The Dark Side of Technology

    Technological advancement is key in the progression of human history. For it has been a part of our story since the Bronze Age. This has helped us go from wild beasts to a tamed and civilized species. We wouldn't be where we are today without technology, though with all good things, it does come at a price. We've been able to make remarkable innovations, especially over the last century, but as we are currently realizing, there are many consequences that have come with these amazing tools that we have created for ourselves.

    It's funny, I watched an interview on Youtube just last night about a 108 year old lady who was being interviewed back in the 1970s. In the video, when asked what has changed in the world, she said everything has changed. Now that was all the way back in the 70s, I wonder what she would say now after seeing everything that's happened since then. Technology advances exponentially, and the difference in technological advancements throughout her entire lifetime might not even be as impressive as what's happened in the last decade.

    It hasn't been until recently though that we have really seen the consequences of our advancements. Take this farmer for instance. In this video from 1965, a 107 year old man was interviewed about technological advancements and how they have helped make it far easier for him to farm his crops. He praises these technological advances, saying that while he and many other farmers were skeptical at first, they soon embraced the new inventions and machines, and were able to farm crops much more easily and with less stress to their physical and mental health.

    This video made me realize that it's not technology that's bad. Technology is good for us as a species, but it's how these new technologies are applied that decide whether an invention is good or bad for us as a society. Simple machines for things like farming and manufacturing are objectively beneficial for our society, but there's a point where we start asking too much from technology, and that's where the line is drawn. There are things that need to get done, and there's things that we would like to get done. Our needs are the line that has been crossed. for when we need something from technology, we're using it as just another tool, but when we create something just for the fun of it, it can turn into something that consumes us without actually providing a productive service. It can often even hinder our production. Technology is great for increasing proficiency and productivity, but when we ask for more than just productivity, that's where the problems start to arise.

    One of the questions that were posed about this topic concerned some of the side effects that social media poses. The list included the effects of ghosting, cyberbullying, and revenge porn, but there's one side effect that's not listed, which in my opinion might be the most important. The side effect I am referring to is the effect of loneliness that can be created in the minds of users. This is an effect created by users who frequently interpret what they see on screen as a perfect picture of reality. This effect is not rare though, as it is a part of the basis that makes social media so intriguing. It's an escape from reality that can show you the wonders of the world, but when someone spends too much time on social media, it can create an effect that this escape is actually an accurate portrayal of all of reality. This can give people a sense of FOMO and make them think that their lives are exponentially less exciting than the ones of every single person that they see on social media. Not only can this create a feeling of depression for the user, but it also causes the user to isolate themselves the more that they use it, and this is where the real issue lies.

    For it is the temptations of technology that create these negative feelings, because when you give into your temptations, you will face the consequences that come with it. In my opinion, there are three purposes that new inventions can serve for humanity, and every new invention created falls under one of these three categories. These three categories are communication, productivity, and entertainment. That last one is what starts to cause problems. Productivity and communication are both essential pieces of humanity that are always helpful to the progression of society. Though when it comes to entertainment, while it definitely is something that humans fundamentally need, too much of it can cause people to get attached to it, and stay away from all of the horrible things that comes with the real world.

    This is nothing new though, for every new invention that falls under the category of entertainment, should it be effective, will inevitably cause some people to get too invested in the entertainment, and cause them to use it as an escape for more time than is necessary. It is important for everyone to have some sort of escape, but when it gets in the way of the other two categories, two things that are essential in every human life, then it starts to become a problem.

    Let's take chess for example. The game and invention of chess was created over a millenia ago, and throughout history we have seen many instances in which it was banned due to its addictive factor. So what happens when someone plays too much chess? Putting aside the other player in the game, it causes the user to isolate themselves in the game. For it is an escape after all, and this means that nothing else happening in reality matters for the duration of the match. During this match, time ticks, and as that time ticks, the user is not being productive. For they are playing a game in which the production created in that game only matters until the game is over. This is unlike the real world, a game in which there is no end.

    One game of chess is fine, but entertainment can be addicting, especially for people who are living objectively crappy lives. One game leads to two, two games leads to four, and then next thing you know, you wake up everyday and the first and only thing on your mind is playing chess. Nothing else in the world gives you as much happiness as chess, so you keep going back to it. You then get caught up in the game, and this can cause you to isolate yourself, as playing chess is the only thing that matters. So if this is the case, why would one bother talking about boring, non-chess related things with other people? It gets to a point where human interaction is not nearly as important to that person's life because it doesn't effect the thing that's most important to them; the game of chess. This becomes a problem because while you may be getting a stimulation of happiness from chess, it can make you want to stay inside and not interact with people as much. This causes isolation, and every single time, isolation comes with some form of depression.

