Technology as a Cause for Good

It is impossible to say whether technology has helped our society more or rendered it useless. What matters more than the technology we’ve created as a whole is how people use it against our society. When people created the various technologies we use today, they probably weren’t creating them to cause horrible acts of violence inflicted by either them or other human beings wanting to create terror in our world. It doesn’t depend on the technology created to cause an act of violence, but rather who takes that technology and puts it towards a cause for worse or for better.
Guns and gun control is a good example of a cause of technology. People say that guns are killing people and they were created as a tool to inflict violence. Does this mean that the inventors of guns created them to wreak havoc and cause unbearable acts of violence in the world? The answer is no, probably not. They may have been made in a response to violence, for safety and protection, but probably not to cause violence. The slogan that the National Rifle Association has come up with in response to gun control is, “Guns don’t kill people, people do,” and although I personally don’t like the idea of guns everywhere in our world, this slogan is more accurate then “guns kill.” If a person wanted to commit murder and guns no longer or never existed, he or she most likely would find another way of carrying out the crime, probably a more brutal way like strangulation or blunt force trauma of some kind.
People will always find a way to criticize the technologies that were created, for good or just in general. The invention of the computer and later the internet is a good example. It was created to connect the world and share information to everyone no matter where they lived. Critics are now saying people spend too much time on the computer and are beginning to lack social interaction. Although this may be true, it is ironic because social interaction was what the internet was supposed to help with in our society.
New things will eventually always be created, whether related to technology or not, and some people will use these things for good, and others for worse. In relation there will be people who criticize new creations and others who learn to accept and enjoy them. Therefore it is not up to us as a society to stop technology, but rather learn from the mistakes we may have made in the past and try to encourage people to use technology for good and never for bad.

Capilano University Cinephile Collective

It’s the most anticipated launch since the iPad: the recently formed Capilano University Cinephile Collective announces its first meetings of 2010. This student group is recruiting new members and writers. Anyone with an interest in talking about, critiquing, or writing about film is welcome. The energies of the collective will be devoted to launching an on-line pdf film journal in Spring 2010. Just like the iPad, the Cinephile Collective easily fits and rotates in your hand to adjust to your sitting position, projects its images in full colour, and offers a much more “intimate” experience than the standard clunky laptop! It also has extended battery life to accommodate frequent viewings of those longer 3-hour arthouse cinema masterpieces. For more information contact Adam Cook at soldierofcinema@gmail.com or Culture Net faculty member, Brian Ganter (bganter@capilanou.ca), who is acting faculty advisor for this new student group.

OPENING 2010 EVENTS
First Screening: Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window, Feb. 9th, 1pm @CSU Lounge
First Meeting: Feb. 11th, 12:30pm @ Maple Room 102

Hope to you see you there!

Simulated Authenticity

Parker Busswood
CNET English 100
Aurelea Mahood
February 5, 2010

SIMULATED AUTHENTICITY

“Authenticity in the age of digital companions,” an article by MIT professor Sherry Turkle, explores the ever-changing landscape of human-machine interactions and delves into the issue of relational authenticity. Evolving technologies have allowed for the development of increasingly complex and sophisticated “relational artifacts” (Turkle 502) that are designed to communicate with humans realistically. The interactive nature of these digital companions can potentially allow users to experience therapeutic benefits through their relationships with these devices. However, as relational technologies continue to develop, spawning more faithful recreations of human characteristics and emotions, the “erosion of the line in the sand” (512) between humans and machines could forever impact the way we view and develop personal relationships.

Many studies, including those conducted by Turkle and her colleagues, have demonstrated the therapeutic ability of relational robots in a variety of settings, particularly in elder-care situations. By modeling a user’s behaviour and feelings, robots such as Paro are able to provide sick, elderly, or depressed people a means by which they can comfort themselves and attempt to resolve personal issues. Despite the fact that these relational artifacts are unable to understand or care about their users’ problems, their ability to respond to environmental stimuli and “push our Darwinian buttons” allows them to “inspire ‘the feeling of friendship’” (511). Even though the robot has lacks the capacity to understand or care about its user, it is interesting that people are able to experience beneficial effects based on the illusion that a digital creature appreciates and cares about them.

Although using digital companions may be advantageous for therapeutic purposes, this shift from human-to-human relationships to developing simulated relationships with machines marks a paradigm shift in the way we view authentic relationships. As the exposure of each successive generation to computational objects becomes more widespread, so too does the tendency to forge relationships and feel complex emotions towards these devices. The experiences that people have with digital companions could potentially result in less value being placed on authentic emotions or aliveness as a prerequisite for relationships. Another concern with integrating robotic technology into our culture is that we as a society will delegate more tasks to robots, becoming more reliant on the technology to handle responsibilities such as caring for the elderly.

