JUN 2010 1 1

TOO

LITTLE

TIME

JUN 2010 2 2

TOO

MUCH

STUFF

JUN 2010 3 3 s

TOO

FAST

JUN 2010 4 4

TOO FEW

BREAKS

JUN 2010 5 5

That day started at

five a.m., long before I was

conscious. I somehow managed to stumble down the stairs, lopsided from carrying a nearly overweight specimen of baggage down the thirteen and two steps to the car. My panicky, constant clock checking parents warmed up the car and rolled out of the driveway. The rest of the trip was I blur—even as I stayed awake, nothing significant clung to mind. Only the visualization of destination occupied my thoughts.

Two hours later, I would wave goodbye to America, and my family and friends at home. I was off to the country where my ancestors called their own and where the majority of my relatives still dwelled. I was off to China.

Without my parents, my fate was entrusted to the counselors of a summer camp program designed for Chinese-Americans determined to develop their language skills. My fellow campers and I were bunked on the 6th floor of a 6-story dormitory, with an undivided bathroom-shower and a nice view of a city street. The dwelling, located somewhere in China's capital city

overheated frequently, despite air conditioning efforts. But it was survivable.

The camp provided us with entertainment: tai-chi lessons at dawn, breakfast at a canteen down the street, sleepy attempts at Chinese lessons, and plenty of free time to roam the vendor-lined avenues of the campus. Planned activities and dinner came next. There was simply no time, or no need, to use technology.

Before that trip, I had lived on the Internet. A day without was nearly unthinkable. But when busied by somewhat "primitive" means, I came to realize that I could un-wire and live in the present, in place and time. Given the limitations on public Internet use, there was pressure not to spend the usual hour or so daily online. And with so much going on, there was little need. I found the liberation from impersonal interactions accompanied with the priority of face-to-face contact enticing. The experience undermined my presumption of technology dependence.

A similar discovery occurred with the phone. Long distance calls were too expensive and too inconvenient to frequent practically. With exception for calls to family, as provided by a limited calling card, phone calls were rare. And unnecessary.

Upon returning from that

voyage, I came to the conclusion that technology independence is feasible without sacrificing sanity. Considering that I did not suffer from a feeling of deprivation without technology given other pastimes, I've realized that our electronic essentials are dispensable. This revelation began a subsequent contemplation of necessities.

Upon discovering

the possibility of a low

tech lifestyle, my outlook on life has changed. Technology is generally

looked at as something humans make and society adapts to, as an extension of self. It’s impossible to deny the influence of technology, or its role in culture today. Technology gives man the ability to do things beyond physical, but not mental means. It stands for the embodiment of our greatest ideas and abilities to make simple tasks thoughtless. However, improving theoretical convenience often results in less efficiency in practice. I questioned a certain Ms. Leftkowitz, a psychology teacher at Conestoga High School, who supported the idea that technology is rarely as convenient as we give it credit for. “Technology,” she stated, “provides you with the lure of convenience. Usually this is deceptive, as I frequently find myself spending so much extra

Technology: A Disguised Enemy

By Emily Zhang

“Technology… is deceptive, as I frequently find myself spending so much extra time searching through all that information that the convenience technology supposedly provides is quickly nullified”

JUN 2010 6 6

People born to this age are almost programmed to be ADHD—and not by their genetic makeup but by the system of society.

time searching through all that information that the convenience technology supposedly provides is quickly nullified”. Technology offers convenience—it is defined as such. However, in the process of believing that one is getting it easy, the opposite effect often occurs. Since information is “conveniently” abundant, people immediately associate web browsing as an improved version of the searching of the past. However, due to many online distractions, browsers often spend much more time sifting through the excess of information.

The advent of powerful technologies bursting from the industrial revolution has caused a myriad of societal problems. The threats of pollution and overconsumption have initiated problems never before imagined. The lure of convenience has caused divergence of interests to more trivial pursuits, as humans quickly refocus themselves on to highly specific subtopics. People born to this age are almost programmed to

be ADHD—and not by their genetic makeup but by the system of society. The Internet presents information in a divergent manner, every website linked to many more

which link to even more hereafter. Browsers will seek one thing before being immediately redirected to some other corner of the World Wide Web. Soon, as distractions replace distractions, the original cause gets lost in Internet history.

