and government driven business to entertain citizens in subliminal ways that might seem otherwise normal.
Let’s apply some of the questions of technology to screen media. TVs and laptops don’t serve vital needs. It may seem like it does but for example if you thought it was essential to watch the news, you could always just read a newspaper instead. The TV can easily be understood by non experts because all you really need to know is turn it on, listen and maybe switch a channel. But technology is getting more and more complicated, where non experts don’t know how to use DVR and laptops or computers. All these devices do impose a permanent, rigid, irreversible imprint on the lives of citizens. People feel like they can’t live without technology now at all. Just from the first three questions you can see how negative technology can be and it continues to be that way throughout the rest of the questions.
I feel that Postman would agree that the screen media does not meet the criteria for a ‘fully reformed, appropriate technology’. It’s like when the telegraph was first made it “gave a form of legitimacy to the idea of context-free information; that is, to the idea that the value of information need not be tied to any function it might serve in social and political decision-making and action, but may attach merely to its novelty, interest and curiosity. “ He also says the telegraph attacked typography’s definition. Even though he’s talking about the telegraph, it could be applied to most of the screen media that we have today. I agree that “A fully formed, appropriate technology is a meeting ground of ethics, politics, mechanical understanding and a deep ecological consciousness”, and screen media doesn’t meet the criteria.
The kinds of technology we should strive for, the handout reads, would promote "the growth of autonomous, self-determining individuals in nonhierarchical communities," and that we should use this standard to avoid any situation in which "technology is the central institution."
Well, there goes the Internet for America. Not only has it become the industrial axis nearly all commercial, educational, and social industries happily rotate around, but it also squashes any self-determination with the sway of its advertisements and the abuse of its platform. Ideally, yes, the Internet could be used to promote precisely these qualities (self-determination and autonomy - and a number of online services do promote these) but it's more often used to post pictures of kittens and bad music videos.
So let's run the Internet through these 7 questions.
1.) Does this technological device serve vital needs?
-Yes and no. Yes, it has sped up the communication process to a-country-per-millisecond, and it has provided a medium that may be more ecologically sound in lieu of strictly paper-based products (although this article from 1992 argues that computers may actually make us use more paper: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/12/science/personal-computers-learning-to-save-trees.html).
But no, it's not entirely necessary. Industries pre-Internet, nearly inconceivable by those of us born in the 90's (-raises hand with shame-), were fully functioning. While information wasn't spread as widely, there were still practices in place to serve that end, admittedly not as efficiently (postal service, paper boys, TELEPHONES).
2.) Is this device or system of the sort that can immediately be understood by non-experts?
-To a degree. While a non-expert would be lost in a sea of code trying to build his own website, he would be perfectly capable of googling basic phrases, setting up a Facebook page, and posting pictures (using a module set up by an expert for a non-expert). In its initial phases, surfing the web would be difficult for someone who'd never seen a computer before. However, we've developed the Internet into the idiot-servant it is today, where every field is clearly define (Name, Address, City) and where every search engine is simplified (does it get any more basic than Google?).
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?
-There are arguably high degrees of flexibility using the Internet, but those levels of flexibility are controlled by moguls like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple. Sure, we can get creative - but only within a framework determined by these corporations. As a result, nearly every internet user browses the Web within these confines, not even realizing that they're being limited.
But technically, you can throw away your computer. The world usually continues to offer a "1-800" hotline option for those without internet access (this still requires a phone, but that still makes the Internet not entirely necessary, unless you have a class blog that you're to post on every week).
4.) Does this technological device or system foster greater autonomy of local communities or greater dependency on some centralized "authority"?
-I think it does support autonomy on a whole. Since the abundance of information on the Internet is widely available, citizens have the opportunity to be more informed on their role in society as well as the government's. However, in some countries (I'm looking at you, China), the internet is tightly restricted, particularly where government criticism is concerned. They're effectively using the internet to limit their citizens' autonomy.
(continued)
5.) Is this device or system ecologically destructive or conducive to a deep ecology of life?
-Shallow ecology, no questions asked. The environmentally-harmful materials that go into computers aside (NatGeo broke it down here: http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/green-guide/buying-guides/laptop-computer/environmental-impact/), you cannot possibly be using your computer in a forest, on a mountain, or on the beach. You need to charge it in a building with electricity. You need a computer desk. You need air-conditioning because it gets hot sitting at your computer desk in your building all day. You call in delivery because you can't leave the email/memo/YouTube comment you're writing; it shows up in styrofoam. You burn your files onto a plastic disk to be used until it's scratched and buried with millions of pounds of garbage in a landfill somewhere. There is absolutely no environmental advantage (see New York Times article above if you're all "but I'm not printing out though.")
6.) Does this device or system enhance the individuality of persons or does it lead to bureaucratic hierarchies?
-This isn't as easily answered using the scope of the Internet. On an individual-level, yes: anyone online has the opportunity to promote their individuality by making their own website, posting their artistic ventures, publishing their articles, interacting with other users, etc. However, in a corporate setting, positions are set within hierarchies, and while the president and CEO may have access to certain files, the secretary does not. The internet can be controlled on an individual or a bureaucratic level, so I'm not sure which answer is more accurate.
7.) Does this device or system encourage people to behave and think like machines?
