Technology runs our lives. If someone can't get a hold of you for an entire day they would probably call the cops for fear that you were dead. There is new technology being created all the time that allows us to communicate, and even keep track of each other. But when is it going to be enough. Even today there are more ways of communication then I can count. You can communicate via text messages, cell phones, home phones, voicemail, email, blogs, vlogs, fax, facebook, myspace, pagers, and I can't forget plurk! Not to mention the multiple devices you can use to do all these things! And those are only the ones I can name. In a day alone i spend 1-2 hours emailing people, posting blogs, and checking my facebook. It's becoming unhealthy, an addiction. I'm starting to feel like we all soon will become just like the people on WALL-E, with interactive televisions permanently strapped to our face, never moving unless pushed by a robot to move you out of the line of traffic. Is that really what we are destined to become?
The question was proposed in class, "Is it better that we have so many means of communication?" Even with the issue of Americas growing obesity aside, I personally think the answer is no. Although having more than one means of communication is nice. I feel like a kid who is lost in the woods when I don't have my cell phone on me, and being able to send an email to a friend who is far away rather then writing a letter, which you then have to rely on the postal service to deliver, something I try to avoid, is definitely a plus. But why do we need so many means of communication in the first place. All this does is allow easier access for people to stalk you by. By having more means of communication that allows for more ways for people to get your information, and therefore leads to more ways for them to know everything that goes on in your life, and where you are at all times. They even have chips that they can implant under your skin and follow you that way, like tracking us by our cell phones isn't enough. On the one hand if you get kidnapped it would be nice for them to have a way to find you, but on the other its a way for anyone that knows the "code" to know where you are. I would just like us to stick with what we have and just make it better because if technology continues to expand at this rate Ill need a utility belt for all my devises, and may be permanently placed in front of my computer. So please, lets try not to make this WALL-E world a reality.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Filth
When I first started reading The Filth I was not sure what I thought of it. But as I continued to read I noticed that it brings up a lot of good issues about the world today. In the first book issue you have Greg Feely, a pathetic and lonely man whose only love in life is his cat, who eats junk food and masturbates in front of the TV. But when he has sex his parapersona escapes out of him and he becomes this ass kicking officer of a secret organization. I think this is making a statement about society and sex and how living a life of solitude is not accepted and you are only someone if you have sex. Throughout the novel they make several reinforcements to this idea.
Another thing this novel does is break the fourth wall boundary. Throughout the novel they make comments about leaping from the page and about being able to see their own talk bubbles. In the third issue you have "the villains" literally flying off the page wall and into a different world, yet when the "super hero" tries to follow he splats against the page wall. They also make the comment that since they were "on the page" everything he said was converted into word bubbles. And later in the issue you see the super hero who discovered how to break that fourth wall and goes into this oversphere he discovers. But once he leaves the world on the pages he is weak, and all he can do is look back onto the page and continuously watch himself make the same mistake over and over again. He also discovers alternative versions of his story, which makes me think of our lives and how every decision we makes brakes us off onto a new path. And how there are millions of different outcomes to our lives, but unlike the characters in the novel, we get to chose our own path, it is not chosen for us, or we would hope so anyway.
In this novel they mention that we are all angels, but we are just waited down by our filth. I thought that this was a really interesting way to think of it, because its true. When we are born we are pure and innocent, but as we grow and live our lives we become engrossed in hypothetical layers of filth. And with each sin we commit that filth gets heavier and heavier, but with each good deed we get to wash a little of that filth off. And by the time we die we hope that the filth isn't heavy enough to weigh our souls down and drag us to hell, but that the amount of good we did in this world is enough to lift us up to heaven, or whichever afterlife you believe in.
One more good point I thought this novel made was a person's battle with identity. I feel like everyone experiences this, although usually when they are younger such as in high school and college, and not so much when they are older like Greg Feely, but it does happen none the less. In this novel he battles with his boring but normal life of masturbation and taking care of his cat as Greg Feely, versus his exciting yet bizarre life as officer Slade. And although he seems to much prefer his simple life better, in the end he can't get away from who he really is. I think this represents our world pretty well. Although we may want to be someone else, in the end we are who we are and there isn't really anything you can do to change it. Not yet anyway...
Another thing this novel does is break the fourth wall boundary. Throughout the novel they make comments about leaping from the page and about being able to see their own talk bubbles. In the third issue you have "the villains" literally flying off the page wall and into a different world, yet when the "super hero" tries to follow he splats against the page wall. They also make the comment that since they were "on the page" everything he said was converted into word bubbles. And later in the issue you see the super hero who discovered how to break that fourth wall and goes into this oversphere he discovers. But once he leaves the world on the pages he is weak, and all he can do is look back onto the page and continuously watch himself make the same mistake over and over again. He also discovers alternative versions of his story, which makes me think of our lives and how every decision we makes brakes us off onto a new path. And how there are millions of different outcomes to our lives, but unlike the characters in the novel, we get to chose our own path, it is not chosen for us, or we would hope so anyway.
