Robot Apocalypse

            The post-human future that people like Ray Kurzweil and Ronald Bailey speak of is one stemming from great technological advances such as strength and intelligence enhancing medications and self-replicating machines. Personally, these progressions bring more fear than excitement. Imagining the type of world we would live in—one dominated by machines and technology rather than human intelligence—gives me great anxiety and honestly makes me want to back away from my computer. Why would anyone want to develop a type device that can go further than human intelligence? After that, what is the point of living anymore?

            Francis Fukuyama describes my point-of-view perfectly when he says, “The first victim of transhumanism might be equality” (Fukyuama 1).  It is impossible to imagine this futurist world without extreme class division and a possible new race. It would be extremely likely that many people would refuse any type of enhancement or wouldn’t even be offered it when it does exist. These people would end up being far inferior to their enhanced neighbors. Furthermore, when the enhancements begin advancing to new technological implants, this new class of humans will be able to rule over the others and create a semi-human aristocracy. The rest of the people will be, according to Bill Joy, “reduced to the status of domestic animals” (Joy 2). Being a firm believer in remaining completely human and continuing the human race (I know it seems ridiculous to oppose this), I would surely be one of those “domestic animals.”

            In the world that transhumanists dream of, it is difficult to think of any reason for education; if we can easily just “Google” something in our brains, what is the point of teaching or testing? Cheating will be as easy as closing your eyes to research your answer and schools will become places for young people to mingle, rather than actually become educated. Laziness will reach a new level and will actually be rewarded in this new age. Instead of promoting creativity, I believe the new technology will make it obsolete. With everyone and everything running on technology and stemming from the same operating system, how will creativity even be recognized?

         A huge fear of mine is the idea of self-replicating machines existing in this new age. With the science not far from this discovery, the fear is very real. If it does happen, there will be no stopping it, or them. The robots will be able to clone themselves infinitely without the assistance of humans and can therefore multiply to a higher population than humans themselves. While the thought of a robot apocalypse seems fictitious, with this new science being researched, we cannot write it off that easily.  Joy mentions a different risk with these machines: “a risk of substantial damage in the physical world.” And even states her fear that this will be a path to the “perfection of extreme evil” (Joy 5).

         While “extreme evil” may sound extremely exaggerated, the new technologies that may be available may lead to a whole new type of violence. Joy regards that these new machines “can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses" (Joy 5). It is very reasonable that new devices will be made and used to destroy other humans and possibly whole countries. With nuclear warfare a constant fear in current society, what can the future bring but more fears?

         Not only can the new tramshumanist, post-human future lead to many new advances which can lead to destruction of creativity, effort and humans, it can also set humans back a lot. As I stated in my previous blog, “The Perks of Being a Digital Native,” there are many downsides to advancements in technology. People decline in social skills and reading skills.  If new developments  allow research to occur right inside our minds, what would conversations be like? Would we constantly have other things on our mind or be doing completely different tasks while appear to be holding dialogue? Furthermore, will reading even exist? With Sparknotes and videos of everything streaming from a chip in our brain, why read Thoreau or Shakespeare? It is scary to think what will come of those famous authors and poets and their classic works. Everything will be a version of “No Fear Shakespeare” or some annotated version because there will be no time to read the entire novel what with social media to check and robots to interact with.  If students today focus more on technology than schoolwork, what will students of the future be like?

Integration vs Homogenization

Living in America, it’s difficult to think that there’s any other place: all the movies we watch are American, all of the music we listen to is American and the only people we care about are Americans. Oddly enough, my French roommate tells me it’s very similar where she comes from. Around the world, people watch American shows, listen to American music and rave about American celebrities; the products they buy are American and they all own American flag T-shirts. I ask myself, could this all have happened because of a single burger joint, McDonalds?

            It has been said that McDonalds is the most disgusting, greasiest, least healthy “restaurant” available, and I would completely agree. Why, then, does this chain serve “47 million customers each day in 119 countries” (Simon)? McDonalds’ globalization methods have been praised infinitely and reproduced so many times that we realize it is not the product, but the production that makes it so successful. Corporations such as Starbucks and KFC have made millions by using the McDonald’s method. Every country now has a McDonalds, Starbucks, Haagen-Dazs, Pizza Hut or KFC, or all of the above. However, many civilizations claim that this “McDonaldization” (Ritzer) has been a huge disadvantage to the cultures of the countries and that it “destroy[s] culture and diversity” (Cowen).