-One hundred and fifty-times yes. Computers can project your image on video in realtime, yes, but that isn't you. 99% of the time, people on webcam are looking at their own image, constantly evaluating what the other person sees, something they wouldn't do sitting in a café across the table from the very same person. Since you're aware that the other person can only see so much (same goes for dating profiles, YouTube channels, Facebook profiles...literally anything), you consciously or unconsciously take these limits into consideration and take full advantage of them using angling, lighting, backdrops, makeup...it's screen culture at its finest: engrained so deeply into the person's mind that they don't even realize that they spent more time staring at themselves on webcam than listening to the other person.
Growing up in the mist of this technocratic society, we can argue that technology is nothing less than a tool that “solves all of our problems.” We perceive electronics as ways that make our lives easier. As stated in Deep Ecology, very few would ever criticize these devices, for they clearly highlight the intelligence of our generation and can’t possibly damage or interfere with our well being. But there seems to be this contradicting issue that comes about as stated by Postman and the author of Deep Ecology, who questions technological devices and wonders if screen media actually meets the criteria for a “fully informed, appropriate technology.”
Let’s take a laptop for example – an instrument that I heavily depend on myself. 1. Of course I see my laptop as a device that serves vital needs. It allows me to connect with others via the Internet while it also keeps me updated with my schoolwork and research. But, no – it is not vital in the sense that it maintains my survival. It does not feed me food, give me shelter, and provide me with water and air (although this all sounds awesome). 2. It’s a device that can be immediately understood by nonexperts since this generation ensures that every individual has an understanding for every device. 3. A laptop does impose a permanent, rigid, and irreversible imprint on the lives of citizens. Everything we could ever imagine is on the Internet from academics to shopping to socializing. The laptop is a device that has ultimately took over our way of living while also making itself a necessity in our lives, making itself a device we cannot live without. 4. This technological device fosters great autonomy of both local communities and of our government, who watches what communities do on the web. 5. Laptops are definitely ecologically destructive as man and not the Earth itself created them. It interferes with our natural resources, as it requires electricity and other aspects that are harmful. Although business and companies flourish more with the use of the Internet and enable them to gain more social stability, individuality does come about with laptops. People have the opportunity to create ways to express themselves via the internet. 7. I do believe that we are beginning to think land behave like machines. We are now basing our lives on machines and are becoming more prone to discovering information about people via the computer by Googling one another and stalking each other on social medias. These artificial pieces of information that a machine projects to us are distorting the way we think and how we perceive each other.
And so, Postman would agree completely that this is not appropriate technology by any means. He says the way we interact with screen culture is artificial and unrealistic, which has negatively impacted our language, behavior, and mentality. We are now focused on what we see on the media and base our knowledge on what we seen on screens. Also, screens make real events less and less authentic in our eyes for what we see on a laptop is not information derived from our own individual experience.
I started laughing reading that New York Times article: I think it is nearly comedic that this is what our media has come to. “Embrace the phablet — and use Bluetooth for making calls. You’ll feel much less silly that way.” I think that compromising the way our technology works and eliminating tablets by combining them with our phones is a little out of control.
“A fully informed, appropriate technology is a meeting ground of ethics, politics, mechanical understanding and deep ecological consciousness.”
Based on this definition, I think technology does not meet the criteria based on one thing: its ethics. Screen media has proven time and time again that it does not really have any ethics. I agree that the “right” information is out there, if people want to sift through all the crap to find out the truth, but people are lazy and the screen media knows this. They make the crap much more accessible, easy to locate and to understand, proving their ethics are off.
As an experiment, I just went to the AOL homepage to see what their “top stories” are, what is featured on their home page. Their first story was about Russia and the Ukraine crisis: fair enough. The second was about an upcoming snow storm that could last for up to 36 hours. Alright, the weather is important, even though it’s wrong 90% of the time. The 3rd story, out of 35, was “Thicke’s marriage fell apart after this?” Featured by TMZ and it was a picture of Robin Thicke with Miley Cyrus from their unforgettable performance at the MTV Awards. While the 4th story is about big homes that are cheap to buy, and the 5th is about a new antibiotic that is apparently groundbreaking in helping to lose weight. I think this pretty much sums up American culture. I find it difficult to wrap my head around the fact that AOL believes these 5 stories are the top 5 things that America wants to hear about. Not to mention that there is a summarization of each story that stays there for about 8 seconds before it moves to the next one: that is what they view our attention span as. 8 seconds.
I think that this only supports the fact that screen media is not a “fully informed, appropriate technology.” I believe that Postman would agree with me. He believes that words are more powerful than images, and television is about the images more than words and the words that television does use is not anything to be proud of. Most shows are reality television shows, and those shows use curses every other word, or they are discussing trivial things. The “news” stations are hardly reporting the news anymore.
