First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Is our access to advanced technology making us lazy and dumb?
8138 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / North Carolina
Offline
Posted 2/15/07

azrael910 wrote:


abel89 wrote:

One day, as I was listening to a very interesting lecture from my English teacher, I heard him say something along the lines of this: "to the contrary of what people think, your generation's access to all this technology simply makes you dumber and lazier, it makes it so you don't have to learn more than how to punch in buttons on a machine, while said machine does the rest, because of this you don't really have to use much brain power, or physical power for that matter" could he be right?, I mean there are so many signs that he is, what are your thoughts on the subject?


Anyone else see the irony here? A friggin english teacher? Arguably the easiest most cupcake job in the world? And he is calling us lazy? I highly suspect he wasn't in tip top shape either. What a waste of goddamn space. Someone should take him out and shoot him in the street to spare the gene pool of his presence.

The bottom line is that it that technology pushes people - and society - forward. I'm as much a romantic about the past as the next guy, but I'm first and foremost a realist. Life sucked in ye olde days when it came to mundane day to day living. Maybe he likes the idea of shitting in a chamber pot or an outhouse. Maybe he likes the idea of developing Polio. Maybe he likes the idea of guys like Stephen Hawking not being able to communicate with the world.

He does realize those of us actually in the technology field have to go back and learn most of it, right? Oh wait, he doesn't - he's a goddamn english teacher. His idea of "technology" is youtube and his iPod. I'm learning how to use components that are obsolete, and how to calculations by hand. Why? I'll never do it those ways in industry - it's to allow me to understand what's going on, not just how to "push buttons". Technology doesn't push itself forward - there are many many hamsters running on little wheels behind the curtain.

Physically? Hmm we have less manual labor, that is true, but it hasn't limited our physical potential at all. We can live longer and healthier than before, even if people choose not to. Are more people out of shape because they don't engage in manual labor? Yeah I'll give him that. We can drive everywhere, ride escelators and elevators, and use machines to do alot of old traditional manual labor (look at factories and farms now). I'd say america is overly reliant on these conveniences, but elsewhere around the world they've managed to say healthier than us while still enjoying the benefits of a modern society, so his argument isn't against technology, but the american lifestyle. Actually his argument is against america's reliance on technology, not technology itself. We are the cause, technology is the means.

I think technology has dumbed us down to a limited degree when it comes to language and culture. I don't think our brains get the same intellectual stimulation they used to. Compare a letter written by an average civil war soldier to what you would send in a long email to day. But I think that may be more due to the evolution of the language as much as anything esle. Thanks to spell check, nobody knows how to spell anymore. Hell look at the abomination of language of internet slang (see games forum for examples). But then again, it's easy to look at the past and praise the culture until you stop and notice that most of what we see was targeted at high scociety - not the peasantry. They enjoyed their bawdy carnal pleasures as much if not more than we do, it just wasn't perserved quite as well. I think the main difference is the focus has shifted from more intellectual entertainment to more base and carnal. The later was usually swept under history's rug, but it's now taken center stage.

What an arrogant worthless prick. I'm going to assume you're in high school. You know why men go into education, particularly high school english and history? THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. It's as low as you can go while still requiring a college education. Academia cuts them off from the real world and they lose their perspective, like your idiot teacher obviously has. Don't get me wrong, I've had some awesome english and history teachers, but their oppinions on technology are as relevant an actor's oppinion on politics.


Umm, actually he's a retired army special forces colonel who happened to get an education degree while earning his officer's commission, who would break your neck if you said that to his face, and he's a very cool and intellectual guy, oh yeah and he's in very good shape, and as a special forces soldier, he's had access to an ample amount of advanced technology that most people haven't even seen yet, and during weekends and vacations, he actually travels around to give lectures
19530 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Germany
Offline
Posted 2/15/07
shocking
3700 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Pennsylvania
Offline
Posted 2/15/07
Although I think it is an interesting idea, I dont think it is true. We are not dumber because of technological advancements. It just makes things more convenient and quicker. As for being lazier, it depends on the person. I believe the technological advancements actually allow us to get more done in a shorter period of time.
30586 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Chicago, USA
Offline
Posted 2/15/07
We had a long discussion of this in our AP European History class. Pretty much, we came up to the conclusion that most technology is bad, besides essentials (Electricity, heat, running water, telephone (not cell phone) etc) and we never really needed most of the stuff we have. We spent less money on pay phones than we do cellphones. We don't need the DVD player in the back of the car, or the phone that can take pictures. Seriously, how many times in your life did you go "Man, I wish I had a camera now..." when you didn't have the camera phone? I bet less than 5, and close to 0 if not 0. I mean, do you really need a button to slide open that door on your mini van? And honestly, how many of you here, when the electricity goes out, are bored because they cannot find something to do? Overall technology is not a bad thing, but the way we submerse ourselves in it is. There are so many useless products out and so many duplicates of other products. I can understand that technology pushes us or we push technology, I believe its a little bit of both. However, with all the intelligence we have going towards useless things I feel its wasted.