A technology-

centered civilization

surges ahead, its inhabitants must push their limits to keep pace or risk falling

behind. The pressure to persist, by justification of making an honest

living, creates a high-stress environment. So much social demand has created an artificial generation, working robotically in inhuman hours sometimes, obeying

the harsh commands of pursuing decency. Relaxation is often neglected as the work day gradually extends to practically 24-7, with streams of emails and other work-related reminders to follow in the allotted off hours. In our hours supposedly designated for relaxation, the same, unwanted psychological stress remains. All the information, occupational or otherwise, consumes the mind by exhausting it all hours of the day.

Stress has become a serious problem in modern society. Given

the speed at which employers demand work, it is no wonder that anxiety presides in any office worker’s life. “Technology, Stress and the Lawyer's Quality of Life” articulates Jim Calloway’s analysis on stress, particularly in the workplace. According to him, humans now experience a significant increase in job stress due to technology. He cites the fact that the “The purpose and use of almost all technology is that the machines can do things faster, and often better, than we can” as the primary cause of anxiety. And it’s true—technology creates supercomputers that can process things considerably faster than can the human brain. Our dependency adds the pressure to keep up with these speeds. The unrealistic standard thereby creates the human stress. Also, raised expectancies in consideration of the rapidity

JUN 2010 7 7

technology sped up the pace of the world. Deadlines shorten as more essence gets packed into each hour than what could be imagined decades ago. However, this creates so much stress and so little rest than the human ability is eventually hampered. The person gets overwhelmed that nothing can be done.

I found Calloway’s claims particularly agreeable. In my experiences, I have noticed that the technological hindrances previously described slow effectiveness. So the ready accessibility of technology causes stress by raising hypothetical efficacy and

accelerating deadlines. Since humans prove to be faithful users of technology, we hesitate to identify it as the foundation of troubles. Our unrestrained belief in tools allows technology to evade blame for the harm it frequently instigates.

This induced stress also relates to the amount of information humans must process to keep up with advancements. Today’s information technology provides too much to think about. We ignorantly welcome this excess of data from magazine, newspaper, and Internet sources as fruitful supplements to our second education. However, many experts believe that such surpluses impair our intellect. An overabundance of news providing media forces us to pick and choose what our brain must absorb. Jim Taylor, in his article “Technology: Less Input and More "Innerput"” exposes readers to the problem of data processing as humans take in an increasing stream of information. He argues that in today's culture, we have access to so much data that our

ability to analyze it has weakened. He writes, "With our minds spilling over with information, our primary motivation is to empty it as quickly as possible. We typically use two "information survival" strategies when the inbox fills up. We output as quickly as possible without sufficient thought to either the incoming or outgoing messages." His analogy to information entering through a sort of mental inbox suggests the constant supply leading to the desire to overlook some information. Using an appropriate analogy to email inboxes and his coinage of the term "innerput”, Taylor suggests that

people as a whole have begun to filter out some of what we experience, and often along self-defined lines. That means that general knowledge loses depth as it gains breadth. We lose some of our intellectual ability as our attentions are divided and subdivided into specific subjects, where none end up receiving the full potential of our attention.

Taylor’s argument is believable; the patterns he articulated of increasingly spread-out interests can be observed. Taylor makes sense in claiming that people control their own interests. In effort to ration the information observed into reasonable limits, people begin to define their own infatuations. In class, we discussed how people tend to predetermine their stand on some view. Perhaps, such behavior is controlled more by our need to limit information than the original assumption that people might just like to be right. Although increasing the general knowledge of an individual may seem to provide net benefit, such quantities of information can easily

We would lose half our strength if electricity and fossil fuels were to run out.

JUN 2010 8 8

overwhelm and distract someone. The increase of information as provided by technology quickly exceeds our ability to interpret it, therefore forcing us to prioritize

among interests.

Likewise, we must

prioritize our limited time in the face of increasing options. The universal

complaint of not having enough time forces people to cut out important factors in life. Often, health, with its lower priority level, is among the first pursuits to go. We have become robots, run by the long cycle of the clock. Time is occasionally allotted for workouts, but they too have been "artificiallized" Instead of tossing a Frisbee with the neighbor, many people stick with the routine visit to the gym, where they run on a stationary piece of plastic and pretend to go somewhere. So technology has made even fitness,

if that is even a concern, an unnatural procedure.

The preference of energy-consuming gyms over a run outside points at our not-so-humble devouring of power. We need processed energy for everything. We would lose half our strength if electricity and fossil fuels were to run out. And the depletion of all our traditional energy supply is a frightening possibility when we take a look at the rapidity of our

consumption of it.