Questioning our technology is a smart place to start in our society, seeing as screen media and other technology engulfs us all. Our lives, whether you like it or not, are controlled by screen media and whether you will admit it or not, we all somewhat embrace it. We sit in classrooms covered in screens, we walk across campus and see everyone staring at the screens of their phones, tablets, ipods, laptops and kindles, but the true question is how much harm is this causing. I do agree with the handout in saying that we need technology that is compatible with the growth of autonomous, self-determining individuals in nonhierarchical communities and maybe that’s not where we are at but the internet and our screens do create a system of independent thinkers in a way. The use of forums, blogs, social media and online papers gives people a chance to express their own ideas and express grievances. Social activist have a place to state their ideas and expose injustices, they are going against society and against believed ideas to share and spread their own ideas. As far as I see it, there is a growth of self-determining individuals, where print media and television media will not give activist the time of day, the internet is there. This also adds to question 6, which asks if the device enhances individuality, which the internet most certainly can. Yes, every other person you see is walking around with an iphone, looking the same as everyone else, but it is what they do with this technology. In the simplest way possible, people are using screen technology to express who they are as individuals, from what they post on social media, to the background they have on their phones, it’s basic but it’s there.
As far as the first question goes, does it have a vital purpose, yes and no. Screen media does have somewhat of a vital purpose, no my tweet is not a vital part of my life but at other times screen technology and the internet are vital. Take for example a special needs child, my cousin suffers from autism, he is unable to speak because of it and does not have the capacity to learn sign language and that is where screen technology saves the day. For the first 8 or so years of his life, we really had no way of knowing what he wanted or what he was trying to communicate to us but within the last few years and the growth of screen technology- namely the ipad- we can communicate with him in a basic manners. He now uses photographs on his ipad of various things to explain to use what he wants and needs. In a case such as this, screen technology is vital. If we simply look at screen media and reduce it to social media then no it is not vital, but we must look at it from all angles.
To answer the overall question, has screen media and the internet made us a fully-informed society- no of course not, but we are a lot closer than we were before it. People are now able to informed of the going-ons of the world around them. They have the means to express ideas and share thoughts, while exposing what is wrong with our society, but not everyone is doing so. In an article I recently read it said that in fact ,research papers written by students in today’s world are 6 times longer than they were in 1912 and contain more information, and we can attribute this to screen media and the usage of the internet in writing those papers. We are fully-informed but neither were people in the days of only books and I don’t believe we will ever be fully informed.
I'm going to use my smartphone to answer the questions from the handout. I have an iPhone 4. Clearly not the newest or the oldest--actually right in the middle (the one I could get for 1 cent with my upgrade.
I think many of these questions call for answers that are mostly opinions and could be taken in several directions depending on the point of view of the person answering them. So it may seem like I'm playing devil's advocate to the way this packet, Postman, and even this class as a whole seems to want to direct answers, but I think other points of view need to be brought into the picture.
1.Does my iPhone serve vital needs? Well does it provide me directly with food, water, clothing, shelter, oxygen? No, it doesn't. So taking a literal approach I suppose it does not. But let's say I'm hiking by myself or something. I fall, get a bad cut, or concussion, whatever. I have my phone so I call 911. I'm rescued. Taken to a hospital. Life saved. Okay so you don't need an iPhone to call 911 but in this hypothetical situation, if I didn't have mine....
2. Again with this question, define non-experts. Would it be my room mate, say, that has a blackberry instead? Or are we talking underdeveloped countries where the minimal technology is much less sophisticated than ours? Or maybe my grandma, who's upbringing was largely with no technology whatsoever and would prefer to keep it that way? There's a very slim chance that anyone from these examples would have any idea what to do if an iPhone was placed in their lap. But, I think anyone raised in our newer generations has a good chance of being able to figure out an iPhone. I didn't know how to use it when I got it, but after a few minutes of marveling at my new device, as most people to when they get a new phone, laptop, tablet, etc, I had the basics down. And now, just a few months later, it's like I'm an old pro.
3. I think smart phones definitely have an irreversible and undeniable imprint on the lives of citizens. Not that I have this phone my friends and family expect calls and texts. Facebook posts and messages. Snap-chats. Instagram posts. Twitter posts. Vine posts. Tumblr posts. But it's still my choice as to whether or not to actually do it. And I enjoy all of these aps and more that help me stay connected with people I love, be creative, voice my opinions, share personal news and achievements, etc. I love to have all these options at my fingertips. But if I chose to take a day off from all this it's as easy as holding down two buttons to turn the phone off. Simple. I'm not that attached to it that I can't turn it off during a movie, or while eating diner with my family, enjoying time in nature, ect. Though I might want to tell my mom first so she doesn't worry if she can't get in touch with me. :]
4. I can see, again, how this question almost wants us to pick the latter answer about technology leading to "greater dependency on some central authority." Yes we've come to depend on these technology comanies and the industry as a whole to provide us with these devices for entertainment and lots of other uses. But, I think smart-phones really can "foster greater autonomy of local communities." On this campus, for example, there are so many facebook groups for the different clubs, organizations, sports, volunteer work, and so much more. Even the residence halls themselves have these groups. Getting a facebook notification alert on my phone that the TBA improv comedy group will be preforming in the lounge of my Crispell Hall and knowing that pretty much everyone on campus got it too creates community. And at 9pm when we all gather there to watch the show, we silence our phones and enjoy the show with our peers both performing and sitting in the audience with us. Zooming in even more my suite itself, as 6 girls living together for a few years now, know each other to the point that if one of us, say, comes across an article online that we know another will enjoy or find interesting, even if we are sitting right next to each other, might say something along the lines of, "Hey, Chrissy, I found this cool article about blagh blagh blah, I'm gonna put it on your wall. Check it out when you get a chance." This can be done on many technological devices that we have available to us. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. It's not replacing physical contact and discussion, but rather adding to it in a supplementary way.