In this novel they mention that we are all angels, but we are just waited down by our filth. I thought that this was a really interesting way to think of it, because its true. When we are born we are pure and innocent, but as we grow and live our lives we become engrossed in hypothetical layers of filth. And with each sin we commit that filth gets heavier and heavier, but with each good deed we get to wash a little of that filth off. And by the time we die we hope that the filth isn't heavy enough to weigh our souls down and drag us to hell, but that the amount of good we did in this world is enough to lift us up to heaven, or whichever afterlife you believe in.
One more good point I thought this novel made was a person's battle with identity. I feel like everyone experiences this, although usually when they are younger such as in high school and college, and not so much when they are older like Greg Feely, but it does happen none the less. In this novel he battles with his boring but normal life of masturbation and taking care of his cat as Greg Feely, versus his exciting yet bizarre life as officer Slade. And although he seems to much prefer his simple life better, in the end he can't get away from who he really is. I think this represents our world pretty well. Although we may want to be someone else, in the end we are who we are and there isn't really anything you can do to change it. Not yet anyway...
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Lipograph
Juliet's Speech minus shortstack
O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.
me, me, weefe u me?
Deny y fe nd efue y nme;
r if u wil n, be bu wn my lve
nd I'll n lnge be pule.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Youth, Violence, and Video Games
Our world is powered by technology. From phones to computers to video game systems, people are always using technology. So it only makes sense that video games are one of the leading forms of entertainment of all ages. But as blatant violence becomes more acceptable and graphics become more realistic, the video games themselves can start to hit a little to close to home.
There are thousands of games that portray a very realistic violence such as Halo, Call of Duty, and the very controversial, Grand Theft Auto. But is the violence and supposed morals learned from these games become an issue with the youth that plays them? Are games like these really the cause for the raise in youth crimes?
There have been many studies done on whether or not violent video games really increase violence in a person. The studies show that there is a slight increase in violence in people who play video games, but there is also an increase in their level of confidence in being able to defend themselves in a fight. And although there is an increase in violent tendencies in people who play violent video games, they do not directly relate it to a higher crime rate.
There is violence everywhere we look. On the news, in movies, video games, even just in our everyday lives. We can't hide from it. But I think that if you were to look at a child's face as they "killed" their friend in a video game, or even someone they didn't know, I believe that it would not be even close to the same as if it was really happening, as if they were actually watching someone die, whether they knew them or not. I believe that just because someone enjoys violent video games does not necessarily make them more violent in person. I think that although some games do push the limit of what is morally acceptable, such as Grand Theft Auto, that overall violent video games are not the problem.
There are thousands of games that portray a very realistic violence such as Halo, Call of Duty, and the very controversial, Grand Theft Auto. But is the violence and supposed morals learned from these games become an issue with the youth that plays them? Are games like these really the cause for the raise in youth crimes?
There have been many studies done on whether or not violent video games really increase violence in a person. The studies show that there is a slight increase in violence in people who play video games, but there is also an increase in their level of confidence in being able to defend themselves in a fight. And although there is an increase in violent tendencies in people who play violent video games, they do not directly relate it to a higher crime rate.
There is violence everywhere we look. On the news, in movies, video games, even just in our everyday lives. We can't hide from it. But I think that if you were to look at a child's face as they "killed" their friend in a video game, or even someone they didn't know, I believe that it would not be even close to the same as if it was really happening, as if they were actually watching someone die, whether they knew them or not. I believe that just because someone enjoys violent video games does not necessarily make them more violent in person. I think that although some games do push the limit of what is morally acceptable, such as Grand Theft Auto, that overall violent video games are not the problem.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
What is humanity?
So how do we define humanity?
According to dictionary.com humanity is "the quality or condition of being human, human nature. It also states it as the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence." Humans are also defined as being particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization.
With the rapid growth of artificial intelligence we are creating human like machines that can not only communicate but can even develop emotions. But does that mean that they have humanity? In movies such like IRobot the robot feels remorse for the death of his creater, and all the robots that are thrown into bins and left for trash show sig
ns of depression as well as care for one another when in battle. Emotion is a large part of humanity, so does that mean that these man made machines have humanity?
Not only do things such as robots show humanity, but animals do as well. But that does not make them human, so what is the deciding factor? Do we have to be able to communicate and speak a language as well as a beating heart to be human? Where do we draw the line between human and machine?
According to dictionary.com humanity is "the quality or condition of being human, human nature. It also states it as the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence." Humans are also defined as being particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization.
With the rapid growth of artificial intelligence we are creating human like machines that can not only communicate but can even develop emotions. But does that mean that they have humanity? In movies such like IRobot the robot feels remorse for the death of his creater, and all the robots that are thrown into bins and left for trash show sig
ns of depression as well as care for one another when in battle. Emotion is a large part of humanity, so does that mean that these man made machines have humanity?Not only do things such as robots show humanity, but animals do as well. But that does not make them human, so what is the deciding factor? Do we have to be able to communicate and speak a language as well as a beating heart to be human? Where do we draw the line between human and machine?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Technology Takeover
How many times a day do we rely on technology to help us do something. We use technology every day to help us eat, sleep, communicate, and even live. When we wake up in the morning we use an alarm clock to help us get out of bed. When cooking almost any meal we use technology in some way, whether its using the stove, oven, or the most recent and probably most dangerous of the three, the microwave. But these are just a few ways we use technology in our everyday lives.
