Discovery Writing #4 “My Cyborg Body” prompt #2

I agree with the notion that the ‘natural [human] body’ is the height of evolution due to the progress in technology. Beginning in the late development of evolving humans, plants and animals were slowly integrated into domestication. Tribes or bands of people stopped living nomadic lives because they could be stationary and still have food and shelter. This security in the needs for life increased population, giving rise to new ideas and inventions. In this progress, though, family life became less important and people began to live in order to work instead of working in order to live. This trend grew over time and continues to do so in the twenty-first century. Species evolve in order to adapt to their environment in order to live on, but humans have developed in technology so much that many pitfalls of the physical and mental self can be compensated by devices. For example, if a woman two to three thousand years ago lost her eye-sight, it would put her in more danger. The inventions of corrective lenses, pace-makers, computers, etc. aid in human life so much that we no longer have any reason to physically or genetically adapt. I do not think that the only way to continue to change as humans is to add non-human elements, because if we took away all advanced technology then our bodies and our species would have reason to adapt. Humanity can survive without this advanced technology because we have before, but having something taken away after becoming dependent on it tends to have adverse side effects. The world does not need cell phones, clocks, radios, or vehicles, but their presence allows the world to become more connected, organized, and arguably safer. I would have to disagree with the notion that our bodies have devolved; I think they are just at a standstill because our bodies have no motivation or reason to evolve in this technological world. These conveniences have made humans abuse them in ways that negatively affect their bodies (i.e. the choice of fast food over self-prepared meals leading to obesity). Many of these developments have caused harm to humans because solving one problem tends to cause various other problems. The fact that much of the world has become dependent on computers, cell phones, etc. somewhat makes us less human because the society we live in does not allow us to get away with a Luddite mentality. Perhaps the constant engagement of the ‘what if’ game has caused much of this need for comfort and security. If we do not have a cell phone or any way to connect with the world, we become vulnerable. Humans have no reason to evolve, but they do not seem to be devolving either.

"Approaching the Radical Other" Precis

In Susan Zickmund’s article “Approaching the Radical Other” (1997), investigates the emergence of subversive groups due to the growth in on-line technology and cyberculture. Zickmund begins by informing the reader of major radical groups and how they interact on the internet, proceeding to explain how the major tenants of the groups are carried out over the internet, and concludes by analyzing the role of the antagonist in these communities. The author moves through the nature of the radical groups both on and off-line in order to reveal the rapid growth of knowledge and access to these groups, as well as informing the reader of opportunities to interact within a community one would not normally engage themselves in. Susan Zickmund writes to those interested in the growth and change in cybercultures, as well as those curious about the pros and cons of the internet by organizing the article in an informative and interesting manner.

Throughout Zickmund’s article, she carefully explains the spread of radical groups and the benefits the internet gives to these controversial people. However, she does not go so far as to say whether this is a positive or negative thing; instead she concludes, “a substantial infiltration from the outside may serve as an alternative to censorship” (251). In “Dropping the Bomb on Google” (2004), the author reports a confrontation between Google and Steven Weinstock regarding the promotion of an anti-semitic website. Zickmund may react to Weinstock with her article, telling him that freedom of speech for everyone is more beneficial than censorship, because it is a tool used to learn more about cultures we would not normally have the opportunity to encounter. Also, according to Zickmund’s article, Weinstock should take advantage of the opportunity to communicate with the site owners and make his feelings known, rather than taking away their freedom out of fear, and wanting nothing to do with them. One must remember that freedom of speech is for everyone, not just the agreeable. Google spokesperson, David Krane, seems to understand this when interviewed for the article “Dropping the Bomb on Google”. He says that “Google’s primary goal is to organize all of the world’s public information, and this includes the widest range of options” (1). This seems to be much more efficient and possible than Weinstock’s proposal: “Google should be able to filter its search results, categorize offensive content and reorder the results accordingly” (1). This seems silly and unnecessary, though, in that most content has the capacity of being offensive to at least one person. One must stop playing the victim, and take an active role in these communities in order to reconcile or at least voice any differences.

Networked Homes Move Closer to Reality - Precis

Richard Shim and Michael Kanellos, writers of CNET News.com, report in their article, “Networked Homes Move Closer to Reality” (2004), that the market for highly technological domestic devices is beginning to pick up. Shim and Kanellos focus on the advancements of major companies, beginning with what their hopes are for the future of home technology, and then critiquing the concept of digitized homes, concluding with a summary of the current technological state of the general population. The authors examine and discuss what is in store for domestic life in regards to technology in order to prepare and perhaps excite their readers. Richard Shim and Michael Kanellos target on-line users interested in current technological advances and events by using the names and reports of numerous major companies involved in computers and other electronics.