5. I used the dictionary app on my iPhone to look up an exact definition of "deed ecology:" "Deep ecology is a contemporary ecological and environmental philosophy characterized by its advocacy of the inherent worth of living beings regardless of their instrumental utility to human needs, and advocacy for a radical restructuring of modern human societies in accordance with such ideas." Basically, humans are on the same level of equality as all other living organisms. So while on an environmental level, the production of our modern technological devices may be polluting our environment of many different scales, I suppose I am forced to answer this question saying that my iPhone is "ecologically destructive to a deep ecology way of life." I'm pretty sure humans are the only species that develop and use iPhones. We're also the only species to study consumerism as well.
6. For this question I am going to say that smart-phones do "enhance the individuality of persons." While a biased view might argue that, for example, everyone has (can have) a facebook, twitter, tumbler, whatever on their phone if they want, I'm going to say that for each person that uses these systems, they are completely different. Tumblr, in my opinion is a good app/website to highlight on for this question. Tumblr is a blogging site that I would have to say is one of the most free environments the internet has provided us with these days. People, for the most part, feel free to express whatever it is that they feel strongly about. This can be anything from women's rights issues, to internet fandoms, comics and funny cat pictures. Each tumblr user's site is so vastly different from the next persons that individuality as a factor simply can not be ignored or denied.
7. No. [See all above answers that promote individuality fostered by technological advancements in devices such as smart-phones.] People make a conscious choice whether or not to blindly/mechanically follow their peers, leaders, ect. This factor will exist with or without iPhones and other new technologies, though they often take the blame.
In conclusion to all of this, I'm just going to say here that I believe it is how people chose to handle and use technological devices and advances that decides their worth and value in society, not just the fact that they exist.
1) Does this technological device serve vital needs?
No. It does not quench your thirst, It can't feed you and it definitely can inhibit you from sleeping, especially the smartphones and tablets.
2) Is this device or system the sort that can be immediately understood by nonexperts?
Yes for simple functions such turning the device on/off, making a phone call, watching a video. However formatting the device or understanding/fixing the screen devices requires a level of expertise.
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.
Yes on how we view the world through shows and the news. The visuals really leave a strong impression on us. Also physically speaking, if you look at a screen for an abnormal amount of time, you could develop serious eye problems.
4) Does this technological device or system foster greater autonomy of local communities or greater dependency on some centralized "authority"?
I would say it favors greater dependency on centralized authority because the aforementioned control a lot of the content on screen. Viewers are bombarded with choice, to the extent that they don't know what to choose and always seek out the centralized authorities programs for information.
5) Is the device or system ecologically destructive or conducive to a deep ecology way of life.
Yes/No It can help you understand your fellow man through documentaries, but its not the same thing as going to see how those people live through first hand experience. Plus a lot of programs in terms of ecology misinform people so you have to be vigilant.
6)Does this device or system enhance the individuality of persons or does it lead to bureaucratic hierarchies?
As a viewer/consumer no, especially in America. People just seem to watch the same programs, hence they think the same way. Though if you are creating the system or device, you are putting some of your individuality in it e.g Steve Jobs and Apple devices
7)Does this device or system encourage people to behave and think like machines.
Yes it can. Due to the simple nature of looking at a screen. Not having a visual interaction with people on a daily basis can lead to anti-social behavior. To the extent that you understand your devices more than a fellow human being. Now that's scary!
CONCLUSION: I think Postman will agree with me when I say screen media comes short of a "fully informed, appropriate technology."
I think that what it means to be a fully informed society has changed with the emergence of our screen culture. Just looking at an IPhone, you can have news apps to stay informed, a google app to quickly find any answer, and social networking apps to stay up do date with your friends, as well as texting. To most people these apps keep us informed, and without further thinking most people would agree. Because of what we have learned and discussed in class we can list reasons why we are not an informed society and how the screen culture may be the downfall of culture. With that said, questioning the IPhone with the seven questions of deep ecology could differ in answers from person to person. Some people, probably the majority, think that watching an hour long news program and looking at headlines on Buzzfeed means they are informed. They'd say their IPhone is vital for their lifestyle or for the work they do. However, the IPhone serves no vital purpose because we didn't have them close to a decade ago and we didn't all die. It is not understandable by a non expert, and it creates a dependence on Apple and other tech companies to feed us more technology. We think our phones make life easier but it creates a rigid structure of always staring at our phones and living life just to update our social networks while fully missing out on life. IPhones are in no way conductive to a deep ecology lifestyle, they do create a hierarchy because if you can't utilize technology you can't get a good paying job these days. Lastly smart phones make us behave like machines because we let our technologies become an extension of ourselves.
1. Does this technological device serve vital needs?
Screens serve vital needs in modern society, but, seeing as these needs were created in part BY the screens, I think they could not be considered truly vital. I read an article once about the lack of cable, and therefore high-speed internet, in certain parts of upstate New York. The people in these areas complained that they were being left behind. What they said was true, and I think there's an argument there. However, it's not like they're going to starve to death or anything without high-speed internet.