People are very social beings. Technology plays a huge and very significant role in communication. Think of how many times you send a text or an email, make a phone call, page someone, send a fax or a message on Facebook or Plurk! I personally send between 50-100 text messages a day and receive nearly the same! Even this blog that I am writing is a form of communication through technology. Technology is rapidly advancing everyday, soon we will rely on technology to do even the simplest tasks. Even now people use electronic toothbrushes just to brush their teeth.
In hospitals there are thousands of people who are hooked up to machines helping them breath, helping them live! So when is it too much? When do we draw the line between man and machine? Will we become like the people from IRobot with mechanical limbs and robots to do our chores, carry our groceries, and even drive our cars? Or like the ones from Wall-E who are permanently attached to a chair with a TV screen in their face telling them what to wear, what to buy, and what to eat? With technology advancing as quickly as it is the point where the machine becomes smarter than its creator is rapidly approaching. With discoveries in artificial intelligence being made all the time, the day where machines replace people is not far behind. But will we make the decision to stop, or will we keep making advances until one day everything will be ran by machines?
People are very social beings. Technology plays a huge and very significant role in communication. Think of how many times you send a text or an email, make a phone call, page someone, send a fax or a message on Facebook or Plurk! I personally send between 50-100 text messages a day and receive nearly the same! Even this blog that I am writing is a form of communication through technology. Technology is rapidly advancing everyday, soon we will rely on technology to do even the simplest tasks. Even now people use electronic toothbrushes just to brush their teeth.
In hospitals there are thousands of people who are hooked up to machines helping them breath, helping them live! So when is it too much? When do we draw the line between man and machine? Will we become like the people from IRobot with mechanical limbs and robots to do our chores, carry our groceries, and even drive our cars? Or like the ones from Wall-E who are permanently attached to a chair with a TV screen in their face telling them what to wear, what to buy, and what to eat? With technology advancing as quickly as it is the point where the machine becomes smarter than its creator is rapidly approaching. With discoveries in artificial intelligence being made all the time, the day where machines replace people is not far behind. But will we make the decision to stop, or will we keep making advances until one day everything will be ran by machines?
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Groundhogs Day: Having Sex vs. Making Love
In class the point had come up that the reason Bill Murray's character (Phil) was only able to move on to the next day was because he slept with Andie MacDowell's character (Rita), and not because of all the good deeds that he had accomplished completely unselfishly. Although I am not sure if I can wholly agree with this statement, I thought it was definitely an interesting thought. So the question begged here is, why was Phil only able to move on after sleeping with Rita but not after sleeping with Nancy? This brings up the question of making love vs. having sex and whether that was the determining factor into Phil moving onto the next day.
The general consensus is that one, there IS a difference between the two, and two, that one is all about selfishness while the other is more about being unselfish. The thinking is that when you have sex with someone it is more of a recreational activity and less about showing the other person how you feel about them. Having sex can be done between any two people, without any level of caring (and sometimes consciousness) between them. Some people may even argue that two people who hate each other can have sex, but thats a whole other issue. While with having sex is all about pleasing yourself and not so much about the other person, making love is much more unselfish. It is about sharing yourself with another person, and making sure that THEY are comfortable and that THEY are having fun, (although you do hope that its a shared feeling).
So why was Phil able to move on after sleeping with Rita but not after sleeping with Nancy? I think that it was because with Nancy, they were having sex. Phil didn't really care for her and it was more about himself, he was still being selfish. Whereas with Rita, it would have been making love because he truly cared for her and it is seen more as an unselfish thing. So was the only way Phil got to move onto the next day by having a completely, 100% unselfish day? Would he have still moved on even if he hadn't slept with Rita?
The general consensus is that one, there IS a difference between the two, and two, that one is all about selfishness while the other is more about being unselfish. The thinking is that when you have sex with someone it is more of a recreational activity and less about showing the other person how you feel about them. Having sex can be done between any two people, without any level of caring (and sometimes consciousness) between them. Some people may even argue that two people who hate each other can have sex, but thats a whole other issue. While with having sex is all about pleasing yourself and not so much about the other person, making love is much more unselfish. It is about sharing yourself with another person, and making sure that THEY are comfortable and that THEY are having fun, (although you do hope that its a shared feeling).
So why was Phil able to move on after sleeping with Rita but not after sleeping with Nancy? I think that it was because with Nancy, they were having sex. Phil didn't really care for her and it was more about himself, he was still being selfish. Whereas with Rita, it would have been making love because he truly cared for her and it is seen more as an unselfish thing. So was the only way Phil got to move onto the next day by having a completely, 100% unselfish day? Would he have still moved on even if he hadn't slept with Rita?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
