This is dumb.
It's pretty stupid to describe it as an addiction to "technology". It's like describing alcoholism as an addiction to "fluids".
We are all, by definition, addicted to technology in some form or another. To suggest that our technology is in any way separate from ourselves is a short sighted and ignorant statement.
These people are merely familiar with communications technology, recognise the benefits of it over face-to-face interaction. They may well be addicted to the stimulus of receiving messages via that technology (I've been there), but that is the addiction, not the technology itself.
This is perfect Oprah fodder. I predict that she will have a show soon on exactly this topic, and will bang on about how harmful "technology" is. And all her little minions will dutifully watch this on their televisions and then go and order the latest book from Oprah's Book Club on her official website.
Then they'll go around living their lives, using electricity, indoor plumbing, driving cars, wearing clothes and shoes, taking medicine and reading books honestly oblivious to the fact that they are just as "addicted" to technology as everyone else.
That even counts for the Amish and other crazy people: Where did you get that plow, Jebediah? That's some nifty woven cloth that your buttonless shirt is made from, Jacob!
I think this is a real problem though, regardless of whether it is dubbed an addiction to technology or something else. There are people that would rather facebook than actually meet up with someone for drinks. And people who talk on their cell phones while in your company or (and I can't decide which is worse) that sms someone whilst pretending to listen to you. Then there are the arguments that happen via e-mail, sms, or instant messaging which is hardly ever a good idea mostly because one cannot detect tone or read body language. Technology has its uses but it should not be used as an alternative to meaningful human interaction.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that I completely agree.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are those who prefer the distance of sitting behind a screen and communicating via electronic devices rather than engaging with someone more directly. But I don't think that's necessarily a problem.
I imagine similar discussions arising with the advent of the telephone, and the written letter before that. I don't think it's fair to characterise electronic communication as being any less meaningful than older methods. But I will concede that perhaps the flood of new communication media has been too quick to allow for the formulation of proper usage etiquette.
If I put on my psychic hat and look into the future, I see two possible solutions to this problem:
1. People will spontaneously start developing and teaching generally accepted manners associated with these technologies. I think that has already happened to a large extent, especially when it comes to cellphones. It's now no longer acceptable to have a phone or SMS conversation while someone else is sitting in front of you. This has been pretty well established, and anyone who still does this has no excuse, and is just being rude.
I believe that similar practices will arise around other electronic communication media, specifically regarding when it is or isn't appropriate to use. We'll see.
2. The technology will advance to the point that the experience of electronic communication will be no different from face-to-face interaction. This is also happening to some extent, with the increased proliferation of webcams and the inclusion of video-calling into ordinary cellphones.
I don't believe that it's too much of a stretch to suggest that within a decade, it will be practical and generally practised to communicate with distant people in the same way you would with someone sitting in front of you (I'm picturing some sort of immersive virtual reality system, but that's only one possibility). That kind of technology would negate the need for special rules of decorum, since the old rules would apply.
Either way, I think we're currently in some sort of transitional state. And while it's important to think about these things, I believe that to call it an 'addiction' is alarmist and possibly even regressive. I think that it arises from a fear of the unknown, on the part of people who don't really understand the technology and are afraid of losing touch.
But I could be wrong.
Oh, I forgot to say this:
ReplyDeleteI also agree that there are times when one medium is preferable to another. Part of our slow adaptation to this flood of new media is a learning process around which is the appropriate medium to use for any given situation.
But I think that's something that will come right with time, and we'll eventually have some rules of social order to fall back on and to guide us. I see those rules forming already (even if I don't think they're necessarily correct yet), but they'll get better.