The human desire to interact and build relationships with robots and other relational artifacts despite their lack of ability to understand or care about their user’s thoughts and feelings “indicates that traditional notions of authenticity are in crisis” (502). With the advent of sophisticated robotic technology, humans are no longer restricted to authentic relationships with each other, but rather they can interact and simulate relationships with machines. The continued expansion and development of relational technology will inevitably lead to closer replications of human emotions and abilities, blurring the line between authentic human relationships and those experienced with computational objects. This phenomenon illustrates the growing potential for a revolutionary shift from relationships based exclusively on human interaction to those which involve machines that simulate the authenticity of a human relationship.

Word count: 498

WORK CITED

Turkle, Sherry. “Authenticity in the age of digital companions.” Interaction Studies 8.3 (2007): 501-517.  Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 3 Feb. 2010. <http://web.mit.edu/sturkle/www/pdfsforstwebpage/
ST_Authenticity%20in%20age%20of%20digi%20comp.pdf>

Doing Our Part

Technology is used all around the world, but where does it all go once they’re no longer working or being used? Vancouver is known to be an environmentally benefit to Canada, whether that is cutting down on pollution, recycling, or conserving energy. Nonprofit organizations such as Free Geek are doing their job in helping the environment and community. Free Geek is a community organization that reduces the environmental impact of waste and electronics by reusing and recycling donated technology. They are doing this because a lot of people throw out old electronics without knowing what impact this may have on their own health and the environment. Free Geek recycle and reuse donated electronics because there are many toxins in them such as Lead, Mercury, and cadmium; exposure to these toxins could lead to brain and heart damage. As the co founder of Free Geek Ifny Lachance explains, a lot of computers are donated to poorer countries that recycle these toxic wastes by hand and not caring what effect it can have on the people and the world in general. Not only is Free Geek good for the environment, it also is a good way to volunteer because it gives you an hands on experience when dealing with computers, it requires no training and can teach you how to fix them if you ever have a problem yourself. When my old electronics are no longer a use to me I didn’t consider what happened to them once I threw them out, Free Geek may be a small organization but they are leading Vancouver in the right direction to a better environment. Although computers may only be a small portion of the world’s pollution it is putting Vancouver in the right direction and in addition helping these poorer countries such as China be more environmentally friendly too.

Dying to be heard

Position Paper #3

Steffany Gundling

Technology has a way of suppressing our voices. This may seem like an oxymoron considering every time I go online I can instantly tell how many shots of espresso my Twitter friend has in his coffee. I also can read and write editorials, much like this one, on any topic I feel inclined to be interested in, exposing myself to the global village and the global village to myself. But Technology, in all its glory and liberty, has a way of shutting all of us up due precisely to these examples alone. With so many voices and so many opportunities to scream out our opinions, when are we ever heard or listened to? And to what extent will people go to in order to be louder than everyone else?

This draws me to the ‘Unabomber’. I had heard this word mentioned over the years but until I read a chapter focused on this in Slack and Wise’s Culture and Technology, I never gave much thought to the chaos of absolute freedom of speech and communication through technology. The chapter focuses on Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber and member of FC (Freedom club), and his anti-industrial revolution manifesto. Kaczynski’s famous manifesto believed that essentially the industrial revolution and all of it’s capitalistic qualities would inevitably be disastrous for society and that a revolt against technology was needed. In 1985, for Kaczynski, this revolt came in the form of mail-sent bombs to various experts in fields of strong technological backgrounds. Years later, when the taste of his reign of terror was dulled, he contacted newspapers and media outlets, demanding to be published, to be heard, and he would stop the death toll. Now Kaczynski could’ve easily been that crazy and psychotic guy that everyone labelled him to be (and most likely was), but the bombs and innocent deaths have catapulted a spotlight onto his otherwise ignored manifesto, which is now still being taught in universities and known worldwide. The deaths of innocent people was a price Kaczynski was willing pay in order to be listened to – and that he was. Essentially we can see this same fanatical method in religious fundamentalists (suicide bombers and terrorists) in today’s society. As CNN’s terror alert goes red, in our fear, we are all too eager to listen.

Should we go around killing people so everyone will listen to whatever burns and ignites our passions? No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. Is technology a time bomb ready to countdown the destruction of modern social structure? No. But a strong and unsettling question comes into my mind as I sift through my facebook news feed, dismissing and barely paying attention to how Dan’s day was or how much Jenny hates ice cream. As technology is already wrapping us up in its barrelling ambition forward, it is giving us all the freedoms we so aptly accept to uncensor ourselves to the world inexplicably. Through all the positive aspects of advancement and connectivity that these tools have given us, the balance of instant communication and expression may lead to an overall isolation in itself. Meanwhile updating my facebook status, the only question I undeniably ask myself is, “is anyone even listening?”

Works Cited

Slack, Jennifer Daryl and J. Macgregor Wise. Culture + Technology: a Primer. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Print.

Word Count: 555