This sort of

energy expenditure

brings about the most horrific side effect of

technology. Industry and urbanization poison our environment. Pollution, in gaseous and solid forms, poisons our planet. Climate change, mass extinction, habitat destruction, toxic pollution, and excessive waste represent a few

of the problems caused by our industrialized society. Our mechanical lifestyles endanger the health of the entire planet. Urbanization and development oust organisms from their habitats and destroy local ecosystems. David Biello expresses concern for the environmental consequence of urban growth in “City Dwellers Drive Deforestation in 21st Century”. His essential point is that “the increasing urbanization of the developing world—as well as an ongoing increase in consumption in the developed world for products that have an impact on forests, whether furniture, shoe leather or chicken fed on soy meal—is driving deforestation, rather than containing it, as populations leave rural areas to concentrate in booming cities”. With statistical evidence to support, Biello informs his audience that urbanization in developing countries wreaked

JUN 2010 9 9

“But today? Does anybody buy a car, a washing machine, even a toaster, in the expectation that it will last a decade?”

havoc on the ecological condition of originally pristine lands. He realizes that most of forest damage was caused by slash and burn techniques, but that has now shifted to larger-scaled urbanization. Today’s urbanization directly supports foreign industry, feeding the tastes of wealthy people.

Because Biello’s argument is so well maintained, the credibility can hardly be disputed. Science proved that urban growth in developing nations causes detriment to affected areas’ ecology. Such an impact can only be described as another profound environmental harm caused by technology.

Technology-fueled

consumption depletes resources while producing an awful fume that engulfs the planet with pollutants. Our mines overturn good land and deem them futile; our saws claw away at forests at twice the rate as before, indiscriminately downing tree after tree. Our vehicles cough up the catalysts of global warming, and our lamps and outlets need energy coming from the noxious burning of coal. All things industrial and technological take away the natural wonders of this world, filling it instead with chemicals and gases. And what for? Just so we can take a Lexus rather than walk, eat microwave soup instead of some stew heated over a strong fire, and coat our fingernails with pungent liquid colors. All the industrial developments we call progress fulfills our selfish desire for

extravagance at the expense of our planet’s well-being.

Industry brings us the modern day “luxuries” we think we can’t live without. Technology begets cell phones, TV’s, radios and Mac’s, raincoats and premade

dinners, Coach bags, lotion, crayons, boots, and toys. Technology deems possible such commonplace objects. Technology is required in the manufacture and distribution of goods—a process

that requires tons of material, originating from mines or drilling, and energy and water and steel. The current abundance of resources and the efficiency of technology to process it allows for a steady consumer demand. Hence, technology forms the bridge allowing the goodness of our planet to feed human greed in a parasitic relationship damaging Earth.

They say that

haste makes waste.

While yes, computers progress at an astonishing rate, so does the garbage of an increasingly

demanding population trash our world, and often with the soon-to-be-obsolete remnants of yesterday's technology. It seems terribly irresponsible that technologies are developed almost just to remove the older version from an all too

temporary reign. The rapid buy and discard cycle of gadgets furthers the trend of wastefulness so present in consumer culture. The terribly wasteful society becomes the subject of Richard Morrison’s article “What a

monstrously wasteful throwaway society”. He poses the question “But today? Does anybody buy a car, a washing machine, even a toaster, in the expectation that it will last a decade?”, which effectively expresses scorn for our disposable culture. Morrison condemns the industries that design consumer goods to become obsolete within a year’s time. This deliberate profligacy signifies how the public tends to put economical and technological advances ahead of environmental concern. I am disgusted at how wasteful American culture is. After the industrial revolution and the succeeding economic boom, America slipped into a period of extreme consumerism. Since then, the country has spoiled itself with disposable everything. The typical citizen would call this progress on the basis that it marks an improved social decency over archaic counterparts. He would claim that the opulence pulls generations forward and further apart from other competing species. He may state that humans were naturally selected to be superior, to have the right to exploit resources. However, humans could never overcome nature. Global climate change stands for a significant reminder of human frailty in face of natural forces. Resources are diminishing frightfully; the vast amounts of material are seeing their days numbered. Biodiversity, which can

This deliberate profligacy signifies how the public tends to put economical and technological advances ahead of environmental concern.