Of course, saying that the only technologies that are actually vital are those that stop starvation is giving an extremely limited perspective of what vital is. One could even argue that technologies (ie the farming technologies of the agricultural revolution) is what caused starvation in the first place, which makes ANY technology not vital.
Therefore, I'm going to define 'vital' as something that allows you to fully participate in society. Therefore, screens ARE vital.
2. Is this device or system of the sort that can be immediately understood by non-experts?
Yes. Screens are increasingly designed to be intuitive. Screens did not appear in their current form until very recently, and therefore old people might not find them intuitive. However, the rest of the population that can navigate the devices with ease certainly can not be considered 'experts.'
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?
One does not have to look past the fact that screens need to be plugged in, or at least regularly charged, to answer this question. Screens disallow getting too far away from an electricity source, which severely limits people's geographic flexibility. It almost forces you to have a house. Homeless people have screens too (sometimes), but it is a constant pain in the ass for them to keep it charged, and takes up much of their time.
4. Does this technological device or system foster greater autonomy of local communities or greater dependence on some centralized "authority."
One could argue that, originally, screens allowed for greater autonomy. However, we are seeing the power and money associated with the internet and screens concentrated more and more. We're all slaves to Google...and it knows everything about us.
5. Is this device or system ecologically destructive or conductive to a deep ecology way of life?
Discarded screens contain numerous materials that are extremely destructive to the environment. One can definitely argue that screens are getting smaller, and therefore less environmentally destructive. However, any new technology involves an infrastructure being build, and anything that humans do, including building infrastructures, is harmful to the environment.
It also undermines the anti-speciesist philosophy of deep ecology, in that it separates humans from the rest of our animal brothers and sisters, putting us on a plane above them, and therefore fostering their subjugation. If you believe in all that.
6. Does this device or system enhance the individuality of persons or does it lead to bureaucratic hierarchies?
Although I think screens do centralize power, this power is held by a select group of people, and is not bureaucratic in nature. The people on TOP can be individuals, anyway.
7. Does this deice or system encourage people to behave and think like machines?
I think this is the most important of the questions (and is probably considered so by the author, which is why it's at the end). Although I believe that screens are becoming more intuitive, and therefore are more likely to mesh with the thinking of humans, this intuitiveness is not intrinsic to humans at all. Instead, the 'intuitiveness' is merely humans being raised with screens, and therefore these people FIND the screens more intuitive. In other words, humans are learning to think like machines.
Applying some of the questions to the screen, technological devices like TV, laptops, and portables do not serve vital needs. As convenient and helpful as they can be, they are not 100% necessary for our needs. These days, they are almost necessary for our entertainment need because of how bored we get without the constant stimulation, but they are still not vital. These devices cannot be immediately understood by nonexperts. We see this in modern day, for example my grandparents would not even begin to know how to navigate my iPhone. A lot of times they ask me for help with their cell phones or laptops because technology is just getting too complicated. Because they offer so many things on one small laptop, it is hard to be in expert on navigating it. I think that these devices for the most part do not enhance individuality of people in society, rather they lead to bureaucratic hierarchies. On the Internet, people do have a chance to create individuality for themselves with things such as blog posts or their own websites, however the fact of these people being so dependent on laptops is more of the bureaucratic hierarchial way. These devices do encourage people to behave and think like machines. Some people base themselves way too much on technology and Internet. Social media has very much moved to the Internet as well; an example of this is having so many Facebook 'friends' while only have a few in real life.
I think Postman would agree that screen media does not meet the criteria for a "fully informed, appropriate technology" because he constantly reinforces how our interaction and usage of technology is unrealistic and excessive. He also reinforces the importance of the "written word" over images on screens. These days people are way too concerned about being up to date on the latest entertainment news as opposed to what should be important to them (politics, current events, etc.).
1) Does this technological device serve vital needs?
Technological devices don’t serve vital needs they serve wants. You do not need a smartphone or any phone for that matter to survive as a human being but our society works to place in the category of a need.
2) Is this device or system the sort that can be immediately understood by nonexperts?
For its basic functions that are required to use the phone yes nonexperts would be able to easily learn how to use the device. One major thing I think about when I need of these devices is access to the Internet and that is more what people need to understand. Society needs to understand that the truth lies beneath the surface, it won’t pop up in front of you you have to go looking for it and that ability to look for the truth is what is missing.
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 that it definitely does leave a change how we view the world around us. I’m not sure if it is irreversible but it leaves an imprint on peoples lives. When I think about that I think about people not being able to be disconnected. The imprint that is the belief that you need to be connected at all times and if you are not there is something wrong with you.
4) Does this technological device or system foster greater autonomy of local communities or greater dependency on some centralized “authority”
It definitely fosters a greater dependency on a centralized “authority “ without a doubt. Going back to what I mentioned about needing to seek out the truth and whether the information your receiving is truthful, many people tend not to do that believing that if I found on the internet then it must be true. Just think about the way that many of us use Google, I’m sure that every single one of us has entered a question into the Google search bar because we want the answer simply laid on a platter in front of us in one easy step.
5) Is this device or system ecologically destructive or conductive to a deep ecology way of life?
There is nothing environmentally conductive that comes from the uses of these technological devices. Besides the fact that materials themselves are harmful to the environment, they are also harmful in that they prevent people from actual having to be outside in the world.
