Weblog 4 Two to Tango

In his article, “Is Goggle Making Us Stupid”, Nicholas Carr discusses the change to our mental makeup that is being caused by the internet. He states that the internet has provided us with an abundance of information at our fingertips whenever we want it. If we are unable to find something in a particular article or on a certain website, we can instantly move to another to find what we are looking for. Carr believes that this instant wealth of information has affected our way of thinking, making it harder to pay attention to longer pieces or to actually read. Instead, we are pushed into more skimming and jumping from piece to piece. “My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles”, Carr writes. He worries that the internet “may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading” that we became used to through print writing. The writer points to other intellectual technologies that have reshaped our brains in the past, then calls the internet the newest to do so. Written word changed how our ideas were formed, as did the printing press. The invention of the clock and its time keeping capabilities changed how we lived, causing us to do certain things at certain times. The internet is the next intellectual technology to expand our mental capacities. Carr states that we tend to “take on the qualities of those technologies”, for when the clock and computer arrived we began to think or our brains as working “like clockwork” or “like computers” respectively. Carr’s argument centers on the fact that the internet will have the largest effect of any technology, as it touches so many aspects of our lives, and that we need to be wary of “its reprogramming us”. The Net is “designed for the efficient and automated collection, transmission, and manipulation of information”, and websites like Google are constantly striving to improve and streamline this process. They are looking into artificial intelligence, as well as other search engines that will be as smart as or smarter than the human brain. Carr asks, “Where does it end?” He is skeptical of the new technology, ultimately worried that “as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence”.

Carr provides a counter argument in his article to strengthen his view. He discusses how people thought that written word would destroy knowledge, cause people to be forgettable, and as Socrates said, cause people to “be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant”. This belief and its skepticism were partially correct, however writing actually expanded wisdom and knowledge and made it more easily spread. While the internet could have the same positive outcome, Carr believes it is something bigger and completely different from the alphabet. It steers us away from making our own associations, inferences, and ideas, instead providing them for us. It’s affect on us is much larger, with much deeper ramifications. We need to be conscious of becoming “pancake people- spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button”.

Upon reading Carr’s argument, Clay Shirky posted his response. He agreed with Carr’s premises that “the mechanisms of media affect the nature of thought”, “the web presents us with unprecedented abundance”, and we are pushed towards quick reading and away from thinking about one thing consistently. Shirky agreed that these changes were significant and needed necessary action, however he disagreed with what that action should be. He said that Carr’s piece was more about culture and the internet’s affect on it rather than its affect on thinking. He believes that reading was replaced by television long ago, and that the internet is attacking the pedestal that literature culturally sits on. It isn’t about reading or not reading War and Peace, but about our view of those who have and our value of the book itself. Where Carr says that we are sacrificing part of our thinking for the speedy internet, Shirky says we need to figure out how to “make the sacrifice worth it”. We aren’t doomed by the mental effects of the internet, according to Shirky. When we were overwhelmed with the influx of writing, we needed to sort through it, and evaluate it. “Society was better after that transition than before, even though it took two hundred years to get there”, he wrote. Now, we are just at the tip of the iceberg of the internet, and need to do the same as we did in the past: sort through the “greatest expansion of expressive capability the world has ever known”.

To me, these are two very good arguments. I liked Carr’s article, as he presented an important idea in our world today. I spent a lot of time reading online also, and I have actually felt the effects in my everyday life of quick reading, multitasking, and website jumping. I thought he presented valid comparisons of the internet’s effects to how the clock or print writing shaped our mental processes. He strengthened his argument by presenting a contrasting view of skepticism towards his beliefs. However, I felt he took it too far by extending into the world of artificial intelligence and stressing the downward spiral of the internet’s continuing effects. At this point in his argument is where I turn to Shirky, as he too agrees up to here. We aren’t destined to lose our original ideas and ability to form them or our own associations. Just as Shirky says, through discipline and time, we can successfully use the internet to our advantage. “It will be hard and complicated; abundance precipitates greater social change than scarcity”. Our job is not to fight the effects of the internet, but to learn to use them to our advantage.

Weblog 3 Solution to World Poverty or not?

A valid argument is presented by Peter Singer in his piece “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. In his work, Singer states his philosophy for ending a worldwide problem: all financially comfortable people in this country should forego luxuries and donate the money they would have used for these pleasures to a charitable organization. His initial assumption is that $200 is an average amount to be donated by each household, but increases this amount to “whatever money you’re spending on luxuries”. Singer plays on the morality of the reader, presenting moral analogies for comparison. The writer mentions Dora, who sells a young boy for money to purchase a new TV, and compares her to any American who upgrades his or her TV, instead of going without and donating the money to save a life. He provides further evidence through another comparison, presenting a correlation between Bob and society. Bob chooses to save his own financial security instead of a young child when a decision of which to save arises in a moving train incident. Just as Americans cannot see the children they could save, or know if the money will actually arrive there, the boy is too far away for Bob to really see or know if he is savable.  When looking at the example, the reader is asked to morally evaluate if Bob made the right decision, and in turn if we are making the right choice with our money by comparison. Singer goes on to elaborate that we are extremely far behind the UN recommended amount given, and that by ratio, Americans should spend more than $200 based on their wealth. He concludes by saying that if giving our money to charity makes life hard but morally right, “then that is the way things are”. We, like Bob, are all in a situation where an ethical decision is needed.

