|
|
Post by hausmann on Jun 5, 2016 21:27:35 GMT
Hi everyone and welcome to the last discussion thread of the semester. Below are the questions - just two this week, I want to try and keep the conversation a bit more focused.
1. Listen to On the Media and read Poe. How do these two pieces present the internet, as revolutionary or not? What do you think? Does the creation and establishment of the internet rank among the other revolutionary processes you've learned about in this course? What other processes occurring today do you think could be addressed in a course like this?
2. How have the revolutionary processes from this course continued into the twenty-first century? Coates presents one example, can you think of others?
|
|
|
|
Post by danielkogan on Jun 6, 2016 1:24:50 GMT
![]() Primary Source Analysis Post:
Source 1:  Source 2:  Analysis: The two documents I chose to analyze for the primary source analysis provide contrasting periodical arguments and viewpoints regarding the slavery dilemma of the mid 1800s. The first article I chose is a newspaper article written on March 3rd, 1859 and is titled, “BENEFITS OF SLAVERY.” This article came from a newspaper called Wester Recorder that circulated from 1824-1833. Surprisingly, this segment directly mentions nothing about what its title would lead you to infer that it is about. However, it is actually a very cleverly crafted brief article that tells a story about a group of African Americans engaging in violent behavior; thus, symbolically indicating that they should be positioned on a plantation. On the contrary, the next piece I will examine is also a newspaper article written on May 15th, 1865 titled, “THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.” This article came from a newspaper called Circular that was distributed from 1851-1870. In brief, this article describes an opinionated conflict between two men on the standing of slavery—one thought it was still present, while the other thought it abolished. Since both articles were published within a relatively close period, it is initially important to contextually put the time era into perspective. In the beginning of the 19th century, slavery in the United States was a firmly established practice. Various laws, statutes and codes were mandated in different states to regulate slave conduct and activity. However, in approaching the mid 1850s, slavery essentially made a transition from a relatively stable societal function to an unstable and highly debatable socio-political and geographic area of conflict. Specifically, in 1803, the US closed a land acquisition deal with France called the Louisiana Purchase. In layman’s terms, the US acquired approximately a third of the land that lies within US borders today. What this meant for slavery initially began with a sustained deliberation of opinions between pro and anti-slavery states over political and economic issues. For the sake of staying on topic, in the time leading up to the middle 1800s, the US acquired bulk territories of land. The more land that was acquired, the more disputes erupted over slavery. However, by around the 1850s, it was settled that states located in the Southeastern US region were deemed slave states. Moving on, the first article offers a figurative perspective on why one newspaper believed slavery was beneficial. Though there is not much information provided about the author of the first newspaper segment, it can be supposed that the author was capable of expressing a certain degree of prejudice towards African-Americans and slavery as a whole. The short segment describes a story of a man, who was an innocent Baptist preacher, that was robbed by “a number of negros, who were lurking about in the woods…of [his]…flour and tobacco.” It is later mentioned that the African-American men who robbed him were eventually caught and sentenced to be hanged. I thought this was a symbolic perspective on why this author thought slavery was beneficial. From it, I suppose that he believed African-Americans should be regulated through the slavery system. This way, crimes such as the one described in the article could be avoided. On the contrary, the second article outlines a conflict disputed at a public anti-slavery meeting. Similar to the first article, not much is known about the author. However, it appears that the author took on a neutral position, and was simply reporting information. There were two main leaders present at the anti-slavery meeting: Phillips thought that “slavery still lives, and requires counter-action,” while Garrison believed that slavery was essentially approaching its end and that the “usefulness and power of the [anti-slavery] Society were gone.” We eventually learn that Phillips was elected in charge of the anti-slavery society, and commanded the organization towards counter-slavery action. After analyzing the selected newspaper articles, it is apparent that contrasting perspectives exist concerning slavery within a relatively close period of time. In the first article, the benefit of slavery is portrayed through emotional appeal. The story is fairly compelling, and offers insight on the type of damage anti-slavery can cause to innocent people; thus, indicating that slavery should remain present. Despite this, the second article outlines a public event that assumed the anti-slavery position, citing that slavery still exists, which calls for action against it. Ultimately, after reading these primary source documents discussing two different opinions on slavery, my personal beliefs still remain against it. Though the first article does employ a representational and tactical persuasive technique, yellow journalism alone cannot justify slavery. (757 words, ~2.5 pages) |
|
|
|
Post by craigaway on Jun 6, 2016 20:21:13 GMT
Question 2
Rachel Cleves dissects issues around same-sex marriage and the “impossible” relationships of the past. Same-sex marriage should be recognized as a social reality based upon how people live, and should not be recognized only as a legal reality. The nature of a heterosexual relationship has been assumed over history, but same-sex relationships have required a higher standard of evidence, which appears to be homophobic. Last week’s podcast on Reconstruction raised the issue of states’ rights versus Federal authority. Same-sex marriage has been intertwined in this dispute recently, and the transgender bathroom issue is intermixed in the state/Federal rights debate today.