6) Does this device or system enhance the individuality of persons or does it lead to bureaucratic hierarchies?
Today there is no individuality among people. Every person has very similar phones and the majorities use them in the exact same way, to stay connected to all of the different social networks that you are on. When we look at the comments sections of certain videos/articles you see a lot of the same crap, people not knowing what is actually going on in the world but spouting a bunch of shit like they do. Many of the comments are very similar to one another because people can’t think for themselves nowadays. Everything has to go along with the norms because why would you ever go against them.
7) Does this device or system encourage people to behave and think like machines?
Without a doubt these devices encourage people to behave like machines. People would rather interact with a screen than an actual human being and that is even when they are surrounded by others. We’ve watched advertisements where people are surrounded by amazing scenery around them and friends everywhere but no what is there they are always look at their lives through the lens of their phones camera, why? The screen means more to us than the human being and nature/life around us because we are becoming machines or at the very least slaves to the machines.
I think that Postman would believe that screen media does not meet the criteria for a “fully informed, appropriate technology.” The TV and the Internet what matters are the visuals that people are seeing and not the words that are being said and that I believe this is where Postman would see the problem.
Within this excerpt, we see that the author believes that the technology that must be pursued should increase the self-determination and autonomy of individuals in society that are not bound by hierarchical structures. The text goes on to ask the reader to take in account a particular technology and examine under a series of questions.
In terms of screen culture, these questions reveal the true essence of modern technology and it's detriments on society. Clearly, most people would recognize that laptops, smartphones, and TVs are not necessary for the prolonged existence of humanity. Technology in terms of medicine and transportation are also not really "vital" to humanity, but its purpose serves to prolong human life, so it is valued more highly than screen culture.
I would like to think that all screen culture can be easily understood by anyone. You don't have to be a real expert to understand smartphones, laptops, and television at face value. A simple tutorial could easily provide you with access to the platform in question.
Now the third question is a critical one. Does the concept of screen culture create a highly severe permanent change of discourse on society? Much like the first question was easy to answer, this one provides the same ease. Screen culture influences most of what we do our daily lives. Our smart phones give us non-stop and instant updates on anything we choose to follow. The TV is on and most Americans receive their entertainment and advertising from this outlet. The internet has provided us with so much information that we wouldn't be able to access if screen culture was abolished. If we were to end screen culture as is, society may have some nasty aftereffects.
The fourth question really is subjective. I'd say that because screen culture allows for constant communication that its technology aids both local communities and central authorities. You can meet up with your friends or hold a rally, while the government can use your cellphone usage to see where you are holding that rally without ever asking. In terms of autonomy, in a sense of group dynamics, I'd say that both are equal, give or take.
Screen culture is absolutely ecologically destructive in that, we have this media that is completely irrelevant to the idea of human life and survival. Furthermore, in order to maintain this technology, we must run electricity that uses energy. We must also run batteries that become wasteful as time goes on due to the inability to recycle them. Nature is clearly not the number one priority here, and this leaves humanity to be that replacement. The true definition of shallow ecology.
Individuality has a dynamic role when it comes to technology. The almost lawless atmosphere of the internet allows people to do and say almost whatever they want, thus providing a creative platform for the individual. However, programming on the internet as well as television aim to entertain audiences. This then leads to people watching programs with the sole intention on being amused. The main point of Postman's book is that TV is geared to entertain and not to inform. So these mediums do not allow for individuals to truly form their own opinions based on their own experiences, but rather a shared experience through screen culture. And that is the very opposite of individuality.
And finally, screen culture does allow for humans to act as robots in some sense. Our portable and instant communication with the world means that we are always logged in and active to a "cyber" environment. Another thing is much like a computer is read a code, screen culture sends out useless and trivial information and we as people act upon it. But in the same light, because of the growing apathy and decline in civil action, perhaps we are not becoming more like machines. And if that idea is still held true, we are becoming machines that do one process: Take in information.
“Screen media” – computers, smartphones, televisions and other devices – is seen as the answer to every problem. Whenever a person has a query of any sort they now have the ability to access the information almost immediately. Even though this increased amount of accessibility to information can be helpful, especially in a classroom or professional setting, I do not think this media meets the criteria Bill Devall and George Sessions have for a “fully informed, appropriate technology.”
In Deep Ecology, Devall and Sessions describe media as “a meeting ground of ethics, politics, mechanical understanding and deep ecological consciousness.” Screen media however, does not inform us, but rather serves toentertain us, as Postman points out multiple times.
Using my smartphone as a screen media example, there may be some ethics and politics on the internet that I have access to via my phone, but the first thing I do when I pick up my phone is check Facebook, not enlighten myself on the Ukrainian protests (although I will later in the day). Screen technology does not motivate me to stay constantly informed as much as to stay constantly connected and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Screen media does not meet the criteria presented for Deep Ecology’s “fully informed, appropriate technology.” It does not serve vital needs and it does not foster local communities, but rather creates a greater dependency on some centralized authority.