Yeah, you can argue that technology only made our lives better and brought more to us, but you could counter argue it in the same way. The average life-span of a human before the industrial revolution was ~34 and during it was ~17. Technology also brings about death and destruction. Things like the atomic bomb were created, mechanized warfare, genocide, the holocaust were due to technology. You cannot say anyone of those is possible without post-industrial revolution technology. I agree, there is technology that is useful, like the internet, electricity, plumbing, automobiles, etc. However, theres so much useless crap out there its not even funny. Hell, its reasons like this the Unabomber killed 3 people and injured about 20 others. Also, capturing him was the longest FBI manhunt in history.
Quoting the Luddite Kirkpatrick, "...Which, I say, is a shame. Because the central point the Unabomber is trying to make--that "the industrial technological system" in which we live is a social, psychological and environmental "disaster for the human race"--is absolutely crucial for the American public to understand and ought to be on the forefront of the nation's political agenda... the Unabomber's argument would seem to be this:
"Industrial technological society" has succeeded to the point where, because of its size and complexity, it has constricted human freedom, meaning one's power to 'control circumstances of one's own life.' Such freedoms as we do have are those permitted by the system consistent with its own ends--economic freedom to consume, press freedom to expose inefficiency and corruption--and do not in fact give individuals or groups true power, in the same sense that they have control over satisfying 'life-and-death issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense.' 'Today people live more by virtue of what the system does FOR them or TO them than by virtue of what they do for themselves... Modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his face depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence."
Now, I could continue with a plethora of arguments, such as Sale's and the Unabomber's belief, along with many others, that the use of a new item of technology is INITIALLY optional, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional; however, I'll stop for now, considering this will be commented on by almost everyone who reads it in a negative fashion. As for some random facts: People worked less hours and spent more time with their family before electricity was invented than after. Work hours increased, sleep went down and family became more distant. Thomas Edison, the inventor of electricity, the record, and many other things worked 18 hours a day, spent 3-4 to himself and slept the remaining 2-3.

Oh, and Azrael, without English or other languages there would be no such thing as communication or writing for that matter. If people didn't go to school and become literate then we unarguably would not have the technology we have today. Hell, if Isaac Newton was illiterate we might not even have physics or science for that matter. And for someone who bashes English, you made several rhetoric mistakes in the one paragraph that I read.
6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 2/15/07
write*.

Consider this question. If much of technology was to suddenly disappear, would we become smarter, and less lazy. One reason I changed the question around is that one of my beefs is that the meaning of the words "smart" and "lazy" are rather vague, so this helps put those in some kind of context.

If that happened though, I would definitely become more active. I would be forced in that direction, so my drive would increase. Thats an easy one. This is me I'm talking about myself though, and its pure speculation. This is a boring answer though. They would be more inclined to work simply because of how conditions are, but has their mindset really changed at all, if technology was giving back right away would they be as lazy as they were?

Would I become less dumb? Fist, I want to point out, I think what we are considering here is cognitive ability, not the ability to speak or culture, etc. Well, another thing, I don't think my intellectual potential would increase. I'm talking about my intelligence. I don't think I would jump up 20 iq points more then I would have normally in the high-end technology word (after say, 20 years time). On the minus side, I would have many resources taken away from me, and world wide communication would not be as common, so my overall knowledge would probably be less. Meh, a very vague question, and I don't really want to deal with it. Clarify the question if you want.

Anyway, overall, I'd rather have the high-end technology then not. High end technology may show a propensity towards laziness and other things, but I don't think there is a necessary relationship.
11659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/15/07
As I see it, there's always tradeoffs that come with new technology. Some people tend to use tech as a resource to better themself, while others adopt MSN grammar. It depends on the discipline and drive to better within each person.Its only up to the individual on how the tech is used, so if there is anyone to blame for laziness, we can only blame ourselves - not the technology.
30586 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Chicago, USA
Offline
Posted 2/15/07

cbisram wrote:

As I see it, there's always trade off's that come with new technology. Some people tend to use tech as a resource to better themself, while others adopt MSN grammer, roflmao etc. It depends on the discipline and drive to better within each person,.Its only up to the individual on how the tech is used, so if there is anyone to blame for laziness, we can only blame ourselves - not the technology.


I disagree because I don't believe you'd honestly see "roflmao" and the spelling of 'grammar' as 'grammer' a whole lot without technology. Due to technology more children play video game than read. Obviously, just looking at your last paragraph, using not existent words like "off's, themself, grammer" it seems to put a dampen on our intellectual ability, especially if you're bashing English. If its so easy to teach, you think it'd be easy to learn and follow. But, the "MSN grammer" as you call it seemed to have effected you too. I can understand why you think we should blame ourselves instead of the technology, because after all, we're the ones misusing it. Because after all, the MSN program installed on my computer doesn't make me type "Hey, what r u up 2 2day? Wanna go out with me? Y not? OMG." but if it wasn't there then I wouldn't of even had the option to change like that and use "MSN grammer."