The Hasapa Reparations Alliance has been trying to develop a co-management plan with various stakeholders. The Sioux have maintained since 1877 that the Federal takeover of the Black Hills was illegal, but they are willing to compromise to regain rights that they have had since the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie. But in the spirit of not letting go of their heritage, as stated in this week’s reading, “we won the battle against Custer, but the war continues.” The Frederick Hoxie podcast raises the issues of whether recent changes in tribal governance are a sign that authentic Indian culture is slipping away, or a sign of the culmination of Indian activism in the 21st century; reconquest may expand Indian values into the larger society. As described in “The Roundhouse”, legal progress for Indians, as portrayed by knives in an old casserole, is built upon the rotten foundation of colonial rule, but this metaphor describes their pathway to the future.
Through sectional reconciliation, Yael Sternhell explains some of the modern problems with southern history. In order to get critical Confederate documents, the Federal archivists had to convey both sides. This contributed to the “just cause” storyline, where the rebellion is portrayed as legitimate and military strategies failed this sovereign government. The reading in The Atlantic carries the “lost cause” myth into this time, which decontextualizes the real motives of the South. Confederate monuments have been embraced as a reaction to the Civil Rights movement, and cultural resistance to black equality remains an unsettled issue today. David Blight opines that the Civil Rights movement created an opportunity for a second Emancipation and Reconstruction. He said that “the flesh grows again on the dry bones”, and this reminds me of the Black Lives Matter movement today. Ralph Ellison stated that Americans lack a sense of tragedy, and that we need this sense, or history will repeat itself, or worse.
Ta-Nehisi Coates states that to promote black rights is perceived to condone black criminality, and that this criminalizing of black leadership is still occurring. Black community problems, an example being environmental racism, become societal problems when they threaten the white community. Compounded deprivation, as stated by Robert Sampson, encompasses entire families and neighborhoods that “must navigate…a tangle of interrelated and reinforcing perils”. Mass incarceration is the new national model of social control, where generational peril is the “pit”, and incarceration the “trapdoor”.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpetonak2 on Jun 8, 2016 20:01:56 GMT
Response to question 2
The revolutionary processes form this course are continued into the twenty-first century. One example of this is same-sex marriage. It is a very talked about topic that challenged whether a man and another man or woman and another woman could legally be wed. It was a topic that had gave people many different opinions on the matter. Eventually the many states made advances to making same-sex marriage legal and then the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states.
Another example is the topic of racism. Racism is something in this country and also among the world that is clearly present. It is something that has been trying to be stopped for hundreds of years with great advances. Many if not most people are against racism and are for the end of it. One of the best quotes I have heard about how to end racism was said by Morgan Freeman. He was asked about how to stop racism. Freeman responded “The best way to stop racism is to stop talking about it. It just gives it more attention.”
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jun 9, 2016 0:24:14 GMT
Question 1:
After reading the Marshall Poe article and listening to On the Media, I felt that they both took the stance on saying that the internet is not revolutionary. The Marshall Poe reading definitely leaned more towards the idea that the internet was not revolutionary. I felt that Marshall Poe really was trying to get the argument across that the internet is another form of something, and not the beginning of something. The same way that he says that “The boxes have now changed, but they are still boxes.” It’s the same way one could describe going from telegraph to telephone. Technology goes from dots and dashes to audible spoken voice, but the information is still electronic pulses sent through wires strung on poles. Poe is right that the box hasn’t changed, but I think that what he forgot to look at is how the transition from one technology to the internet is different than in the past. The telegraph transitioned into phone, which transitioned to radio and so forth. The internet transitioned into sound, phone, mail, shopping, video, and music, all in one single place. I think that what got the internet close to being revolutionary was the fact of how much “stuff” it could encompass.