JUN 2010 10 10

be used for human benefit, suffer due to human interference. All of these outcomes were ultimately brought about by industrial growth and technologies. Talk of an apocalypse makes interesting conversation today. Most view humans as the primary cause. Technologies have extended the lifetimes of people, an ethically righteous but realistically dooming expansion. It is physically impossible to support our exponentially growing population at the level of consumption held now. Ultimately, improvements to medicine and life-enhancing technologies have thrown the world into a dilemma, where practicality faces morality. Eventually, the individual-favoring moral principles of the century will overwhelm the planet’s capacity. Our world faces total doom—unless immediate environmental action is taken. And even that holds

little promise.

Some scientists

believe that we

can use technologies to reverse such environmental damages.

Many gadgets declare themselves able to complete some energy-efficient or ecologically beneficial function. Some claim to use recycled materials, non-virgin

forests, or some preferable source of material. Despite all the efforts, it seems rather inconsistent that though technologies often boast their ability to reduce resource use, increase renewable energy, or whatever their claim may be, they fail to admit that technologies created the problem originally. The birth of industry scarred the world, and now we propose to redeem by increasing demand of another

“[Technology] arms us with the forces of earth, air, and water, while it weakens our hold upon the sources of personal power; it lengthens life while it curtails leisure; it multiplies our wants while it lessens our capacity for simple enjoyments; it opens up the heights and depths, while it makes the life of the masses shallow”.

JUN 2010 11 11

surplus resource. Not even a complete switch to alternative fuel sources can reverse the damage done by hundreds of years of coal burning. Innovations to ensure renewability in energy gathering still absorb resources in their establishment.

Humanity would

be better off had the

industrial revolution never happened. The developments that hastened the rise of a

modern society crippled traditions and accelerated the decline of

native populations. According to John Burroughs in his piece “In the Noon of Technology”, all technologies have destroyed the concept of creativity and simple leisure, preferring instead a difficult life built on the concept of a universal scientific way. He states that “[Technology] arms us with the forces of earth, air, and water, while it weakens our hold upon the sources of personal power; it lengthens life while it curtails leisure; it multiplies our wants while it lessens our capacity for simple enjoyments; it opens up the heights and depths, while it makes the life of the masses shallow”. Burroughs believes that as a result of technology, society has been shaped negatively. The rise of technology impacted the decline of a simplistic, better form of life. Our medicines and entertainments actually make lives unpleasant, superficial, and materialistic. We lose our sense of creativity as belongings become mass-produced; we lose originality in the masses of similarly-minded citizens regulated

by a mass media. Burroughs describes technology as a force that “makes our minds and characters all alike; it unifies the nations, but it tames and, in a measure, denatures them”. Burroughs mourns the loss of literature to the meticulous scientific method.

Burroughs’ overall idea has a definite emotional appeal. As discussed earlier, technology creates a high-stress society filled with instantaneous information and immediate demands. In the race to stay in pace with society, humans begin to lose their ability to enjoy. Deadlines cause constant worry aggravated by perpetual e-

reminders. The scientific mindset dominates even non-scientific vocations; this approach sets people up on standard that eliminates true originality. In this world, every citizen pursues the same—success in a career designed to consider income, which would determine the extent of material goods the person may consume. Commodities become the definition of accomplishment, a trend related to the increasing ostentation of society.

As much as I am engrossed in this science-dominated civilization, I feel nostalgia for a simpler day. Today, each day can be calculated to the millisecond. Moments are counted, memories printed, friends tallied. Everything assumes an unnecessary complication.

Technology demonstrates the natural ability of humans to progress. Technology is evitable, it is impactful. It shapes society as much as society shapes it. Ordinary technologies appear beneficial as they are designed to simplify and

streamline tasks. The acceleration of computing devices raised expectancies for the effectiveness of humans. When a surplus of data is added to the raised work per unit of time, humans experience mental and physical strain.

More generally, technology as defined by all developments after the first Industrial Revolution altered the nature of culture. The world became interconnected—and universal. In the search for self-definition in a growing population of competitors, most people find themselves unoriginal. All styles are derived somehow from the overlying mass culture. People

begin to think the same way. Additionally, technologies

created little considered environmental harm. The high input high output society we live in today destroys the earth at both ends.

We take advantage of our technologies. We love that they double every few years, that someone will be making computers smaller, smarter, faster months from now. We look at what we have and look into the future, contemplating what science could bring next. We don’t know how much technology has mutilated our world and distorted how we live.

In this world, every citizen pursues the same—success in a career designed to consider income, which would determine the extent of material goods the person may consume.

JUN 2010 12 12

ADVERTISEMENT