TechNOlogy

What are the consequences of technological dependence and over-use of computers, television and mobile phones? It certainly affects Communities, but does it also drive personal relationships with others into a world where they're treated as artificial commodities?

Communication is relaying information from one being to another, or one thing to another, and its integral to pretty much doing anything in the physical and digital world. Communication is language; spoken, written, even through bodily gestures and movement, and conveys some form of information into the mind or data cells of another. Recently however, i believe that communication (in a literal sense) has become a problem for social connections between people. Instead of the massive increase in technology aiding us with communication, i think that it compromises it, by muting it’s importance in our social environment. The following few paragraphs will explain why.

It is true, and no-one can deny, that information passing has increased exponentially over the past decade or so. The major factor of this is the internet and the mobile phone. Beginning in the 1960’s, there came the birth of a primitive version of the internet; packet switching. Which was in essence a network; the ability to connect to two or more computers at the same time rather than just sending and receiving down one line and having to switch to another line to convey that same information to another device (ARPANET). Essentially what this became was a sort of Email, primitive maybe, but the founding structure and mother of our current system. Following that in 1982 (after the deployment of many of these systems throughout various parts of the world), they standardised the internet protocol suite, and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced. At first it all relayed through ARPANET and was purely commercial for businesses, soon however, from the boost of supercomputers, the system was put on the open market so that anyone with a modem could connect; sending information via Email from port to port anywhere in the world. Today it is nothing what the people who developed the initial systems could imagine, and the amount of data transferred and available to anyone is staggering! The internet has enabled us to be in touch with mountains of information, more than we can ever read, watch or listen to, and because of this abundance of choice and this tool of liberty it has had repercussions in the way we see the world and the way we interact with it.

The second piece of technology i wish to discuss is that of the mobile phone, and its communication capabilities. This form of technology acts as an extension of oneself; it bridges the gap of space and allows us to interact on some level with another anywhere in the world so long as they have a piece of kit akin. Since the industrial revolution we have only been gaining momentum to reach a science fiction age. We have things under our fingertips that never would have been dreamed about 50 years ago! There are plenty of things to go on as to what can possibly be achieved, and in an infinite universe it must necessarily happen. So, how did the origin of the phone come about? This story starts with the discovery of electricity and ways to harness and direct it in the 1800’s. When this was achieved, it was beyond amazing for those of that time, and to be quite frank, it still is to me. Electricity is something which although one knows of it and understands the principles, will always be something magical, like fire. It has principles, but these principles are so complex it acts like a magical serpent which you need to tread carefully around otherwise you will get burned. What happened next was to harness sound as data and transfer it into electrical energy which can be passed from one thing to another. It’s essentially coding the audio information into electrical information and the trick was to convert it back again. Wireless is something which many people had a hand to, such as Antonio Meucci (who Alexander Graham Bell stole the work from and took out a patent on it) and Charles Sumner Tainter’s invention of the photophone. Also we mustn’t forget James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday and Edison who made some major contributions. Needless to say the technology was designed, produced and improved upon to what we see today. The first text was sent twenty years ago today (Dec 2012) i found out via computer. The phone couldn’t reply until a year later whilst the technology was being designed. The major factor which limited mobile phones to begin with was the battery – the battery design wasn’t nearly sophisticated enough to power the means of sending and receiving a signal to and from a satellite, let alone phone mast for very long. That’s why phones were these huge bricks which couldn’t exactly fit the pocket.

