The New Normal

Imagine a world where every person you pass on the street is visually perfect, with symmetrical features and not a blemish in sight. Imagine being able to sit in class and obtain any bit of information desired using nothing but one’s brain. Imagine the notion of disease being eradicated from the human body. That person you just passed on the street? She is immune to all any and all diseases. Imagine achieving abilities beyond the limitations of the natural human body – run faster, jump higher, think better. It sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Almost utopian, in fact. Now imagine living in this world, surrounded by all of these astounding things, and having access to none of it. You exist in this world as you currently are. You are limited by your own natural body, born with your own natural looks, thinking with your natural brain, and surrounded by a world of unnatural super humans. I can imagine only one conclusion being drawn from a natural human living in this unnatural world: “This sucks.”

Post-humanism, or Trans-humanism, is a movement based on genetics, nano and robotic technology and operates on the principle that humans can utilize technology to bypass the natural limitations of the human body and create a new, enhanced, and supposedly “better” version of man that could potentially replace the Homo sapien with a new species of Homo. In effect, this post-humanism movement would be taking evolution out of the hands of nature and into the hands of technology. Advocates for this movement claim that this will allow man to advance in ways that once existed only in imagination. Simon Young, one such advocate, says this in his Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto:

Man is not born free, but is everywhere in biological chains. People of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your biological chains! We stand at a turning point in human evolution. We have cracked the genetic code; translated the Book of Life. We will soon possess the ability to become designers of our own evolution… As humanism freed us from the chains of superstition, let transhumanism free us from our biological chains.

According to Young, man is enslaved by his own biological limitations. However, others would say that enslavement lies in the very post-human future that Young advocates. If we create an advanced human species, wouldn’t that new species drive us to our own extinction? If we become reliant upon technology to conform us to the new “human”, then isn’t our natural selves enslaved by technology to make us like everyone else? And if some can’t afford these new advancements, then wouldn’t they be enslaved by their own economic status? It seems that the post-human future creates slavery rather than eradicates it.

There are of course many benefits to these proposed advancements. Genetic engineering could do wonders for the fields of medicine, agriculture, the environment, and food production. No one would disagree that the eradication of illness, pollution, and world hunger is definitely a good thing. However, Paul Arnold explains in his article “Benefits and Risks of GeneticEngineering” that nothing is without risk. Speaking mostly with regard to agriculture, food production and medicine, Arnold outlines the potential risks of gene manipulation. In medicine, he addresses the issue of a gene landing in a spot that it wasn’t intended to, resulting in harm and in some cases death. In food engineering and agriculture, Arnold acknowledges the potential for the accidental creation of a super weed or harm to the ecosystem. In short, Arnold believes that there is always a risk of unintended consequences and that the pros and cons must be weighed carefully before humanity proceeds to dive headfirst into the world of GNR technology.

Many disagreements over the transhumanism movement lie in the moral implications of such a change. If humans are genetically “manufactured” to be physically and intellectually perfect, where is there room for individuality? If people are altered genetically, how would that affect their personalities? And, as depicted in the scenario found in the introduction of this blog, what about the people who aren’t genetically altered? How could a natural human be expected to compete on the same level as this new, altered superhuman? I don’t think they can. The only way for each party to be treated fairly would be to separate – or some would say segregate – these two classes of human. This would widen the rift between the two classes that undoubtedly would appear. The naturals against the unnaturals, the rich people who can afford the genetic change against the poor people who are left with their biological bodies, the future against the past, the normal against the abnormal. The question is: which group is the “normal” one now?

Some people advocate the transhumanism movement as the future of humanity. Others spurn it because it is unnatural. I personally believe that regardless of anyone’s feelings, this type of technology is coming and it is coming fast. I believe that it is a part of human nature to strive to surpass nature. Most of the tools that humans utilize on a day-to-day basis are “unnatural” and it is entirely plausible and probable that man would continue to advance above and beyond what is currently in use today. There are benefits and drawbacks to each side of the argument and I honestly do not know which is “right”. However, I do know that humanity will continue to advance and that simple fact is non-negotiable. A new normal is coming, and I can only hope that humanity is ready for it when it arrives.