Applying Postman’s analysis and the questions it asks of technology I don’t think that the screen media meets the criteria for a “fully informed, appropriate technology”. We use screen media for distraction, most times we aren’t even learning anything new. Our generation is addicted to screen media. These technological devices do not serve vital needs. Postman recognizes that we are so obsessed with our technology that we’re not going to stop. We have made screen media so important that we have started to think it is a vital need. The information that we are receiving from screen media is not always relevant to our lives. In chapter 7 Postman references a lot of the news that we watch isn’t to acquire relevant information but to develop and discuss our opinions on it. Our devices and/or systems in my opinion do not enhance our individuality as persons. It limits our ability to be social and allowing entertainment to be our source of information for our lives. I think that these technological devices are ecologically destructive. Klosterman stated that “A fully informed, appropriate technology is a meeting ground of ethics, politics, mechanical understanding and deep ecological consciousness”. Unfortunately screen media does not meet the criteria. We feel like the information we receive and view are 100% authentic when they are not. Postman agrees that what we view on screen media is incoherent and irrelevant. When he touched base on figments; how they are not rooted in personal experience or reality, was very true. I don’t believe that technology encourages people to behave and think like machines. Well maybe yes and no. It definitely desensitizes us and how we react to certain situations. It supposed to bring us closer together but it makes so distant from reality. If I’m on Instagram for a while I think I’m a robot just scrolling through pictures; just so time passes by. So it does dehumanize us at some points. As Postman wants us to be aware of is what technology we are allowing technology to do to us; and the clenching hold it has on our lives.
For this post, I decided that I was going to choose one "screen" to focus my answers on. The screen I chose was my laptop. The first question asks if this device serves vital needs. The answer is no. Without this device I would not starve, I would not die of thirst, I do not need this device to survive. The second question asks if non-experts would be able to use this device. Yes in the sense that anyone can turn on a computer and use it in the most childish way, but they probably wouldnt be able to use it in the sense of a production major like myself would be able to use it. 3rd question, it is not mutable, it is a permanent thing. It is used for many things but mostly it is used for entertainment. I use my laptop to write papers, check twitter, facebook and to watch netflix. I do not use it to read books, or online papers, i use it for things that I see important to my life. The fourth question doesn't really even apply to me. Having a computer does not help my sense of community what so ever. Actually I think it makes people isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Because they have everything that they need on this little 13.3 inch screen right in front of them for however long they want. This technology doesn't need to exist. We could function without it, just like we could function without tv or the radio or laptops or kindles. We do not need any of it. we want it. As a society, we depend on all of this shit to get us through the day. What would happen if everyone left the cell phones at home and went for a 20 minute walk. People would freak out like they were missing something so important and really they wouldn't be missing anything. People are so consumed by the life that they live through the screens of their mobile devices that they are missing the actually world that is right in front of them all the time and it is a really sad thought to think about.
Living and being apart of contemporary society means that one must acknowledge that modern technology and its social media counterparts are what are driving many aspects of daily life. TV and the internet have now become main channels of entertainment instead of serving as informative sources of information. Our "screen media" (TV, laptops, phones and tablets) have become mediums to keep boredom at ease. I believe screen media does not meet standards for "fully informed appropriate technology" and that it never will because the companies that produce these products and their information outlets are constantly "dumbing down" information to make it easier for the general consumer.
Looking at the seven questions, I think these devices are not vital needs in anyway whatsoever. Companies and screen media users do not need to be experts to function these devices; more these makers want their consumers to be spoon fed. I believe once you start using these devices and become screen media users an obsession and permanent imprint begins to form. Not ever experiencing these mediums, there is nothing to miss; but more often than none many are addicted after a few minutes. The technology that comes along with these devices holds a high dependence on improving intelligence and therefore a centralized authority to make things easy for the modern day lazy buyer.
Personally my phone has become a medium to check Facebook, Instagram and pass unknown amount of hours doing nothing but looking up pointless information that in retrospect will not improve or enhance my life. I believe most people don't use technology to stay informed and I would argue most have lost a desire to stay informed since the information is not always dumbed down for consumers. Postman would not consider screen media for "fully informed appropriate technology".
1. I think technological devices do serve vital needs in society today. The world is such a fast-paced society nowadays, so people to need to be accessible and be able to find information instantly, which makes these technological devices vital.
2. Yes and no. I think technological devices can be understood almost immediately by people who are non-experts, but they just need to keep practicing and get repetitions in to perfect their use.
3. People need to constantly have their phones charged, so yes. My family recently got car outlets, which we can plug-in so we can charger our phones. Kind of crazy, but it’s definitely useful.
4. Since the Internet has become so big, it now remembers everything that you’ve searched for. Because of this it not has searches and ads that cater to your interests.
5. Technological devices are destructive because they constantly need to be near an outlet and they need to be in certain conditions or they will not be able to perform and work.
6. These devices enhance the individuality of people because each device is catered to a person’s needs, whether it’s by searches or advertisements. Also, each person designs their device, whether by changing the screen saver, putting a sticker on it or by which case they pick.
7. I don’t think it encourages people to behave and think like machines, I just think it encourages people to do less work because they know they can find the answer on the machine. It just causes to become lazy, but they are not thinking at all, so they are not thinking like machines.