The On the Media podcast didn’t take a stance on whether or not the internet was revolutionary per-say, rather, whether or not people could survive without having everything in one place. The podcast discusses the fall of the internet as being possibly destructive, but not something we couldn’t survive from. They talk about how efforts have been made to save information on how to live in the 1800’s so that it could be done again, and how there are ways to strengthen the grid so that it doesn’t collapse from a solar flare, but nothing on how the internet is revolutionary. If anything they take the stance that if the system were to fall apart, then the internet would look revolutionary looking at it from the future into the past. Compared to the other revolutions discussed in class, I don’t think that the internet ranks as high. In my mind, colonization was the most life changing, constructive and destructive revolution to happen. Going from intercontinental travel to cross continental travel in large numbers has greatly changed the world to this day. The very fact that I was born in the United States is because of everything that happened after colonization. I think that a process going on today that might be significant to discuss in a course like this is environmental consciences. How we as a species will go forward with dealing with environmental damage, and finding better ways to obtain cleaner, more renewable energy, could become a revolution, which would spark new ideas, innovations, and thinkers and doers.
|
|
|
|
Post by hollie on Jun 9, 2016 2:15:57 GMT
Question1
On the Media portrayed our digital data as vulnerable over time due to the destruction of the material the data collector is constructed from. The podcast goes on to explain how the various forms of information keepers have all been apt to change or be lost and have no way to be read because the technology does not exist any longer or we may not know how to bring the information back after losing bits of data was the main objective of the lecture. The loss of historical information could possibly throw society into disarray and that could bring on a technical revolution. The podcast also suggests that physical environments could be a cause for this type of data loss. Poe on the other hand expresses the advance in technology slowly over the decades and claims it has not changed the way people continue to represent their activities of interest and has not been proven to be a physical revolution but an economic revolution occurred that keeps on developing as rapidly as technology can change its processors. The availability of any topic is astounding and allows the world to learn everything possible. The fact that your enemy can see and hear what you see and hear in real time has made this process a real changer of how revolutionary acts ensue .
I think topics about whistleblowers could be addressed in this course. A Wiki leak is an undiscussed subject happening in today’s society. Americans seeking asylum in Russian airports and residing there for months seems to be enough for a revolution. I believe that we as a society are on the brink of a revolution once again. We are a nation in turmoil and we are looking for a strong leader and our choices are not being heard and politics has remained the biggest business of all, As long as politicians continue to reap the benefits of this countries people will rise again.
|
|
|
|
Post by chelseaw on Jun 9, 2016 2:48:09 GMT
question one-
There is nothing new about the internet. It has been the same for decades, and although technology might get better, or might appear different, there is nothing new about it. Poe an the podcast on the Media both talk about how there is nothing revolutionary about the internet. There is nothing located on the internet that you find, that somebody else hasn’t already discovered, what you see, watch, listen to, has all been done thousands of times by millions of people across the globe. Poe says it perfectly when he showcases that the internet is just new form of something else. Everything that you can do on the internet, can be found in various forms in real life, and all are readily available just like the internet. Though the internet makes information easier to find, and in larger quantities, are we really benefiting from the advance in technology? Every time something different is done, we lose little pieces of the information we had before, something we can never get back. Whats the point of having all of this technology If we can’t even keep data around for longer than a couple of years? What sort of trace are we leaving our children if we digitalize everything, but the files get lost?
Both Poe and ‘On the Media’ pose these question in much of the same way. The internet is not revolutionary because its nothing new, it’s not exciting, in fact, I would go on to say that all technology is on the same field, and not one is better, or more outstanding than the other. Instead of placing all of our histories and stories into technology we need to start recording things like they did hundards of years before us, with pen and paper. Atleast with that, we know we can try and preserve it but with technology, it is always evolving, things are always being added to make it better, and with that, sometimes things we need can get lost in translation.