Globalization Is A Good Thing

Globalization is defined as the increasingly interconnected and interdependent nature of communication systems, economies, cultures and politics of contemporary societies. The world has never been closer than it is today. Through the avenues of Internet, electronic communication, mass media and international businesses, the world seems to be getting smaller and different cultures closer every single day. Opinions on this phenomenon of a “global culture” differ vastly. Some view this interconnectivity as a positive, inspiring testament to human cooperation and goodwill. Others view this as an attack on international culture and an attempt to Westernize other countries. So which is it? Is a global culture a good or a bad thing?

Globalization is extremely beneficial for the global economy. Explains Michael Spence, Asian countries have been steadily modernizing and thus raising their standard of living.

Fostering the human capital in these countries has allowed them to create the  infrastructure, technology and education systems needed for economic expansion. Spence says these principles which started with Japan and are now catching on in more Asian nations, most notably in India, South America and even Africa and will continue to do so for the next 50 years or so.

Globalization has helped these countries to grow and advance in many different ways: economically, technologically, academically, etc. Economically, it is necessary for nations to mix their markets together because most nations operate interdependently. The bankruptcy of one nation would severely affect the economic situation of another. However, do these economic benefits outweigh the cultural costs?

This homogeneity of nations has caused the question tobe posed: would a single global culture result in a better world? In the poll, 73% of voters said no. Some rationalized that culture is a tradition and should be preserved. Others rationalized that lack of diversity would result in absolute chaos – a world akin to a dystopian science fiction novel. However, the 27% in favor of a global culture had one prominent argument in favor of globalization: it would make things much easier. Can ease and efficiency really justify the eradication of diverse cultures? Most would say no. However, does having a McDonald’s down the road really matter that much?

Ultimately, I believe that globalization is inescapable. Nations have become so interconnected that the loss of one would drastically affect the functionality of another. I believe that the interdependence of nations has improved the quality of life and economic stability of countries. Rather than actively resist the influence of global culture, perhaps we should instead embrace it. The preservation of diverse culture is, of course, extremely important. However, the concept of a world united under certain values has its share of benefits as well.

Online and In Class

We are all familiar with what  is considered the “traditional” classroom setting – teacher stands in the front of the room lecturing the class about the knowledge he has accumulated over the years, occasionally writing on the chalk board behind him. The class silently and obediently writes down everything they are told in a notebook. This is the system that has been continuously rehashed for years. However, technology has done what it does best – innovated. Through technology, a new doorway has been opened for a different type of classroom setting in which the class takes place partially or even entirely online. Students can now have access to the wealth of information available on the internet while simultaneously learning about the subject of their search directly from their teacher. This may sound like a dream come true, but like all new things, this new kind of class has its naysayers. Many people maintain that the presence of technology in the classroom is detrimental to the students’ learning experience. Others claim that the schools who continue to ban technology from classrooms are causing more harm than good by eliminating the world’s largest source of information from their academic experiences. So which side is right? Is technology good or bad for the classroom?

An oft recited saying is, “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” The same could be said for traditional classrooms, couldn’t it? This is the system that America has followed for years and we’ve gotten along just fine. So why change it? According to Stacey Roshan, an AP Calculas teacher at Bullis School, the traditional education system didn’t work too well to begin with. Roshan explains that for her first three years of teaching at Bullis, her students were easily confused by the complex mathematics that she taught in lecture form. “[The students] often left class with more questions than answers.” However, Roshan implemented technology into her class and the results were extremely significant. Roshan began uploading her lectures to iTunes and assigned them as homework for her students. When in class, Roshan would devote class time to work on problems. As a result, the test results of her students greatly increased. An average of 3.59 out of 5 was recorded for her class taught in the traditional way. For her new class format, the average was 4.11. Technology was instrumental in increasing the good performance of these students. However, the involvement of technology took place outside of the classroom. What are the effects of bringing technology into the classroom?

There is an increasing trend of students who bring their laptop to class instead of traditional pen and paper. Computers can be faster, more efficient, and the information from the internet can do much to facilitate your understanding of a particular subject. However, sometimes the call of the vast digital world that lies within the internet pulls you somewhere far beyond the lesson at hand. There is always that subtle urge to check Facebook, update Twitter, look at artsy pictures on Instagram. Explains John Dodig of The College Voice:

Our generation is wired and well connected – that’s not a bad thing. But we’re creeping toward a point where college life is more about being social and less about being intellectually engaged. The whole point of having a laptop in class should be to expand scholarship and increase efficiency, but I’ve found that they’re having the opposite effect. Strangely enough, classes have become something to be tolerated rather than the reason we’re here.