    Not only does the game of chess cause one to waste time that could be better used for something productive, but the effects of loneliness that it causes creates feelings of sadness that only continue to hinder that person's production and make them want to go back to the game of chess even more. This causes the person to fall into a hole, often one that makes them feel trapped and one they feel like they can't get out of. This spirals into that person only finding happiness in their escape, even to the point where their escape becomes a large part of their reality. And this is what social media is doing to kids today.

    Not even just kids, this is something that effects everyone. Social media and the internet can bea so much fun and there's so much entertainment on there that it can make one question the point of everything that is outside of that escape. It makes people stop being productive, and stop interacting with others. If being productive in the real world and interacting with others in the real world doesn't effect their primary objective, which in this case would be the escape of social media, then why should they bother taking the time to do those things? This becomes a problem when people make their entertainment become the primary objective, instead of making it the reward. They can strive to get more likes or be awed by the contents on social media, but when this becomes the main objective in someone's life, nothing else matters. It is at this point that technology starts to become a problem instead of a solution.



    If we want to continue this exponentially amazing progression of technology that we have been continuing throughout our history, it is CRUCIAL to keep in mind that we must not get too caught up in the wonders of technology, and make sure to maintain our primary objective of continuing the creation of the new technologies that are up next. By practicing this, we can enjoy our new inventions, but still be productive, and be able to keep interacting with others in order to create even more advanced inventions. Interacting is the key word in that sentence because without others, we wouldn't be able to get anything accomplished. Because of this, we must not get too drawn in to the wonders of our technologies, and keep our focus on what's important; interacting with others and keeping good relationships with friends and family, while staying productive and using our new tools to continue creating a more productive and impressive society.

The Spiral of Silence and It's Effect on Public Opinion

    The spiral of silence was a theory devised by a German scientist named Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann back in 1974. The theory itself tries to make sense of why people speak up in certain situations, and why they don't. The general consensus was that people talk more when they are in more comfortable situations. The less comfortable they are, the less likely they are to talk or speak up. This interested Dr. Noelle-Neumann but she was interested in another aspect of this effect, the way it affected how people would voice an unpopular opinion.

    Though the original experiment pretty much tells Dr. Noelle-Neumann actually what she's looking for, it's how she views that information that makes this model so interesting. She looked at it from a different lens, a political point of view. She took a look at the data and realized that this says something about how people express their opinions, and most of all, their unpopular ones. She noticed that this means that the more uncomfortable one is, the less likely they are to express their unpopular opinion, thus hindering free speech subconsciously.

    This says a lot about how political science is run and how powerful a "herd mindset" can be. People usually trust what they hear from news sources and from the government, so going against the viewpoints of these massive entities can be seen as being an unpopular opinion. Because of this, by default, people already are too scared to speak their mind up against the media or the government in fear of being pushed into isolation. I guess it really makes one think about how much power the government really has, and how much media influence can play a part in their control of the people. 

The Problem With Secrets in the U.S. Government.

  

  Our freedom of speech is one of our most basic and cherished rights because for the most part, it's pretty simple. Anyone can say whatever they want and have the freedom to do so. Though sometimes this gets tricky. Like speech, the freedom of information is also something that usually is pretty easily spelled out, but this too can have some circumstances where things start to get a little murky. 

    In the case of Julian Assange, he tries to make a bold move to demonstrate both of these freedoms when he release the U.S. documents containing dark secrets about the Iraq War. This case really tip toes on the line of both freedom of speech and freedom of information, because though the information here is not life or death (at least for its citizens), the principle that it breaks is something that needs to be kept under control. If all of the information leaked from the government's plans, we would be defenseless against other countries, and there is the devastating truth that there are times where the government has to make some hard calls. Even worse, it can be very hard for the public to accept the fact that their government can sometimes make mistakes.

