Our world is full of choices. Walk into a grocery store, and one is faced with many choices. Which brand to get? Frozen or Fresh? Organic of Non-organic? Even when getting ready in the morning, which clothes should one wear? What shoes? Should one put on make up or gel their hair? Everywhere we go we are faced with choices. With all the choices we have set before us, what would happen if those choices were taken away? Would our world be the same? Technology is a huge part of our world, and because of it, we are allowed to have all these choices. Are we all going through ‘Future Shock’?
‘Future Shock’, what happens when too much change happens in a short amount of time.[1] It seems that at the beginning, the advances of technology, many people were in some sort of ‘future shock’, but do people have ‘future shock’ now too? Technology is advancing so fast. I remember when I was younger my mother showed me her cassette player. Growing up, I used a CD player, then I got an iPod mini (which was only out for a little over a year before it was discontinued and replaced with an iPod Nano[2]), and now I have an iPod touch, although it isn’t the new iPod touch with a camera. Within the last 10-15 years, music players have transformed. And now there are iPads. For me, I find this a bit overwhelming, and can’t imagine how our future will turn out. I agree that in some regards, we do need to begin to say ‘no’ to certain kinds of technology. ‘We need to make critical decisions about what world, and what kind of technology we want’ this statement was from the short film Future Shock, and I believe that if we don’t start saying no, that technology will over take us. Not literally, but that our lives will be consumed with technology, and the choices it brings, that no one will have personal relationships, like we do now.
Just look at the SOPA/PIPA (Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act), although this situation is a little different, it has effected so many people who use laptops or computers, because all the television shows or music they download/watch ‘illegally’ or even watch on YouTube is being challenged and potentially could disappear. SOPA/PIPA has gotten a lot of hype these past few days; should we allow the government to take control of the Internet? One Google spokeswoman suggests that the ‘best way to shut down pirate Websites is to cut off their funding and that can be done without asking U.S. companies to censor the Web.’[3] Online piracy costs the entertainment industry about 58 billion dollars a year.[4] That is a lot of money, but should we take a stand, saying we want this type of technology in our lives? (I am sure like myself there are many who like to watch TV programs online, etc, especially when we miss it because of schoolwork.) Or should we agree with the other side and say that yes our websites should be regulated and stop online piracy. It is hard to think about, but I feel like if that was all gone, I would do less things on the Internet than I do now.
Another example that might be a tad extreme, is weapon technology advancing. We are able to make nuclear weapons, and we all now know what these weapons are capable of. What happens, if we continue our advancements in technology? Will we make greater, more powerful weapons that could ultimately destroy our world in a minute? Our lives are in danger everyday, by simple every day things, but imagine how much more fragile our lives would be if everything could disappear with a click of a button. All in all, I think there is a point where we need to say ‘no’ to technology, but the hard part is to know where to draw the line.
This might be going off topic, so I will say it quickly, but we have been making medical advancements, that have prolonged the human lifespan. This is great news, but should we saying ‘no’ to furthering these cures? Of course no one wants to say no, but we do have a growing population issue. We are 7 billion people, and will soon start running out of resources, without these cures that we are finding; we might not have as big of a population problem. Now I understand, that if a relative/friend is sick, of course we want to do anything to keep that person alive, but I thought this was another technological advancement to think about.
[1] Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock (1972). Narrated by Orson Wells. YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ghzomm15yE
[2] Meyers, Michelle. "RIP, iPod Mini? No way, fans say". CNET News. December 2005.
http://news.cnet.com/RIP%2C-iPod-Mini-No-way%2C-fans-say/2100-1041_3-5991748.html?tag=mncol;2n
[3] Chozick, Amy. "A Clash of Media Worlds (and Generations)". New York Times Online. January 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/in-antipiracy-debate-media-worlds-and-generations-clash.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=technology
[4] Chozick, Amy. "A Clash of Media Worlds (and Generations)". New York Times Online. January 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/in-antipiracy-debate-media-worlds-and-generations-clash.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=technology
Begin RANT:
ReplyDeleteThe MPAA is the Motion Picture Association of America. They're a group that's pretty concerned about movie pirating. The way they figure it, if they spent millions filming a movie, people should have to pay to see it, no matter how long it's been out. But let's face it: they're biased.
Your fourth source cites the YNTimes, who cite the MPAA figure of 58 billion dollars. In my opinion, this is a fault of the NYTimes. Most pirating actually does more to help sales than hurt it. The majority of people do have a moral compass, and do tend to pay for their content. But if the MPAA thinks they can get some sales back, of course they aren't going to factor in the free advertisement they get from pirating. Most likely, they haven't accounted for it and it is a bloated figure.
Nevertheless, they make so much on movies it's entirely irrelevant.
/RANT
Sorry for that. To the main point of the post: I agree there are grey-area limits that we would benefit from defining, but I believe for every person you would ask, you would get a different answer. Technology that is dangerous will most likely be created again, and it is up to us to stop it once we realize it exists, rather than hinder its initial progress.