         While I understand the logic behind the whole “your culture is taking over ours” idea, I don’t fully agree with it. Sure, a McDonalds in the middle of Athens sort of takes away from the cultural experience and it may demote smaller restaurants at some times, but it also illuminates the tradition of the country as well. For example, when traveling through Barcelona, my friend remarked that she saw a few McDonald’s around and that it only made her think, “Why would I eat that when I could eat authentic Spanish food?” Furthermore, my roommate can go on for hours about how in France, they love to buy from local vendors in spite of the American integration. So, in actuality, it can be argued that the infusion of Western culture on the rest of the world has actually strengthened the pride of the individual diverse cultures.  In the same regard “the very foundations of the West […] are multicultural products, resulting from the international exchange of goods, services, and ideas” (Cowen).  Therefore, the internationalization of “Western” products simply promotes the original, more authentic product.

            Kwame Anthony Appiah, in “Cosmopolitanism”, speaks about the idea of Western infiltration into other parts of the world. For example, he comments on the fact that the French watch American movies and how they “would like to have a significant number of films rooted deeply in French life, which they watch alongside all those American movies” (Appiah). This goes to show that while American culture has indeed been injected into the lives of most other cultures, there is still a sense of nationalism that exists within the people of those countries or villages. They are not abandoning their own culture by buying into others they are simply embracing others. Though there are homogenous aspects running through every civilization, the heterogeneous aspects still exist and thrive.  Appiah notes that because these peoples are constantly “inventing new forms of difference: new hairstyles, new slang, even, from time to time, new religions” that there is no way that “the world’s villages are—or are about to become—anything like the same.

            Personally, I feel that the globalization of products, ideas, and media has not fully changed any one culture. Through my experience, it is the people who decide whether or not traditions and customs remain, not corporations. Furthermore, if small businesses ARE suffering from the “McDonaldization” that is occurring, it is the people’s job to impede that from taking place. As some organizations have invoked, boycotts and strikes against large corporations have made huge differences. For example, the recent “Chick-fil-A anti-gay” campaign brought considerable attention to the corporation. If people were to strike against McDonalds for hindering the small-businesses’ success, there would be a lot of talk and hopefully, some action could be taken. However, I do not believe that these corporations are particularly threatening to smaller enterprises because the two offer completely different experiences: McDonalds and fast-food chains offer sub-par food for a low cost in a timely manner; family-owned restaurants offer unique and delicious food for any range of price in the owner’s own time.  Essentially, I believe that the globalization of businesses is beneficial and is not responsible for any “deculturalization”.  

Professor Gadget

“Does anyone know how I can make this bigger?” “ Who knows how to copy and paste?” “How do I select that box?” Teachers these days… It may just be me but I have been growing more and more tired of the naivety some high school teachers regarding technology in the classroom. In my opinion, if you don’t know how to use something, don’t bring it into the classroom. In this era, smart boards, laptops, projectors and iPads are prevalent in most private and many public high schools throughout America and most other countries as well. In the current digital age it is hard to get away from those who, try though they may, just cannot work out how to control computers and other technological devices.  While they can be confusing at times, I believe these gadgets play a huge role in the way we learn today. Without them, we would be much less connected to the rest of the country, not to mention the world.

            I find laptops in high school classrooms useless, distracting and a waste of money. Furthermore, it saddens me to think of books becoming obsolete and extinct. However, I do believe technology in the classrooms is necessary, especially in college. Laptops in a college classroom are much more acceptable in my eyes; while course-work is much more rigorous and note-taking completely necessary, it is easy to justify bringing computers to class. Also, professors in college classrooms seem much more apt to handle the “complexity” of the smart-boards and projectors that proved too difficult for the high school algebra teachers. I do understand, however, the argument that laptops can be extremely distracting to a lot of students (Snyder).  I find my fingers typing “Facebook” into the URL bar without even thinking about it, and I can’t help but peek onto the screens next to me to see my classmate’s new high score on Robot Unicorn Attack. Nonetheless, the fact that a laptop can be distracting is a weak reason to forbid them in classrooms. If a student is easily distracted, he or she will not pay attention even in the absence of a laptop, and those who are focused and want to actively participate will not let their screens stop them.

            Teachers who use electronic devices to support the curriculum are geniuses in my eyes.  While PowerPoint is boring and extremely annoying when read directly from, it is a helpful tool to keep students focus and promotes note taking (Freie/Behuniak). Smart boards are also extremely beneficial, that is, when a teacher knows how to use it. If time isn’t spent realigning the projector or changing pen color, the smart board is perfect in almost every subject. It’s like a whiteboard, projector and computer combined, how could you go wrong with that?