Technological devices do not serve vital needs. Yes they are useful because we can find out information faster than before. But before the Internet and all the technological devices available now, people were still able to stay informed. People were able to survive just fine without them. So they do not serve vital needs. I think these technological devices can be understood by non-experts. They might not be able to get the hang of it right away but it's not impossible. That is unless they refuse to try to learn. The Internet is very flexible but like some of my other classmates have stated, TV can follow a rigid formulated structure. I believe that this system fosters a greater autonomy because again the Internet is so vast that you can immediately get informed about anything if you choose to of course. This system is ecologically destructive because of what these devices are made out of. Once they are old or broken, you can't just throw them in the trash. It's also destructive due to the fact we get so sucked into this virtual world that we lose touch with the real world. The system leads to enhancing individuality and bureaucratic hierarchies. We choose what we want to do with our phones, laptops, social media etc. Yes we all might use the same things but we're all not the same. However it can be argued that because we all do and use these devices for the same purposes, we just become one kind of person. I think it does encourage people to behave and think like machine. Again, we become so used to the routine of constantly checking our phones for calls, texts emails and every other notification you can get on it. We begin living in a routine that will eventually make us into machines.
1) In terms of "do I need this technology to live and survive day-to-day?" No. I don't think we can say that for most of the technologies that we use daily. I know I don't use any of them, but my friend's grandfather can't breathe on his own--that is something that is vital, but I guess it ins't "screen" technology
2) If by "non-experts" he means aliens, then no, I don't think screen technology could readily be understood. Aliens would probably make dun of us for the types of things we broadcast over the television or internet. The reason I use aliens in my answer is because I don't think it's possible to find "non-experts" or people that truly have absolutely ZERO idea about our screen culture.
3)Hmm, this is a tricky one. The nature of technology via updates and constant new models--new applications and such, make it flexible; however, it also imposes on us some sort of structure that entraps us. people constantly check twitter and Facebook. Because people can be so readily reached, employers expose this, and employees generally take it because they have to.
4) Again, tricky. It does foster a greater autonomy with people being able to express their individual views without restriction (or at least we hope in the best of circumstances.) On the flip side, yes, this makes us dependent on it and therefore government can monitor everything we do.
5) Honestly, I can't say that screen technology does anything beneficial for preserving the environment, but it does allow people to communicate way to do so. In terms of how it influences how people interact, it's turning us all into zombies that experience everything through the lens of a camera (i.e. Wall-E)
6) Both. It allows people to explore their inner most desires without being judged--unless they subject themselves to virtual judgment. It also allows for widespread education of ideas--if the people learning from it are willing to pursue knowledge to the best sources: meaning, they research things and compare various stories/accounts rather than just reading a single FB post.
7) Finally, no I don't think that screen technology really makes people think more like machines. Unfortunately, we're letting the machines do most of the thinking, ironically becoming more like people, and we--well, we just sit our asses on the sofa getting dumber and don't do much thinking at all, which is actually far less than machines do.
1. Does this technological device serve vital needs?
No, I could definitely live a full, healthy life without my technological devices. They don't serve vital needs, at least not directly. For example, my iphone does not provide me with food, but it can provide me with a convenient means of ordering food. While these devices do make many aspects of our daily lives a lot easier, one can easily survive without them.
2. Is this device of the sort that can be immediately understood by non-experts.
Any non-expert can pick up an iphone and be able to perform the very basic tasks, such as making a phone call and likely sending a text message. However, someone unfamiliar with the device or similar devices would be completely lost when trying to navigate through the various aspects of the phone, namely the apps.
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?
These devices absolutely impose an imprint on the lives of citizens, but I'm not sure that they are necessarily permanent or irreversible. We grow accustomed to a certain way of life through our devices, constantly being connected and feeling out of place if we go extended periods of time without being connected. I do believe, though, that a break from our devices can help remove that imprint.
4. Does this technological device or system foster greater autonomy of local communities or greater dependency on some centralized "authority"?
They appear to foster greater dependency on some centralized authority. People tend to believe that what they see on the internet must be true, when in reality, most of what you read online is bullshit. You can put anything on the internet, and people are likely to believe you. The internet basically controls our lives.
5. Is this device or system ecologically destructive or conducive to a deep ecology way of life?
I would say that these devices are generally ecologically destructive to a deep ecology way of life. Yeah, they are helpful and allow users to but we are, in a sense, becoming shells of ourselves. That doesn't seem like it relates to the deep ecology way of life.
6. Does this device or system enhance the individuality of persons or does it lead to bureaucratic hierarchies?
It's definitely a little bit of both, but for the most part, I think it enhances the individuality of persons. Technology gives people an opportunity to put themselves out on the internet for everyone to see, thus portraying each person's individuality. Most of us have our own device(s) that we use to supply others on the internet with information about ourselves.
7. Does this device or system encourage people to behave and think like machines?
I think it does to a degree. We have become so used to living through these machines that sometimes we forget how to act around human beings in the real world. We too often find ourselves more focused on our devices than on the world around us. Not that human interaction doesn't exist any longer, but there is a definite, noticeable decrease.
As of this point, the technology we have… Some may say that what we have, it is informed and appropriate. And some may say no. Because most people are so obsessed with, especially the portable devices, people use that like if that's what keeps them knowing whats going on in the world. I remember when I thought about the use of portable devices, and I was like, "Okay, a laptop, MP3 player, a book, etc, all in one device!!!" But, I realized that, I have all of this already. People use it because it keeps them flowing, it keeps them in contact with whats going, but thats not all it does, what can portable devices do?
Post a Comment