Saturday, February 6, 2010

< {} /\/\ |> |_| + € Ѓ $ (Computers) & € \/ {} £ |_| + ! {} /\| (Evolution)

Well, here's another post, and hopefully, an equal opportunity to boggle the mind and perplex the cerebellum.

And other assorted-various parts of the brain.

To begin, I was very surprised how much of an impact of technology plays on humanity. In modern times, we consider any improvement or positive change to benefit us as individuals and as a society. Oftentimes, the only choice we have to make is between competitors of the same product. But was it always that way?

In relation to any improvement, what are the consequences to each advance? Doesn't each advance, from writing to blogging now become an effective mean in which to project creative thoughts and ideas?

More importantly, hasn't each innovative breakthrough been a way to make things easier? I mean, technically, we can blame the wheel for taking away physical stamina and keeping humans from becoming obese. Likewise, we can say that the commodity of packaged foods eliminated any need for population control and the fight for survival.

However, in comparison to technological advances, we see that we are replacing one means with another. The wheel hasn't taken away from the fact that we still need to exert some force or effort to travel. Even though we can carry more, we are still accomplishing the same goal we set out for. As for food, we aren't replacing one with another, we are simply taking away from having to gather.

But the problem is too diverse with the internet. We are mass-producing a single unit in which we can do multiple tasks at a single time. Our phone has the ability to call and text. To use a calculator, to chat, to use the internet, to tell time, to play games, to search for information. Even audio players, such as the Zune and iPod come included with multiple features. Even more startling is the transition from paper to stored data.

There is no doubt that in an office, one would rather have a computer with patient's files stored on it than filing cabinets cluttering space (although during a power outage, I believe that we would prefer the paper!).

In regards to the Friedrich Nietzsche case of buying a typewriter, it poses an interesting question. Nietzsche didn't altogether eliminate the need for paper. He replaced writing by hand for the ease of deft agility and processing his work faster.

So why was there a noticeable change in his work when his friends and family viewed it?

Personally, I believe that typing for Nietzsche, like everyone else, allowed one's thoughts to be conveyed much quicker than one can process. We see quality on paper. We see quantity on the computer. When we write on paper, we express creativity and ideas. We write because we are inspired, because we are already underway through the thinking process. When we sit down in front of a computer, we oftentimes complete our papers, stories, and ideas instantly. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the average time we spend on a single link is less than five minutes.

There is no depth in anything technological that replaces one means with another. In fact, we take away from the appreciation. How fast can we go through audio music when listening to music? And when we listen to the radio after our battery is dead, how many times do we catch ourselves looking to shuffle or change it because we're bored?

We lack the appreciation. The internet shouldn't replace books, or anything else. In fact, I believe we'd regain the "depth" we once attained in adventures with dragons and battles in starships in outerspace if more papers forbid the use of the internet. If we actually researched atoms and cellular structure, along with everything else we needed to learn, would the information stick better?

I believe so. Or at least that's my opinion. I think that no matter what, one should always have pad and pencil ready. One mustn't run dry the well of thought, and to put off retrieving the depths of our own ideas, we push away the true meaning behind our motivation.

At least that's what I think.

1 comment:

  1. I was particularly interested in this statement: "We see quality on paper. We see quantity on the computer." I wonder if speakers felt this way about the move from orality to literacy? And will we ever feel this way about moving from computers to whatever is next? Hmmm. interesting comments.