            Being able to use technology in accordance with my education has not only been extremely convenient but has also allowed for more stimulation.  Crowdsourcing, or “inviting a group to collaborate on a solution to a problem” (Davidson) has been increasingly easier with the plethora of social networking sites available today. Research is also much quicker, and while some people say this has promoted laziness, I say it has just cut down the wasted hours spent on fumbling through encyclopedias and tossing useless books aside. There are also more ways to learn these days. While Snyder argues that googling during class is counter-productive and just another distraction, I believe it is a helpful tool. Instead of staring blankly at my professor because I don’t know what the word “cogent” means and am too embarrassed to ask, I can simply google it and then continue taking notes. If I do get distracted and end up on other, less relevant websites, it will only replace the time I would have spent racking my brain, trying to self-define “cogent.” The Internet has so many education-based websites that it is almost overwhelming. We have so many resources at our fingertips that it would be a shame to not take advantage of them; hence the use of technology in classrooms.

            In my own experiences, technology has only improved my work habits and boosted my grades.  Learning in a digital age has been extremely rewarding. I have learned to adjust my work habits so that I don’t become distracted by the highly entertaining world of the Internet and to utilize my resources. I disagree with those who denounce the use of technology in classroom settings. I believe we must keep up with the times in all aspects, especially education. 

Noobs with Boobs

         From the time I was 8 years old, I knew the difference between an assault rifle and a battle rifle, how to “frag” somebody and when to “pistol whip” an enemy. Fortunately, this was not because I was in some sort of toddler mafia, I merely became quite immersed in video games, namely the war-based ones such as “Halo” and later on, “Call of Duty.” I was influenced by my cousins and friends to play video games and became a huge fan of the digital sport.  Unfortunately, most of my friends in middle school and high school didn’t take me too seriously as a “gamer” due to the fact that I am female. However, I did not find this to be much of a hindrance since I quickly proceeded to prove them wrong by demolishing their discriminatory butts in almost every game. I realized that the stereotype that women cannot succeed in video games was silly, but it was also mainly based on fact; most girls my age viewed video games as an alien activity carried out only by the cootie-ridden boys or their little brothers. Consequently, boys only played video games with other boys; and so the stereotype erupted.

            Many themes present in video games draw a primarily male consumer crowd; for example, most f the character options for most games are male and manya majority of video games contain graphic sexual images of women. Recently, however, these companies have been producing more “pink games” in order to diminish the idea that the games they make are gender-exclusive. The irony in this lies in the fact that these games play off of gender stereotypes. The very name, “pink games,” (Grimes) suggests that all girls are drawn to and like the color pink. These games also feature cliché girly designs and games. Most have to do with fashion or beauty and those that don’t usually involve cooking or child rearing.  While these games offer an exciting opportunity for many girls, they also inspire ridicule for male players.  Girls who do enjoy video games, however, continue to immerse themselves in the male-dominated games regardless of the scoffing they endure. Because of this, I do not believe that the stereotypical nature of games is an issue that needs to be dwelled upon. Girls who do feel discriminated against are usually those who would not play video games anyway.

            Not only is there conflict in the gaming industry regarding gender, but there is also debate about whether video games affect a person’s performance in school and cognition. Studies have shown that playing video games “can improve spatial attention and mental rotation” and can also help children with “reading skills, mathematics and biology” (Prot).  However, other studies prove that “video game playing [is] negatively correlated with college GPA” (Burgess).  While these two statements seem contradictory, I believe it makes perfect sense; while video games may help the brain work better, many students become distracted by them and end up abandoning their studies to focus on their gaming careers. I believe that while certain games seem vacuous in the education department, some that I have played have taught me a lot about math, science and even current world problems.

            Another area of dispute regarding video games is the correlation of gaming to violent behavior. Many experiments have proven that “video game violence can significantly increase aggressive thoughts, emotions, and behavior” (Prot). However, many scientists do not see a strong enough relationship to write the behavior off as coming directly from the video games. While I agree that some video games lower the threshold of what people perceive as violent or gory, I do not believe that video games alone can trigger violent behavior in a person. In my opinion, unless a person is mentally unstable to begin with, they should not have violent outbreaks because of a game.

            My own experiences with video games have shaped my opinion on their production and their effects on the users. I have had mostly positive experiences with games other than an occasional loss; this has allowed me to confidently say that the gaming industry is one that is not perfect but has definitely developed well over the past decade. For me, gaming is always a go-to comfort activity and the fact that some games are “gender-biased” doesn’t bother me too much anymore. I personally have not seen a drop in my GPA due to excessive playing or had any unusual violent encounters, although I may have just been lucky.