Shim and Kanellos’ article makes me wonder if this resembles the doubtful, yet anticipatory feelings twenty or thirty years ago when it was suggested that there would be a computer in every home. While it is difficult to imagine the Fahrenheit 451 version of the future - walls of television in every home and a kind of mind-numbing laziness - one can see the emergence of a happy medium. Although I am not sure why we need refrigerators with internet access, as Shim and Kanellos report, it is somewhat comforting, and rather indulgent to look forward to that kind of unnecessary technology in the home; yet, one cannot help but do so. If the world has advanced its hopes from a television and computer in every household to an affordable digital home in only the past half-century, one cannot help but imagine what awaits us in the next fifty years.

Rhetorical Stasis: Robins' "Cyberspace and the World We Live In"

Kevin Robins points out that a problem of putting too much hope in cyberspace for the future exists and will continue to do so until we realize "there is no alternative and more perfect future world of cyberspace and virtual reality" (78). Robins also summarizes the viewpoint he plans to criticize in the first part of the article:

[the move towards virtual reality] is driven by a feverish belief in transcendence; a faith that, this time round, a new technology will finally and truly deliver us from the limitations and the frustrations of this imperfect world (78).

The author explains the origin of this faulty thinking in discussing a postmodern application of Utopia. In the past, a utopian society has only been applied to people as citizens of a country or society; never before have people started to apply this 'nowhere' to the non-physical world - until now. This need for a perfect, unified world finds its roots in human nature, and the only way to keep cyberspace and the real world separated is if people realize human nature will carry over to this future world.

Robins says this problem with people and the future of cyberspace is an unreasonable expectation for the future of our world. The problem, though, is not only true for the internet and cyberspace, but instead continues on where it began in human nature and the desire to live in a comfortable and peaceful society. Kevin Robins makes clear distinctions in his article to show how cyberspace will fail to satisfy those who are wanting to improve or change their self-identity, and those who want a new collective identity. Robins summarizes Krishan Kumar's views on the human desire to change identity:

As in utopian thinking more generally, there is the belief or hope that the mediated interaction that takes place in that other world will represent an ideal and universal form of human association and collectivity (86).

One cannot desire a collective identity without wanting to alter their self identity.

This problem of high expectations for the future world through merging with cyberspace does not pose a direct threat, but it may limit the potential of the current world, or complicate it. This conflict in views cannot be avoided because technology is rapidly developing to the point where people cannot catch up. Wanting a better future is certainly honorable, and Robins quotes Rheingold's views on the subject: "cyberspace can become] one of the informal public places where people can rebuild the aspects of community that were lost when the malt shop became the mall"(88). There is always something positive in wanting a better world, but Robins suggests we are putting too much pressure on cyberspace, and forcing it to take a role it is not meant to take.

Kevin Robins wants to state his case, and does so in hopes to persuade his readers into changing their expectations for cyberspace's place in the future. Robins gives a solution to this kind of thinking by offering up an alternative:

We must de-mythologize virtual culture if we are to assess the serious implications it has for our personal and collective lives. Far from being some kind of solution for the world's problems...virtual inversion simply adds to its complexities (92).

Robins concludes his article with a statement about not being able to escape the reality of the world and the behavior of the people who reside within it. He does not urge the reader to take action, but provides many claims throughout the article about the way things would turn out if society continued thinking in an unrealistic way about the future.

Baudrillard

Baudrillard's theory of simulation within today's society suggests that simulacrums (copies with no original) deviate humanity from reality. He goes on to say that cyberspace separates us from reality, completely skewing our views of how things really are in the world. One example of this that comes to mind are advertisements with people who appear to be real to sell a product, but are only a conglomeration of computerized alterations. People's ideas of what other people and themselves should look like are thrown off because of this misrepresentation brought on by technology.

On an individual level, music is very much a simulacrum. A musician writes lyrics to a song, or notes for a composition, and yet those feelings behind it all are never fully relayed to paper. The outcome is only a sign of his or her intentions, and therefore music becomes a combination of influences at the time it was being created, and does not express the real emotions. Expensive fashions and glamorous lifestyles are given meaning because media pays attention to those kinds of people, and therefore place a value on it. This keeps people from seeing the reality of the world and life in that it makes something top priority that should not be - it strives for a horrific unity in society; it strives for corruption, and does so through feeding false representations of the way things really are in attempts to make things the way they 'should' be.