Dodig brings up a good point here. Are laptops actually helping students? It is not implausible to think of laptops as a sort of barrier between the student and the teacher. With a screen separating them, how can students possibly engage themselves into the lesson?
 

According to a study by the PewInternet and American Life Project, the answer is, “Quite easily.” The study found that 79% of college Internet users believe the Internet has improved their college academic experience. 73% use the Internet more than the library for research. 72% check their email every day. 60% believe the internet has improved their relationship with classmates, 56% believe it has improved relations with professors. 46% say that emails allow them to express themselves to their professors in ways they could not – or would not – have done in class. It is clear that the majority of the students tested are in favor of Internet presence in their learning experience.

Opinions on the presence of the digital world in the classroom are extremely divided. Some strongly advocate its presence, some protest against it. Ultimately, I think that it should be the students' decision whether they have their laptops in the classroom. Technology offers many opportunities for information, entertainment, and communication and it is up to the user to utilize these resources responsibly. If the user decides to take advantage of these opportunities, that will be reflected in their GPA. But those who can and would use the Internet appropriately for their classes should have the right to do so.

The Gray Nature of Video Games

EC for early childhood, E for everyone, E10+ for everyone ten and up, T for teen, M for mature gamers 17 and older, AO for adults only (18 and older). These are the six ratings used by theEntertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) to categorize who is suited to play a game. The frequently sited “violent video games that are corrupting our youth” (Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Modern Warfare, Fallout, Resident Evil, etc.) are mostly rated M for mature. This system was created to ensure that no impressionable minds become influenced by games too mature for them. Why, then, do people continue to blame video games for violent tendencies? If video games are so bad, why do we continue to play them? Both pro and anti video game advocates argue for their sides vehemently. Perhaps it is possible that video games are both bad and good.

 Video games are extremely prevalent in society. 72% of American households play video games. The average game player age is 37 and in 2011, 29% of gamers were over the age of 50. This information, collected by the Entertainment Software Association, shows that games are not simply an adolescent pastime. Adults play games just as much, and often more, than children. This mature presence in the gaming audience is the reason why M-rated games receive the most media coverage. Video game companies market their games to the adults who can actually afford them. However, that does not imply scarcity for age appropriate games. According to the ESRB’s PatriciaVance, “Nearly 60% of the almost 1700 ratings we assigned [in 2011] were E for Everyone, which means there’s a huge selection of games available that are appropriate for all ages.” Children have plenty of games fit for their age to choose from. There is no reason for any child to play an M-rated game and the only reason they would do so is because their parents allowed them to.

Multiple studies have explained that video games do have negative effects. According to a studyconducted by Utah’s Brigham Young University, everything found associated with video games came out negative. The more students play video games, the worse their relationships are with friends and parents. Gamers also tend to smoke pot three times more than non-gamers and female gamers often have a much lower self-esteem. Video games can be addictive, expensive, distracting, destructive, and can rob you of real life experiences. However, there is much good to be said about video games as well.

Video games can be accredited for teaching valuable skills to its players. In video games, timing is everything. If you move too quickly or too slowly, it could mean loss of the game and a return to a checkpoint. Organization is also a skill taught by video games. The key example is Tetris, a block game in which you must stack differently shaped blocks to form a straight line. Considering that organization is vital in day-to-day life, this is not a bad skill to practice when sitting at leisure at your house. Gamers are also well-acquainted with the concept of resource management. In first-person shooters, the gamer has to carefully ration out and preserve various types of ammunition. In role playing games, it’s healing potions, reviving potions, antidotes, and weapons. This type of thinking is valuable in the real world when dealing with money, resources, employees, and various things in between. In addition, video games help to boost brain function in the individuals who play them.

According to Joseph Olin, president of the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences, "Games are an amazing invention that entertain and inform in ways different than traditional media. "But many critics have little or any experience with them and therefore don't understand where there could be artistic or educational value. No different than with film and TV, media sensationalism and ignorance can contribute to the fear that games are harmful to children. There's absolutely no scientific evidence showing a positive correlation between violence in individuals and the games they play.”

There are two sides to every coin. Perhaps there are negative effects to playing video games, but there is also undoubtedly a positive effect as well. The opinion of the media cannot completely trump the opinion of the public, and the video game public declares that video games are detrimental to them. With such a high percentage of American families who play games, one would expect there to be a great deal more shoot-ups if video games were as bad as they are made out to be. Like most things in life, video games cannot be defined as wholly good or bad, black or white, helpful or hurtful – they are gray.