Upon reading Singer’s argument, Greg Schaefer wrote his own piece, “Singer’s not-so Persuasive Solution to World Poverty”. He summarizes the beginning of Singer’s piece, calling it “the strongest and most persuasive found in the essay”, and stating that it made him “feel sympathetic towards the children who are dying and feel guilty and ashamed that everyone cannot donate $200”. As Singer’s essay continues, Schaefer believes that the strength of his argument weakens. He writes that where $200 was a viable donation amount, asking for every cent of extra money is a large demand. The writer states that asking people to donate all the “money they have earned themselves” can irritate them. This will entail more persuasion also, which he says Singer fails to add. “Singer does not say why people should donate every penny of their surplus wealth, he just says we should do it”, states Schaefer. He concludes his discussion by saying Singer had a strong argument, but that he almost negated it by continuing to ask for more.

After reading the two arguments, I side more with Schaefer. Singer’s arguments are strong and his analogies, though extreme, are persuasive. The “Bob” story is a little over the top, but it does cause the reader to question his or her morals. I too “felt very compelled at this point in the article to donate $200 because I realized what little sacrifice I would have to make in order to save a child’s life”. I feel that Singer could have stopped here and had an influential argument. Instead he chose to take it further, creating a detriment to his view. He chooses to involve an unneeded comparison, in my opinion, in which he compared those who would choose their financial security over the life of a child to the Germans who chose to “look away when the Nazi atrocities were being committed”. This is a tough association which begins the downfall of his argument, continued in the request for all money designated for luxury to be donated. I also agree that Singer provided support for the $200 amount, but lacked it in asking for more. I believe Schaefer sums it up best, saying “If he had limited his demand for donation to $200, he would not have angered anyone and more people I think would have been compelled to donate after reading this article.”

Writing Reflection 1

Wow, that young girl Adora Svitak was quite impressive, no? Is she 9 going on 39? She spoke more intellectually advanced than many of the 18-24 college students that work for me. She also knew more about writing and the development of writing style than most people twice her age. As Adora spoke about her evolution as a writer, in the short time span, I began to think about my own evolution. She spoke about how she has added more to her stories, more body and substance. She has learned to develop them more, adding more in depth expansion. This is similar to how my writing has evolved over my extended (some would say very extended) writing period. Due to the expansive “life” knowledge that I have acquired over the last ten years in between my college periods, I have begun to add more to my pieces. I have learned to open up more, and to give share more in my writing. In my everyday life, I strive to help others from making the same mistakes that I have made, and to advise based upon my prior experiences. This has changed the way that I write, as I have begun to give more of myself to my work.  Where I used to write for attention or just to get the assignment done, I now try to write more meaningful pieces. I spend more time thinking about what I want to say, as well as how I want to say it. I now try to not just write to write, but instead write to say something. Just as Miss Svitak has learned to put more into her stories, I too have learned to do the same. It just took me a little bit longer.

Weblog 2 “Going Green”

Part I

1. Unemployment
2. Addiction
3. Health care
4. Recession
5. Us involvement in the Middle East
6. Racism
7. Global warning/going green/environmental issues
8. Terrorism
9. Swine flu
10. Internet rules/liberties

Part II

Environmental issues/Going Green

My knowledge of this issue is limited, but I know that it is a crucial issue in today’s world. I see “going green”, or “safe for the environment”, on a growing number of products and places. I have heard that at the rate we as a society were going, our environment and natural world were rapidly deteriorating. I have seen and been in eco-friendly cars, used green chemicals and products, as well as been in meetings to make my establishment safer on the environment. This issue is a problem because we are destroying our world and the world of our children. It affects everyone, and makes us think twice about how we live, what we buy, and how our decisions affect nature. I would say that I am a proponent of eco-friendly ways and means, as I use “green” products, drive a vehicle that is safe on the environment, and try to live more “green”. Overall survival is a major reason to support this position, as is the future of our kids, our overall living conditions, and our respect for and give back to Mother Nature. Evidence of the continuing damage done to the earth would help me to develop my reasons more in depth. Al Gore’s film “Inconvenient Truth”, as well as other pieces and studies concerning environmental issues, would provide proof that we need to take better care of our planet and be more eco-conscious.

