The Future of Life

Since I began college I have taken about four environmental science/issues classes at three different universities. This argument is something I have heard over and over and over again, even back to my junior year in high school environmental science class. When it comes down to it, Wilson justifies his point remarkably well, outlining plausible and effective methods to conserve and protect the environment. However, one major point is missing in this part of the book. This is the political aspect of the problem. For example, in the United States there are hundreds, if not thousands of environmental activist groups connected around the world. But in the big picture, how much power do they really have? If a president is elected who could care less about the environment, what are the chances that the country as a whole will change any sort of direction in conserving and protecting the environment. Even if there are smaller political figures fighting for environmental issues, it is an uphill battle to gain any sort of ground on the issue.
Another issue which is not elaborated upon here are the people who believe that these problems of overpopulation, pollution, extinction and global warming are simply myths, and that technological progress will solve any problems that we do have in the world. It is difficult to take such a huge concept and make it understandable let alone believable to people who do not want to understand or believe it. So if it is simply a myth, a great many people will not make a move to change the situation until they see or feel some sort of reason to.
Overall this was a great argument with well thought out solutions to important problems. The facts as well as opinions are very persuasive and I believe that if these methods were taken into consideration worldwide, at least to a small extent, the long term effects would be extremely beneficial. One thing that humans need to understand is that we need to stop looking for a short term fix for environmental issues.

Modern Times

I never really got into the silent movie things and I found it rather difficult to sit through this movie. Even though, just when I became disinterested, something funny always managed to pull me back in. A few major things that I noticed in the movie, thematically speaking are the constant paralells of people and machines. The movie is all about work and the transition in American history when life depended on whether or not you could find work as well as maintain the job along with everyone else, to work like a machine. The picture at the beginning of the movie shows the tramp in the gears of a machine, thus hinting further that this transition forces humans to connect with machines. Along with that, in the beginning of the movie, the institution of work proves to be monotonous and as I noted before, instead of working with the machines to accomplish their task they are pushed to become machines themselves. Along these same lines, the feeding machine idea is just rediculous, truly taking the last bit of humanness out of the workers' lives. From the minute they walk into work to the minute they leave they must produce and not once relax, not even for a bite to eat. The tramp's character really proves that human error is inevitable and also that if we rely too much on machinery and it should fail, we will be helpless, there has to be a happy medium there.
Another note I want to make which I found interesting is that the institution of jail and the institution of work are comparable in this movie. Both prisoners and workers were addressed by the superiors as numbers, not names. This furthers the proposition I made earlier that every bit of humanity is taken out of life if the focus is entirely on technology and production without consideration for the people involved.

Cyberhood vs. Neighborhood

This article was a real mind tease. Barlow makes an excellent presentation for his revealing argument. He does not try to persuade the reader to one side or the other. Rather he finds a medium in which the inevitable will happen and it is best to approach it with an open mind rather than resist. I have so many comments to make towards this essay it could take me days. I will try to keep this response short and concise.
In the beginning of the article, Barlow describes the change in America's rural and suburban population patterns with the decline in farming and the increase of industry. I enjoyed his comment about "the combination of television and suburban population patterns" being "simply toxic to the soul" (344). I find it humorous that this article was written in the mid 90's and I would love to see a follow up to this article written present day, because this poison has not only infected the vast majority of the US population, it controls it. A huge part of the argument here is that the progression of technology, coupled with the changes in American society severely altered the concept of and the physical community itself.
I really enjoyed reading about Barlow's depictions of Deadheads. His definition of them is really cool to someone like myself who is too young to have seen the Dead with Jerry but loves every aspect of the lifestyle and values which they embodied. In a way, the Deadhead community was an extreme example of a community, with all of the necessary qualities but enhanced so much more. One issue that I do have with this part of the article though is when Barlow talks about encountering Deadheads online in 1987. I am not generalizing, but I am curious to know what percentage of the entire population of Deadheads were involved with the Internet at this time. While most of them were following the band, how many were really sitting at home on their computers? I understand that as a more present day concept this is more prevalent but it was the first question that entered my mind after reading that.
Further along in the article I really liked the use of the word prana when describing the virtual world, it connects a community together, but lacks spirit. It is simply text with no soul behind it. It is lacking in the Deadhead community online because they are simply beings, with only words. It is not the lack of heart though, it is the fact that the online community is merely a transcript of the true communal experience. If my understanding is right, the physical act of being together in a peaceful and loving community is much easier and more meaningful if it is done in person as opposed to online.
The main point of the article amazes me. Barlow describes the decline in the quality of life in the physical community and makes a valid point as to the endless possibilities that virtual communities hold. His argument is structured in a very insightful way. He supports the body of the essay with his conclusion, exploring the benefits of both different types of communities. In the conclusion, he describes a way to accept both communities while keeping an open mind and looking logically toward the future. He doesn't support the deterioration of the physical community and its interactions but instead pushes for a focus elsewhere. Basically if things are going down the tubes it might be worth giving the new frontier a try.
So my question to this whole article (which I thoroughly enjoyed) is...even if we accept all of this virtual reality with open minds and open hearts, how can it benefit human connection, that which is so coveted by those who value peace, love and the world around them? How can we minimize something so precious to a few channels of connection over the Internet?
And one last note...I appreciate and support online communities, especially when they work to support and benefit all those around. However I find it difficult to wrap my mind around something that should be so physical and personal being altered into a virtual experience.