My Technological History

My earliest memory of technology is without a doubt my Teddy Ruxpin, who is still in working order. Although not as soft and cuddly as most other stuffed animals, Teddy proved to be better company. I also remember playing video games with my brother when I was young, and we progressed with the rest of the neighborhood kids in updating our gaming systems every birthday or Christmas. I frequently visited the arcade with friends from school, challenging each other in Galaga and Pac Man. My dad brought home our first computer when I was seven, and I spent countless hours playing Number Munchers and various other games I can no longer recall. I do not find myself having any anxious feelings or fears over PCs, but I find myself wishing the technological advancements in cell phones, cameras, etc. would slow down because one can not help but feel a desire or obligation to get the latest of these devices. It makes me anxious whenever I purchase something new in technology because those items are expensive, and as soon as I buy one there is a newer and better version already on the market. I use my computer mostly for e-mail, word processing, researching the internet for school and for my own interest, and I occasionally use AOL instant messenger. My life would be remarkably different without a computer because it has been a part of my life since I can remember. I would have to hear about books I may be interested in reading through word of mouth or by reading reviews in books or magazines instead of looking them up on the internet. Also, I would not be as connected with friends who live across the country, and many of my friendships from years ago would no doubt have diminished. However, I would probably have significantly more time on my hands, because the internet is something I could never tire of due to the variety of things to read and learn about. Being a student would probably be about the same if no one used the internet because less would be expected of everyone due to limited resources. It is much easier, though, when one has the internet, because it gives them the ability to learn things of interest outside of the classroom.

I'm a Spirograph - how dorky is that?

You're a Spirograph!! You're pretty tripped out,
even though you've been known to be a bit
boring at times. You manage to serve your
purpose in life while expending hardly any
effort (and are probably stoned to the gills
all the while).


What childhood toy from the 80s are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

My Personal Internet Experience - A Metaphor

My interactions with the on-line world are best compared to a person’s changing taste in food throughout their lifetime. Just as children are fixated on sweet, sugary foods that allow them to run rampant for hours without tiring, so was I in regards to cyberspace. My first taste of the internet was in the sixth grade at a sleepover, and I and six other giggling girls crowded around a slowly scrolling computer screen in anticipation for the next message directed towards us. It was then that I discovered I could be anyone I wanted on-line, and actually get away with it. A few months later, my parents signed on to AOL, and I received my own screen name. It turned out to be the forbidden cookie before dinner in that in order for me to be allowed to use the internet, I had to finish all of my domestic responsibilities first. My internet experience up until high school consisted only of instant messaging, e-mailing, and looking at sites of bands in which I took interest, but once in high school I was introduced to a different use for the internet – one of work instead of leisure. Taste in food can apply here as well, because as I became more familiar with what I had available to me, the new things I tried became more and more appealing with time. Choosing where my mouse would click next was similar to that of adults having more of a taste for nutritious and more sophisticated foods than they did in childhood. It is important to note, however, that although no longer a child, sweet foods are still desirable and acceptable, just as I still often find myself talking on-line and researching at the same time. Upon my completion of high school and my entry into college, I was finally able to shed the friendly, yet seemingly juvenile interface of America On-line; Internet Explorer seemed to be more involved and mature. Up until now I have a laundry list of foods that do not appeal to me, just as I do not enjoy certain aspects of the internet. Games played over the internet with other people are my mushrooms – I have tried both, and do not like the texture or taste of either.

The metaphor of a progression in a person’s taste in food from childhood to adulthood best reflects my personal experience with the internet. I feel this metaphor is successful in describing my experiences because it is structured chronologically, and both play a significant role in everyday life. Of course, this metaphor fails in many areas, such as being able to reflect and explain certain aspects of each other without stretching too much to make a solid connection. For example, my use of the internet went from being social to more solitary, and there is no easy way to relate that with a person’s taste in food. So, in conclusion, it appears that my experience with the internet is a compendium of my cuisine.

"The Utlimate Computer" by Michael Rogers

Michael Rogers, an editor and general manager of Newsweek.com and a contributor to MSNBC.com is a self acclaimed practical futurist who suggests in his weblog entry on MSN titled "The Ultimate Computer" (2004) that technology will become so advanced and immersed in our society that it will be a necessary convenience in everyday life. Rogers makes a prediction about technology becoming more important in the lives of Americans, and with the help of others, he then describes to the reader what those devices might be like in the not-so-distant future. The author is simply reflecting on the way technology has progressed in the last two decades with hopeful and imaginative thought in order to encourage people to think about the possibilities of what may be emerging in the twenty to thirty years. Michael Rogers' reflection on computers and the role they will play in future lives is brief and innocent, yet contemplative, and he connects with his readers through the use of colloquial speech and a popular method of looking towards the future.

This article reminds me of a video I watched in the fifth grade of a commercial made in the fifties about what the world might be like in fifty years, showing women jumping behind an opaque screen only to return moments later in a completely different outfit; needless to say this prediction was far off from the realities of today. In reading Michael Rogers' weblog, I have the same feeling as I do of the faulty predictions of the past, because although the one in the commercial was absurd and highly unrealistic and Rogers' much more practical, it seems too far-fetched to think these advancement will be made in the next two or three decades. It has taken a full decade or two of user-friendly computers to be introduced into much of American society, but hoping for technology to be connected to us in every aspect of our lives is grounds for me to accept the life of a stubborn Luddite - so perhaps I will turn out like my parents after all.