Part III

One position held by people on the other side of the argument is that the whole “going green” movement is a hoax, and that the planet is just fine. They wake up, go outside, and see nothing out of the ordinary. They believe that the world is fine, and that it has been the same way forever and will continue to be regardless of our eco-friendly adjustments. Some look at this environmental issue as a marketing hoax, designed to sell more or different products, entice the purchasing of newer and “better for the environment” vehicles, as well as to generate more income for large corporations.  It is just another marketing ploy, one of many that occur every day. These people see advertisements throughout their day encouraging them to buy this or to use that to improve their lives, products which are said to be needed to advance their lives. “Going green” or changing to eco-friendly ways are just more of these schemes. My experiences differ as I have done more research and investigated more into the basis of these issues and the truth about them, learning that some do exist and that adjustments to our everyday lives can have a positive effect. I live in the same overly advertised world as the people on the other side of the argument, and I too have become cautious in my beliefs about what really works due to the high level of falsities that exist.  I have understanding for their position therefore, and might present false advertisements to show my sympathy for their views. I would then demonstrate that this issue is actually a real and true concern, using research and data as support.

Weblog 1 Society is….

Weblog 1 Society is…..

Part I

1. I believe that people are funny. I believe that people are extremely self conscious beings with a naturally low confidence levels. I also believe that if people slowed down for a second or thought before they spoke or acted that the world would be a less complicated place.
2. I believe that society is flawed and that it has become obsessed with the idea of celebrity. Society has a blurred vision of real life, as opposed to reality life.
3. I believe that government is more important than most people think. I believe that it is taken for granted, as well as the level of importance of everyone’s position in it. I also believe that it includes way too many fakes, as well as too much campaigning.  
4. I believe that justice is ultimately served. Whether it happens by way of the law or by way of karma, you get what you deserve.
5. I believe that knowledge is key, just like the saying or commercial says. I believe that everyone should strive to acquire as much as they possibly can, in anything they do. The people that have the most knowledge and put in the most work acquiring it are normally the ones that come out on top.
6. I believe that science makes amazing strides every day, some good, some not so good. It saves lives every day through new developments, but at the same time, science negatively affects lives through unnecessary surgeries and controversial developments.
7. As I stated in #2, I believe that reality and the sense of reality has lost its definition, and that celebrity and reality television have blurred our idea of reality today.
8. I believe that life needs to include more laughter and less seriousness.  I believe that we all need to stop and smell the roses more often in life, and that life in today’s world moves too fast. I also believe that everyone needs to make the most of their life.
9. I believe that happiness means different things to different people, but that everyone should chase what makes them happy. I believe that those with a false sense of happiness need to search inside themselves and find what true happiness really is.
10. I believe that goodness is in the natural wiring of everyone, but that the level of its power varies. Sometimes the connection is stopped or kinked, while at others it is at full blast.
11. I believe that death can come at any minute and that because of that we need to maximize our time. Do what you want to do, say what you want to say, and tell the ones you love that you love them more often.
12. I believe that God is too often looked to when things aren’t going well or our way, and not enough when things are going great. I believe that God is always with me, as cliché as it sounds, and that we are on a good level and have been for about 2 years.

Part II I believe that society….

Levels of celebrity in our lives; paparazzi, websites, blogs, news stories, E!TV, US Weekly, “reality” shows;

The amount of discussion/time spent discussing celebrities, as well as time spent watching other peoples’ lives.

I’ve seen who the youth of today looks at as its role models or its guides on how/who/what want to be.

It has a minimum effect on how I live, affects how I look/dress, but more for others.

Part III

1. People who disagree say that they live their lives, and that following the lives of celebrities and watching reality television are hobbies, just like watching football. They think there is nothing wrong with the blurred sense of reality that exists today, and that obsessing over the lives of strangers is okay.
2. Support for the opposition can be shown in the fact that this obsession isn’t a new thing, but that it has been going on for a long time. They can use examples like JFK, Marilyn Monroe, and Joe Namath to show that the lives of celebrities have been a point of obsession and interest for many years, not just today. I would argue that the level of technology, increased media and quality of it, and total rapid access to whatever we need has greatly increased the level of interest in celebrity. Today’s tv and the amount of reality shows has put more and new people in the spotlight, especially people that don’t need to be there.
3. The opposition seems to share the experiences of watching reality tv shows as well as reading celebrity magazines and following the lives of these celebrities.
4. They seem to pattern their lives after celebrities and reality television, trying to be like the people they see, whereas I do not.
5. These experiences and their interest in the glamorous life seem more interesting than their own lives.
6. Each side shares the common experience of having some level of celebrity in their lives, as it is inevitable that one is going to see or hear about the lives of someone famous at some point.
7. I have a better understanding for their position, as well as for their level of interest in the lives of the rich and famous. These famous people are interesting, have more interesting lives than the common man, and following their lives can be an escape for the boring daily grind. I just think that they need to concentrate more on their own lives, and be more realistic in who or what they want to be in their own real lives. They should look to successful people in a field of their choice as opposed to wanting to be Kanye West, or the Bachelor, or someone from an MTV teen reality show.

Class Blog Project Introduction

Wow, I never thought of myself as a “blogger”, but here we are. This is my introduction to my blog. I just worked a six day work week including a 40 hour fri-sun, so I am a little worn out and unfortunately keeping my first blog short. My future blogs will be more fulfilling and insightful.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!