|
|
|
|
Post by tylerg033 on Jun 9, 2016 11:05:05 GMT
Response to Question 2:
We continue to see revolutionary processes going on every day that were begun in beginning years of people landing on this continent. One of these processes in my opinion is the ability to do what you like and the transgender issue is one I believe that fits into this revolutionary process bill. These people who want to change their gender to whatever they like may feel like they are unwanted and not part of society much like the processes we have read in this course. I cannot say I know how they feel but in my mind this is a twenty-first century process that fits in with the revolutionary processes of years before. Same sex marriage and many others are great examples of these processes taking place as well and we must continue these and recognize them when they are taking place. This allows us to get a better understanding of the revolutions of times past and other ways to make the processes of the future much more successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by wattsajengineer on Jun 9, 2016 11:42:57 GMT
Response to Question 1:
I think Poe poses the good point that the internet is not revolutionary anymore, it's just not new anymore. But what I think is important to realize is that although the institution of the internet is not new or revolutionary, the new found abilities through the internet are revolutionary. He does raise a good point with saying that the internet did not take any new time away from people, the TV was already a mainstream thing and once the internet came out people were already used to staring at the TV set, or if they were able to, their personal computers. I think it is interesting that we see the internet as something that has the ability to change everything, while I believe that to be true, I don't think we will see that happen within a generation. Let me explain this. Each generation had a revolution in technology. For my grandparents it was the entertainment revolution as we went from having home radios to home televisions. Then my parents were born into a world that already had TV, they would never know a life without it. And in turn they were young when personal computers became common, and although there was no internet they still went from watching TV to playing games on their computers like ZORK, which I have come to love (yes there is a place to play it online)....if you don't know what ZORK is use Google and if you do, yay! There was no internet until they were almost done high school and all research was done by hand...from books. Kids today would die if they had to do that. And just like the internet they watched the birth of mobile communication. So then when I was born in the late 90s we already had all of these things, TV, computers, internet, and even cell phones. I don't know what life was like without them. My generation hasn't had our big revolution yet. But in the grand scheme Poe is right when he says that not much is new from this world to the world that is in the not so distant past. "Email is still mail. Online newspapers are still newspapers. YouTube videos are still videos. Virtual stores are still stores. MMORPGs are still variations on D&D. A user-built encyclopedia is still a reference book. Stealing mp3s is still theft. Cyber-porn is still porn. Internet poker is still gambling." The internet just made it easier to do all of those things. In a weird way I feel that the internet helped revolutionize technology, by making it more user friendly, but I also think it revolutionized the way people think today. For example, if I have a question regarding a certain subject am I going to say "Hold on let me go the the library, go the Encyclopedia Britannica and look it up" hoping that the answer is there? No...that would be a last resort for me, instead I would pull out my phone and just Google it until I got the answer I wanted. How many of us are programmed to do that, and would not even think about the fact that the library is packed full of books with the same information? Honestly I feel the internet has made us lazy and unsocial. Yeah I know there is Facebook and Twitter, both very popular social media's, but let me ask this, out of all of your Facebook friends or your twitter followers, how many do you actually know, and how many do you interact with face-to-face? It leaves an interesting thought about how the internet has affected our social lives.
I think the creation and establishment of the internet most definitely ranks among the other revolutionary processes that we have learned about in this course. One of the common themes through any revolution is the piece of communication or sometimes the lack thereof: the colonists communicating with the Native Americans, the miscommunication that happened through all the drama of the Civil War and slavery, and so many more. The internet created a new wave of communication. In fact, if it wasn't for the internet I would have never been born, because my parents met on AOL when it was still just an open chat room, so yeah that happened. And to add processes to the course I think could be the revolution that is happening in the pharmaceutical companies as medical marijuana is becoming more prevalent and accepted, the rise in personal communication and wearable tech, and because of that the revolution of the lack of communication skills in teens and young adults today.
|
|
|
|
Post by madison on Jun 9, 2016 14:10:01 GMT
Response to Discussion Question 2:
There are always ‘revolutionary processes’ occurring throughout the world at all times, especially with topics that have been covered in this class. Coates mentioned one example of a revolutionary process that is still occurring today, which is, “a deficit of employed black men of strong character.” People are still fighting for the equality of black men to hold higher position jobs in the working force. Although there has been improvement over the past decades, there is still inequality that is happening.
I found the article by Poe to be interesting on how the Internet is not a revolutionary process anymore. As I agree the Internet has not tremendously changed over the years, there is still a chance for change in the future. People are always looking to make advancements, and the Internet may be one.