The Digital Coup D'état

The human race is innovative, progressive and constantly evolving. The never-ending flow of ideas produces a never-ending flow of new technologies that make our lives more and more convenient. However, all of this progress has done more than advance humanity. Technological progression has also created intellectual regression. The increasingly prevalent presence of technology has served as both an advantage and a detriment to our ability to provide our own solutions. Many students shout the merits of a spellchecker – and so do their grades – but can it truly be considered meritorious if those students cannot spell that selfsame word when putting pen to paper?  Technology has provided for us a high level of comfort, improved working and living conditions, and all-around day-to-day convenience. However, by surrendering to that convenience, many people seem to also surrender their ability to operate independently of these digital assistants. To technology, we humans act as both master and slave.

In an article written by BBC News’ Bill Thompson, an experiment performed by psychologist Christof van Nimwegen is described and yields extremely interesting results. Thompson explains, “Van Nimwegen’s investigation focused on the ways in which externalizing interface information influences a user’s performance in solving problems requiring planning”. The experiement involved two groups of users who were asked to solve a complex puzzle where they had to move two differently colored balls using a dish. Two different versions of the game were made, one with more guidance than the other, and were distributed to the users. The results were that those users provided with less support performed better at the puzzle than those who received help. Those with less support were even able to remember how to play the game better after an eight-month gap. This experiment shows that in regards to technology, less help is sometimes more beneficial to people in the long run. However, technology is continuing to grow more and more helpful to the point of being unhelpful.

Far be it from me to pretend that I am removed from this technological fascination. I am the first person to admit that I am regretfully reliant on my electronics. When I’m not talking on my phone, I’m checking for new text messages, Twitter updates, e-mails, text messages again, more Twitter updates, more emails, lather, rinse, repeat. Society is in a constant cycle of communication, everyone always in touch with everyone else. If my phone dies, I am immediately cut off from my social media network. Any teenager can relate to the “tragedy” of a dead cell phone battery. But I have to wonder why it is such a tragedy? What can’t I find as much entertainment and pleasure in the physical world around me as I find in this tiny device that fits right in my hand?

In the study “Teenagers: AGeneration Unplugged”, conducted in July 2008 by Harris Interactive and CTIA, teenagers across the US were asked to complete a survey of more than 100 questions about mobile phone usage, attitudes, behaviors, and desires from the future of technological communications. According to the study, 57% of teens view their cell phone as the key to their social life. The study also found that texting has begun to take the place of talking. Teens admitted spending nearly equal time each month texting as they did talking face-to-face. If texting were no longer an option, 47% of teens feel that their social lives would end.

Technology has become so prevalent in the lives of digital natives that they feel unable to function socially without it. No one is directly to blame for these feelings in the digital natives. All technology developed – writing, language, tools – were created and put to use for the sake of convenience. Technology made life easy, and when you are born into a world surrounded by such convenience, you become wholly accustomed to it. We didn’t have a choice in the matter. As we live life assisted by technology, we became reliant on it to perform tasks that older generations used to be able to perform independently. We now need to use technology as much as it needs to be used by us.

Technology is so beneficial to society and is testament to the inventiveness of humanity. I am excited to see what bigger and better things are to come as humanity continues to advance their technological prowess and as we dive deeper into a digital culture. However, a part of me is also wary of that dive – if we go too deep, won’t we drown? What if our own technology out advances us? In Isaac Asimov’s short story “Runaround”, published in his popular collection of science fiction stories entitled I, Robot , humans have created robots so advanced that they wrench control of a facility from humans because they feel the humans could not perform the task satisfactorily. The robots were stronger, faster, smarter and the humans were powerless to escape their robotic captors. I want humanity to grow and flourish as the advanced, futuristic, Jetsons-like society that people have envisioned for years. But if we continue down this path of ultra-convenience, I can’t help but wonder if eventually humans will become mindless, insufficient blobs of flesh and bones with superior computers doing all the thinking for us.

Ultimately, I do think that technology has done more help than harm and I am glad to be a part of this digital culture. The future holds great things for humanity and I am excited to see where we dare go next. In the meantime, I intend to strive for balance between the digital and the physical realms of my life. There is a whole other world beyond the electronic one sitting in my hand, and I intend to explore and discover all I can about both of them.