Edit: Oh, and because I know this is going to come up I don't mean "you" as in you cbisram, I just mean in general to the people who are reading this, because I know you weren't the one bashing English. Maybe the "MSN grammer" part was directed at you a little though =P
11659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/15/07
Hahaha your totally right crossy, im not being sarcastic, but your right. I totally didn't even catch all my errors. It seems i'm just as bad as my friends who constantly use those phrases on MSN. I guess I need to pay attention more, sorry if I came off as a hypocrite in my post.
30586 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Chicago, USA
Offline
Posted 2/15/07
Nah, you didn't come off as a hypocrite. I used to use that MSN style grammar too. I remember I handed in an essay once in seventh grade that had 'u' meant for 'you.' After that though, I made sure to try and type to follow English rhetoric. Been there, done that! xD
209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Philippines
Offline
Posted 2/15/07
Not dumber but lazier. theres a difference between the both. Everything has its pros and cons, including technology. I think it really depends on the one who is using it.
5986 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / lazing in England
Offline
Posted 2/15/07

abel89 wrote:

Umm, actually he's a retired army special forces colonel who happened to get an education degree while earning his officer's commission, who would break your neck if you said that to his face, and he's a very cool and intellectual guy, oh yeah and he's in very good shape, and as a special forces soldier, he's had access to an ample amount of advanced technology that most people haven't even seen yet, and during weekends and vacations, he actually travels around to give lectures
What is his definition of 'technology'?

Technology dates back to the earliest era of Prehistoric period, so which is he talking about? The concept of technology or the computer age?

Edit: Forgot to throw in my opinion. Either way I don't agree with him.
209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Philippines
Offline
Posted 2/15/07

Technology is a broad concept that deals with a species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts,


English Teacher : So therefore i conclude that our ancestors become dumb when they discovered fire and made the wheel.
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 2/15/07

abel89 wrote:

Umm, actually he's a retired army special forces colonel who happened to get an education degree while earning his officer's commission, who would break your neck if you said that to his face, and he's a very cool and intellectual guy, oh yeah and he's in very good shape, and as a special forces soldier, he's had access to an ample amount of advanced technology that most people haven't even seen yet, and during weekends and vacations, he actually travels around to give lectures


Actually that changes very little of what I said. I'm ex military myself, so I know were you're coming from. Being an officer doesn't mean crap, all being a higher ranking officer (which colonol is only 0-6 so it's in the middle) means is you just knew how to make yourself look good on paper. Army has the worst of the lot. Don't beleive? Look at the cluster fuck in Iraq. You can only blame the politicians so much for that mess over there, and the army is running that show.

I'm not going to "ooh and ahh" over a ex special forces colonol because I know better. Yes it is very challenging to get that high that high a rank and get through all the training. But that doesn't magically qualify him to say idiotic statements. He want's to to talk about military or englsih related matters, then he is more than qualified. Why does he magically understand technology now? Oh wait - he still doesn't. It does explain the arrogance that came across in his quote though.

It's not "happened to" get an education degree. He still too the path of least resistance. He still has a degree you can't do anything with aside from teach (and get a commision). He still has no technical background. A commision requires a degree regardless of whether it's basket weaving or nuclear engineering. I actually almost put getting a commision in my original post about english majors, but decided it was too unrelated (apparently it wasn't!). There are alot of officers with education, english, and history degrees. And alot of them happen to be very incompetent. And competence has no bearing on progressing through rank - like I said, it's all about how good you can make yourself look on paper. As you get higher in rank, it's all about who you know, not what you've done. One of the main reasons I got out to the military to pursue a civilian career was that rank wasn't based on merit or performance in the least.

Special Forces training is gruelling physically and it wears you down mentally, and smart guys do tend to get involved in it (I had a detail a long time ago where I filed the orders of alot of people on base when I was in training, so I got to see the test scores of alot of special forces wash outs - all very high). There are complicated aspects to it (especially if you have to learn a language), but it's still not rocket science. What special forces was he in?

Alot of military special forces and elite career fields tend to think they have magically mastered everything there is in the world, regardless of whether they have any experience with it. Does he have any experience with technology? The answer is still most likely no. If he is retired he is at least around 45, that means he probably hasn't been inthe field since, oh, desert storm? Maybe eastern europe? He could have seen some of Iraq but that's rather doubtfull unless he just got out. You do the math with what level of technology we were using back then. I know exactly what levels of technology the regular military uses, and I can assure he is obscenely out of touch if thats what he is basing it on. Military uses old technology, the oldest they can get away with, army (once again) being the worst. He hasn't been in contact with the "latest technology." And I've worked with classified military technology as well. Most technology the military gets is old by the time it hits the field. And, hypothetically, lets say he did work with the latest technology (which he didn't)... all he did was know how to use it, not how it worked. Making him a button pusher, and by his own addmission, ignorant of it.

So in short my statement really hasn't changed much.
11470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / F
Offline
Posted 2/15/07
To work a machine, i guess u have to b smartish. So i dont think its makeing u dumb. But yah, its totally makeing us lazy.
209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Philippines
Offline
Posted 2/15/07

To work a machine, i guess u have to b smartish.


yes i agree, specially this machine called "Television"

haha
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.