I believe the revolutionary process of wage discrimination is still very present, and does not seem to be going away any time soon. In the materials we have focused on during the course, a main theme was the discrimination against races, such as slavery and African Americans. The big topic of this century, and the previous, is wage discrimination against females. Females have been fighting for equal pay, compared to their male counterparts. For example, the latest spotlight has been on the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team and their fight for equal pay compared to the U.S. Men’s team. I believe this process will continue on for a very long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by kylokaitlyn on Jun 9, 2016 14:49:13 GMT
Response to Question #1
I never looked at the Internet the way Poe and the On The Media podcast talked about it. The internet has always been there since I was a child--it's just changed. And it is changing, every day it is becoming more complex, and faster, and our options of how to use the Internet are becoming endless (shopping, playing games, researching, communicating, dating, etc.) But Poe hits it right on the nose, the Internet is not new. Merely, it is an improved way of doing the things we have always been doing. He says that in ancient Mesopotamia, people needed to record things, so writing was used more extensively. During the Renaissance, more people had a thirst for reading, so printing was developed to quench that thirst. In the twentieth century when businesses needed to advertise more, they turned to the television and radio. And when all of these things (writing, reading, advertising) needed to make a step up, the internet filled that role. There was no revolution for any of these things, they were all part of the process, just as the Internet was. I didn't even realize that the Internet is over 20 years old. It's an accustomed part of my life. We wouldn't even have this class if it wasn't for the internet. We would be on campus, reading from a text book and listening to a lecture. But, because of the Internet, how we do things has changed. Because we are so used to the access of the Internet being at the tip of our fingers, we have taken for granted how much it really allows us to do.
Poe also mentions individuals such as Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and Guglielmo Marconi. They are revolutionists, they each invented something totally new and revolutionary for society. The invention of the light bulb, or the telephone or even radio transmission is so much more important than that of the internet. If it wasn't for those things, would we have it today? Would our screens be able to light up in the dark, or listen to podcasts for this course if it wasn't for these foundational discoveries? The Internet is nothing new, it's building off the groundwork set by others in the past.
One section of the podcast about "Our Uncertain Digital Future" talks about VHS tapes--does anybody still use a VHS player on a daily basis? What about all of the home movies our parents have recorded? I'm sure the majority of us have moved onto Blueray or something of that sort. But what is scary to think is that one day Blueray will become outdated. Just, what is next? How long can we really store information for? That's alarming when so many of us pay our bills automatically online or some use it as a sole mean of information or communication. It isn't perfect. And it is changing, leaving bits and parts of it's last update behind. I cannot look at the Internet and say it has been a revolution. Revolutions are a fundamental change, not an ongoing process. We've had the aspects of the Internet from the first civilizations, and it will only go on from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by kylokaitlyn on Jun 9, 2016 15:02:19 GMT
Response to question 2 The revolutionary processes form this course are continued into the twenty-first century. One example of this is same-sex marriage. It is a very talked about topic that challenged whether a man and another man or woman and another woman could legally be wed. It was a topic that had gave people many different opinions on the matter. Eventually the many states made advances to making same-sex marriage legal and then the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states. Another example is the topic of racism. Racism is something in this country and also among the world that is clearly present. It is something that has been trying to be stopped for hundreds of years with great advances. Many if not most people are against racism and are for the end of it. One of the best quotes I have heard about how to end racism was said by Morgan Freeman. He was asked about how to stop racism. Freeman responded “The best way to stop racism is to stop talking about it. It just gives it more attention.” Interesting point on same sex marriage. In terms of our readings from this week, especially with Poe mentioning the names of Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and Guglielmo Marconi, I think of revolutions as inventions that have impacted how our world works. In terms of the broader aspects of history, I think of the Revolutionary War and breaking away from British Parliament, or the culmination of slavery, or the Reconstruction Era when the workforce and machinery changed. In the twenty-first century, we are living in a historical and triumphant time for gay men and women--the legalization of same sex marriage. It's awesome! Our nation is growing from a time where they considered gay men to be suffering from a mental illness, to people living their lives as a lie to hide their sexuality from the world. My generation is so much more accepting of these individuals. There are still people with more orthodox beliefs, but it cannot be denied the revolution this has created. Many may beg to differ, but it's a remarkable step our country has made. Why categorize WWII and the atomic bombing as a revolution where millions of people lost their lives, but then try not to say that the legalization of same sex marriage, where no one has to die and more people are happy, isn't? It is, and it's a great one. It's something we can think fondly of our country for. |
|
|
|
Post by gabriellerabadi on Jun 9, 2016 16:12:44 GMT
Response to Question 1:
In the podcast, On the Media, the many different hosts bring on different specialists telling horror stories of the possibility of lost information if the world was experiencing a blackout. They described the Internet and advancements in technology in general as more dangerous than it is revolutionary. In the article, “The Internet Changes Nothing” by Marshall Poe, he counters all arguments that the Internet is revolutionary by proving that it has changed nothing positively. In both sources, they describe the hazards with the Internet; On the Media says that having everything on the Internet brings about dangerous concerns when it comes to storing information and Poe states that the Internet itself is a poor-behavior-inducing medium that does more harm than good. I do think that the Internet is a good place to have readable access to a mass knowledge of information but I do not think it should be used alone. The Internet and most forms of modern day technology rely on a power source and some sort of satellite connection to be able to function properly. What if one day we need access to information but we cannot get to it because the world is in an electricity-related blackout? All of those easy-to-access online databases would be useless. I look at myself for example when it comes to schoolwork. I love using my laptop for almost everything, I have my calendar synced up to it, reminders on my home screen for major assignments, and I do most of my homework on there; however, the one thing that I do not use my laptop for is taking notes. Even major writing assignments that have to be typed up, I back up to a flash drive or physically write out a detailed outline in case my laptop crashes. Although my laptop has never given me reasons to worry, it could just never turn on at any given moment and all of my hard work and note taking would have been for nothing. Compared to the other revolutionary processes in this course, I most definitely think that the Internet ranks among all of the others. I believe that the Internet itself has assisted in so many breakthroughs but has assisted in a lot of destructive behavior but should still be considered revolutionary. The Internet is a major component of the technological revolution and should definitely be addressed in this course by weighing in the positives and the negatives. I think other processes that could be addressed in this course is just a revolution in technology itself including artificial intelligence and the impact it has on todays society and what we think it will do in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by blweaver215 on Jun 9, 2016 16:44:11 GMT
Response to Question 1:
After listening to On the Media and reading Poe’s article I came to the conclusion that both sources do not believe that the internet is revolutionary. To myself, On the Media sounded like the internet certainly has its benefits, however, humans could survive without it. In design it may look revolutionary but in practice it is not as revolutionary as we believe it to be. Poe’s article on the other hand comes out and states that the internet is not revolutionary. He sees the internet as unoriginal and simply a faster way to access information and entertainment. I like his point on how the news, games, mail, etc. that society completes on the internet could be completed through other means. Newspapers are still available, board games and letters are still available as well. However, we are a society that lives in a generation that has information at our fingertips. Our smartphones enable us to have information at a press of a button. We could absolutely send cards and letters in the mail, which may people still do including myself, however, I send many more emails than cards and letters. Why? It is because we want information now.
This is why I believe that the internet is revolutionary. It has given us the ability to have massive amounts of information at a press of a button. We do not have to wait days for a letter or a card. Communication is sped up, the process of learning is sped up, and the internet allows us to have endless information at our fingertips. There are problems with the internet in the sense that it can take away from human contact and the possibility that cards and handwritten letters may seem more personable and from the heart, however, for communication purposes there is no denying that the internet has certainly sped it up. The way I look at it, I do not see the internet as that original. The information on the internet has always been available to us through other means. Rather I see the internet as revolutionary because of the speed that the internet works.
|
|
|
|
Post by daotran2016 on Jun 9, 2016 18:13:41 GMT
Question 1:
Both the podcast and the Poe Article gave the impression that the internet is not revolutionary. The Marshall Poe article more so, because the podcast talks more about what will happen to society if one day we no longer have internet. They hypothesized that the world would become dysfunctional and chaotic because information is lost and we don't know how to do anything productive without the internet. Poe on the other hand talked more about how technology advanced slowly over time and that it has only changed the ways information is "packaged" and not how humans do their activities. I slightly disagree with this because the internet age has changed a lot of humans activities. Such as children don't go outside to play anymore and many people go into jobs that are internet based such as computer science, virtual assistants, and social media marketing. It hasn't changed human nature definitely, but then again, nothing has changed human nature. Humans' basic needs and desires have not changed for thousands of years. One thing that was somewhat revolutionizing about the internet is that it's able to spread information globally and to anyone and everyone around the world. That is how movements such as same-sex marriage and legalizing marijuana are able to organize together and become strong. It allows us to spread messages around the world to anybody, whether that person wants to hear/see it or not.
Either way, Poe made a good point that the internet is not necessarily evolutionary and he did made some good points. The podcast also made some interesting points but I don't think that the world would go as chaotic as they make it seem. It's just internet, it's not like water or food or electricity. I think that we'll become uncomfortable and throw tantrums for a bit but eventually we'll figure it out and adapt a life like it was before the internet.
|
|