The more we have of something the less it’s worth. Take for example one of the worlds priciest materials such as gold or diamonds. Now they are expensive because not only they are ‘pretty’ but because there is little of it. That’s why there are many safes around the world holding back a lot of this stuff, as it maintains its value if it is scarce. If it is freely available it is not sought-after and thus, is worth less. But it is true, when choice is more in abundance, the value of those things are reduced because of the mass of consumer competition. it’s a kind of superiority complex and we all come across it when we are accustomed to sitting in front of a sky box or spotify; where because of the amount of choice we find that we are ever more so discontent with what we do end up with. We have gotten used to having entertainment under our fingertips at any moment, it makes us not appreciate the moment with much conviction; we think that there is something better that we could potentially be watching/listening to/using. So with this kind of technology of watching, it works the same way as with that of using. Communication, as i said before has been rapidly expanded to allow even the most remote person on the planet communicate to virtually anyone else with little difficulty. There is Email, texting, phoning, instant messaging, video calling, blogging, social networking, faxing, videoing and physical talking. So with all these various methods it seems that there should be little reason for one person to fail to be able to communicate to another in the modern world. But how does the standard of that communication fair in relation to the raw communication of face-to-face? I should probably highlight here, that face-to-face is simply without question, the best form of communication between individuals.

As far as i can make out however, is that this abundance is leading to a legacy of laziness. Don’t get me wrong, i love new technology, its conveniences are beyond question, but that doesn’t mean to say that i can’t see the harm in it too. There are some quite intricate and interesting arguments set against it’s cause with the backing of this Neo-Luddism group. Some arguments which i will write here and also attempt to either break them or find fault with them. When this is done, we can move onto the picture which i want to stress. That although technology is this amazing tool, it can diminish the purity of what laid before it and lead to a general inertia to the more important aspects of life to make way for the more artificial and less satisfying things.

“Technology erodes human character. It separates us from nature, which diminishes our natural self. Out of touch with nature, we behave selfishly, stupidly. We become consumers instead of receivers. We become artificial. At the extreme we behave like machines. Technology makes us greedy, unhappy, impatient, insensitive and full of hubris.” The comment here is rooted fairly firmly in our natural state of being close to nature. Nature in this case being what’s pure and comely about life and all that’s in it. I follow similar ideals, though i see much wonder and joy in technology too – creativity being the root of it. The problem i have is that when you get to the point of smothering yourself with technology and being completely absorbed by it to the point that you are bound to it, then it acts like a bad drug, and has consequences as a result. People need to find a balance between it and themselves. They need to take measure and see it for for what it is and be open to everything outside it too. Movement into this networked isolation is neither healthy nor productive. Life is about experiencing the world, and if you subtract it all for a more singular perspective through electrical curtains, you miss the point.

As ‘spark’ (once a neo-luddist) predicts in the New Scientist, the technological world will collapse completely by 2030/5, much like a white dwarf turning into a black hole, or a mule whose legs give due to the immense weight of it all, or even something out of Terminator with self aware machines which take matters into their own hands. Moore’s law (aptly named) states that computer power needs to double every year in order for it to sustain itself as an industry; an industry which pivots much of the modern world. Power doesn’t always equate speed though as between 2000 and 2009 speeds didn’t really change much, though the number of transistors did. There will be a limit it’ll reach, and that’s why carbon as the new form of processor is being looked at seriously. For the best part, there is only speculation and hints at science fiction to account for the future, but at some time or another our current technology would have sat only on the pages of science fiction or in the minds of fantasy. Whatever the case being, an excessive amount of technology strives to confuse our humanity, and overwhelms all our characteristics for ingenuity and creativity. It shadows our openness to the world at-hand.

I started this ramble to literally just briefly talk about my annoyance at cold-shouldered communication – aptly through the mobile phone. Where people blank others simply because it inconveniences them at the time.This behaviour then relays itself to face-to-face interaction too, where many people don’t know how to communicate to each-other anymore, or don’t even hasten to give the task the light of day. It seems that through the progression of the years where this abundance of data has become overly accessible; that people have become belligerent of others and focus merely on the superficial immediate gratification, as opposed to the long-term appeals. We are a throw-away culture, and we have been throwing away our humanity for years. We mix ourselves in data which cannot aid us through the day, and only stacks up to confuse the primal instincts that create and serve to bond with others. With everything is needed a balance of moderation. Too much of anything is bad and likewise for too little. I just hope in the next few years to come, people wont increasingly become more and more wrapped up in our data selves and come back to reality. A reality where life is and where we can communicate to solve the problems that physically face us.

http://blog.petflow.com/a-video-everyone-needs-to-see/