Pay Your Own Way!

The subject of paying for college is a touchy subject for many young adults. It is a given, a college education is not cheap, no matter where you go. Loans, books, housing, food, technology expenses and more really do add up. The article "Pay Your Own Way" by author Audrey Rock-Richardson boasts of her ability to pay her way through college without the assistance of parental finances. At times, this article seems to be a bit excessive in the way it condemns young adults who do not pay for their own education. Excessive as it is though, I do agree and support the idea that students should take an active role in paying for at least a part of their schooling. The author's main gripe in this article is the fact that parents feel obligated to pay for their children. These students in turn do not feel it necessary to work through school and make up excuses for their choices regarding this matter. She argues strongly to prove her point, and I agree on about 75%, that it is a good experience to pay your own way through school. It teaches responsibility and money management. I hope that other people agree with this as well.

Connections

This essay makes me wonder where society will be in ten or twenty years. Handwritten letters used to be the norm. Does anyone even write little thank you notes anymore or is everything e-mails or something to that effect? The examples Tannen provides in this article, Connections, of families having so many televisions in their home simply so each person can watch whatever they want, alone, or how there is a radio in every room of the house, or the headphones people wear for jogging coupled with the obvious more recent trends of i-Pods make me wonder why society doesn't stress social intearaction as much as it promotes seclusion! Tannen provides an excellent example of why technology is important in keeping people connected, however used in excess, this trend is detrimental to our way of life. The basic concept of human contact and communication is at risk if people rely on technology as a means to live their lives.

Identity Crisis

First of all I want to say that I wrote a great response to Turkle's article, saved it, came back to retrieve it and it was gone. So here's my second shot. I found the article, Identity Crisis, difficult to read at first. After the third or fourth time going through it, I finally got what the author is saying. I split the article up into different sections to analyze. The first section does not concern me much, discussing MUDS etc. What I am interested in are the parts where Turkle discusses issues such as personal identity and physical vs. virtual reality. She discusses that people are identifying themselves so much more now in virtual settings. This may, some scholars say, help them to experiment with different personality traits to see what works for them and how it feels. However then we play with ideas such as this, it results in less socialized human beings.
I had lots of comments in response to the middle of this essay. Turkle says that "I have argued that Internet experiences help us to develop models of psychological well-being that are in a meaningful sense postmodern: They admit multiplicity and flexibility. They acknowledge the constructed nature of reality, self and other" (66-67). My response to this is are these real and meaningful in a realistic sense or are they artificial? These technologies might stimulate the imagination, but to what extent is this beneficial if it simply cycles back to technology instead of into human interaction. Also, reality and self are NOT constructed concepts, they are real. Labeling them as constructed draws a line where there should not be one.
Later on in the essay Turkle discusses different scholars' views on technology. The point is made "Over the past decade, such mythologies have been recasting our sense of collective identity" (68). The problem that jumps out at me here is that there is no physical collective, its all anonymous and almost fictitious in a way. It is real, but it is not tangible and not social, as a collective should be. It is shocking to me that technology could at some point strip qualities such as race, age, gender etc from us, things that are imperative to our sense of identity. The bigger problem I have with this, is that most people are unthreatened by this, and don't really care.
I have to say though, I did find a part of this essay that struck me in a positive way. I have always learned of and thought of post-modernism as being an abstract and intangible concept. After Turkle's essay, post-modernism has been solidified and given shape and more meaning to me. She says, "computers are increasingly expressing a constellation of ideas associated with postmodernism, which has been called our new cultural dominant" (70). The thoughts and ideas which were so abstract some years ago, are commonplace now. My overall response to this article is one of confusion. There is so much happening in the world presently, and life is changing so quickly. It seems that society relies more on technology than on their own abilities to interpret and process life.