    All of this puts pressure on the government, and though it doesn't make things easier, it's necessary. It's a constant battle that we have to fight and it's a line that we must cross. We are a democracy, we make decisions as a people, and in order for the right decision to be made, the people must be informed. Our government must have secrets that is a fact. We could not survive if the government told us everything they were doing, but it's our role as a people to keep them in check. Our role in this democracy is to make sure that the government is acting righteously and if it's anyone who finds out their secrets, lets hope it better be us.

Living in the Age of AI

   

    I found this Frontline story to be both interesting and very scary. A lot of the things said in this video don't surprise me, but at the same time still amaze me. I know that the development of AI and Facial Recognition software are things that have high interest to governments around the world, as these tools will be the tools that lead us to the future. What I didn't realize is how advanced we actually were in this new field of technology. Also, 2019 may not seem like a long time ago, but I can guarantee you that since that story was produced, the advancements we have made in AI and machine learning have made these machines much more sophisticated in just 24 months. 

    One of the very interesting things that I found in this video was China's quick advancement into the field. I was not surprised to hear the fact that they were amongst the leaders in the field, but for them to have joined the game so late and produce impressive results so quickly is something that I don't think is even emphasized enough in that video. I mean, if they were able to make a jump like THAT in just 5 years, who knows where they will be in say, 10 years? Will we all be AI slaves by that time because it sure seems like that's the rate in which we're headed. In all seriousness though, this story has really opened my eyes about how quickly we are headed into this weird new future. I knew that society would look vastly different in 50 years, but it seems like even more and more, that vision that I have of the future in 50 years, is getting closer and closer to 5 years rather than 50. It's a scary time that we're living in, but I'll be damned if I don't say that I'm both excited and nervous at the same time. 

The Overton Window. What is it and How Does it Work?

Joseph Overton first conceived the idea of the Overton Window (AKA The Window of Discourse) in the mid 1990s. He came up with it as an idea to describe how and why certain political ideas get accepted in a society, and why others don't. Ideas that are found inside the Overton Window are ideas that have a chance to be accepted as policy by the given society. On the other hand, ideas that are found outside the window for the given society don't stand a chance of being accepted by that society. Joseph Overton unfortunately passed before he was able to fully finish his theory. Though thanks to his friend and colleague Joseph Lehman, the idea of the Overton Window was refined and renamed after Overton himself.

    The window is a model that tries to explain how a new idea is accepted by a given society based on its current state of its already accepted political ideas. The window is meant to predict the acceptability of certain political ideas, though some politicians have tried to use it to get their idea to be accepted by their society. Unfortunately for them, this misses the entire point of the Overton Window. This is because the Overton Window is not a model for how policies get accepted, but why they do. It's a little hard to describe but I'll try to do my best to have it make the most sense. In case you're still confused by the end of the reading, I found a video by Joseph Lehman himself, of the innovative man describing the Overton Window in his own words.

    Going on a scale from "More Freedom" to "Less Freedom" The position of the window on the graph is based on the amount of freedom that a certain society has been given. If there is more freedom given to a certain society, than more radically free-thinking ideas are projected to be accepted by that society. On the other side, if there is much less freedom in a society, that society is much more likely to adopt ideas that coincide with their ideas of limited freedom for the people. Because of this, ideas that are in the window in one society may not be in the window for another society. Time is also a huge factor in determining the position of the window because policies and public perception are always changing over time no matter what society you are talking about.

    There are 6 levels to each side of the model to help further categorize where a certain idea might be in relation to the window. These 6 levels spread out to each end of the scale and go from being considered "policy" right in the middle, down to "popular," then "sensible," followed by "acceptable," "radical," and "unthinkable." Ideas in the "policy" category are very likely to be made into policy, or already are, in that given society. On the other hand, ideas that are found in the "unthinkable" range, are ideas in which that society has no chance of accepting at the given time frame. 

    One good example for showing how the Overton Window works is the topic of gay marriage. Back in the 1950s, gay marriage would've been found somewhere in the radical or unthinkable range of ideas for American Society in that day. Flash forward to 2021, and we find this topic to be in the category of "policy" at this point. This shows just how easily the Overton Window can change, and how quickly different policies can shift into different categories in this model. Although it can be volatile at times, the Overton Window is a very useful tool for showing the position of where a certain idea stands in relation to its society.

Where Are All of the Anti-War Protests?

    I find it very interesting that you rarely hear voices in today's society about protesting against our wars. Probably the thing that puzzles me the most is that this is something that I've never actually thought about before. I've heard stories from my mother about the protests against the war in Vietnam and how she had wished she were old enough to go them. That war was an atrocity, and killed many men that didn't even sign up to be a part of it. I  think this is a small part of why we rarely see anti-war protests in today's society. 

    There's a common idea found in today's society that people think something along the lines of "oh well they knew what they signed up for." Not having a draft gives a different aspect to the war because, although there are still young men and women being killed overseas with no clear reason for what they are trying to accomplish there, it's not a situation where the government is knocking down doors and taking people away from their families. (Although one could argue against that due to the way that the government tactically recruits its soldiers.) Though this is not the only reason why we don't see anti-war protests like we used to.

    People nowadays are just as opposed to the war as they were back then. I guess the difference is that we came to a point when we were being fed so many different lies, and there seemed to be no end to the war, that people just got tired of speaking out about it. One of the websites linked here to support anti-war views looks like it hasn't been updated in nearly 10 years. 

    The lack of news coverage about it also may play a role in all of this. I didn't live back in the times of the Vietnam War, but I'd imagine that it was in the news a lot more than it is today. Today, you hear about stories coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but you never really hear any milestones that encourage you that the war is progressing. Usually it's just about another bombing in another foreign city that viewers quite honestly have a hard time connecting to. Who knows, maybe the government is using prior restraint on war stories that we just don't know about, but I feel like most of the bigger stories happening nowadays are more focused on issue happening inside our borders rather than outside our borders.

The Adoption of the Telegraph Through the Lens of the Diffusion of Innovations Theory

    The Diffusion of Innovations theory applies heavily to the telegraph as it is a prime example for why new inventions and ideas get adopted as quickly as they do. The Diffusion of Innovations theory applies to any new concept that's either successful or unsuccessful. The theory is what explains why something catches on so quickly, or why it dies out before it even has a chance. 

  In regards to the telegraph, this theory explains why the telegraph was almost instantly embraced by our society. Rogers defines this theory and its two main components of diffusion and innovations. The diffusion refers to "the process by which an innovation is communicated over time among the participants in a social system." The innovation is the concept or invention that is being introduced to a society. 

    Pretty much everyone who could afford it was an early adopter of the telegraph. I suppose this would be the one setback from this new invention, as I'm sure it was rather expensive to install when it was first invented. Besides this, there were really no downsides to having a telegraph system. Even though it took some time to put up telegraph poles, the usage that society would get from installing these new communication systems was too valuable to wait on. Poles were installed almost immediately and within a quarter century, there was a telegraph line installed that connected Europe to America. 

    The telegraph was really the first communication system that could send messages almost instantly. Before the telegraph, messages would have to be delivered by humans, but now with the use of electricity, one could send messages over great distances so quickly that one could even have a live conversation with another person thousands of miles away (assuming both parties were well versed in knowing how to operate a telegraph and how to decipher morse code.) I'd even argue that it was the first form of texting. There was no other invention before this (and maybe since) that so severely changed the way humans communicated. 

    Having instant communication like that was a commodity that was so valuable to our society because it made our lives easier in every way. With this type of communication, almost all tasks could be completely more quickly and efficiently, and could even be coordinated by multiple parties from two completely different locations. The telegraph made it so that distance wasn't an obstacle in human communication. Because it was such a milestone of an invention, it's no surprise that it was so quickly adopted by society, and the diffusion of innovations theory backs that up. Everyone became an early adopter because it made everything easier. It was almost a necessity to possess an instrument as powerful as this. 

    When looking back at it, it's crazy to think that such an advanced system like this became as popular as it was in such a short amount of time. The fact that it took less than 25 years to connect Europe to America telegraphically is something that I think most people can't even wrap their head around. But thanks to the diffusion of innovations theory, it actually makes perfect sense. The demand and desire for the product was so high, that we were able to accomplish a feat as great as this in such a short span of time. Within just a few decades, telegraph lines were layed out all over the world. Cities everywhere were connected with each other. 

    The telegraph really took our species to another level. After its invention, our society saw exponential change and improvement in almost all aspects. This lead to so many new ideas and inventions being created, that within 100 years, our society looked completely different with the expansion of big cities and the incalculable amount of new inventions that spawned soon after the telegraph. I just hope that the next time we do discover something as impactful and powerful as the telegraph, we as a people will be just as quickly to embrace it. Though because of the diffusion of innovations theory, I don't think we're gonna have a problem with that.