America relies too much on use of technology
Keiara Tenant
What would you do if technology ceased to exist?
It seems like every day there’s a new cell phone or laptop being advertised during the commercial breaks of my favorite TV programs.
Technology is growing faster than some of us can learn how to use it.
My concern is that some Americans have become too dependent on technology.
Some people spend more time with their computer and other digital devices than with family and friends. Some children are even learning to type before they learn to write.
I can only imagine what the average 5-year-old will be capable of with technology 10 years from now.
Most of us are old enough to recall that there was mass hysteria months before the turn of the millennium. All everyone talked about was how the year 2000 glitch would shut down the computer systems and how the same year would be the end of mankind.
We all know that didn’t happen, but what if, by some twist of fate, the technologies we use most — such as our computers and cell phones — stopped functioning?
Some people can’t make it through the day without checking their e-mail a least five times.
I can honestly say that I wouldn’t be able to function without my cell phone or laptop, and I think most people my age can say the same.
My cell phone is my lifeline. I need it to keep in touch with my parents and text messaging is how I communicate with my friends who aren’t Facebook.com junkies.
As college students, we are at the top of the list when it comes to the use of technology — if not by choice, then by force.
Some MSU professors want research papers, essays and class assignments turned into them via e-mail and Web sites like ANGEL.
Some professors keep all of their records such as students’ grades, attendance, the course syllabus and class lectures as computer files.
With the class sizes of some universities, it can be near impossible to manage them without a sophisticated system.
I can only hope that professors also keep these things recorded someplace other than their home and office computer. If the system they used for keeping track of grades crashed, they would lose everything.
Students wouldn’t know where to begin if they had to write a research paper by hand.
Today, when students go to the library, they rarely go to look through volumes of books to do research.
We should prepare ourselves in case something happens and our computers become inaccessible.
Being able to complete work without the assistance of the Internet and computers is an invaluable skill to have.
If computers malfunctioned, everyone would be affected, not just students and professors.
Today, some jobs can’t be done without a computer.
For example, some customer service companies are run strictly by computer operators.
I depend on those computers when I need technical support.
Not only do I think we’re too dependent on technology — I also think we spend too much time and money trying to keep up with what’s new.
The result of that is a materialistic society.
The latest technologies to hit store shelves — like Apple’s MacBook Air and the iPhone — cost more than some people make in one paycheck.
Still, in an attempt to keep up with the crowd, there are some people who would buy these things before they pay their bills.
I’m definitely not against the use of technology.
But as for our dependency on technology and how we spend our money on computers and other gadgets – those are things I think we need to try to change.
Keiara Tenant is the State News opinion writer. Reach her at tennnan10@msu.edu .
Published on Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Comments
Pete
05/13/08 @ 8:26pm
Do we rely too much on the use of electricity? Too much on running water or indoor plumbing? Technology naturally advances, for the better of society. Your premise is wrong. Like anything new, there will be those who abuse it, and those who let their lives become consumed by it. But eventually every technology will become a commodity, that is naturally expected just like you expect to have available electricity and running water.
I don’t see a problem with embracing those things that make our lives easier or more interesting to us. Those things we find new and exciting can and should be commonplace to future generations, as they find and explore even more things!
Bill Lumberg
05/14/08 @ 7:54am
Is it a requirement at the SN that all writers can only use one-sentence paragraphs?
Dan
05/14/08 @ 9:08am
Miss Tenant makes a valid point – technology can be overwhelming and consuming.
Moderation can help prevent dependency on anything, and it is important to keep that in perspective.
getmoney
05/14/08 @ 9:10am
So you aren’t against the use to technology, you just think we shouldn’t spend money on it?
Mark
05/14/08 @ 9:46am
This is my nomination for worst column of the year. She has had some major competition, but this is a clear winner.
She dominated both the pointless subject category and the rambling thoughts category. The sentence/paragraph structure gets some bonus points.
I am kind of surprised, because I thought that Poisson had the award in the bag.
Mike
05/14/08 @ 10:37am
I second Mark’s nomination, and would like to add that the foundational question of this article “What would you do if technology ceased to exist?” is not even wrong, in the same category as “What would you do if you woke up dead?”. That said, this article did give me a good laugh; thanks for that.
Zeke
05/14/08 @ 12:05pm
It’s more disconcerting that all of those nifty consumer electronics you refer to are built by low-wage workers in countries that hold our economy in a vice-grip. Perhaps you’d rather speak to the dangers of being dependant not on technology, but on foreign imports that America no longer wants to build?
Mark
05/14/08 @ 1:56pm
I object to the idea that people do not want to build the stuff…
It is that people in America want to build it for a wage which puts them above the poverty line. And the below poverty line wages that the companies want to pay, significantly raise the standard of living for the people in those countries.
The only way to compete in this global economy is to lower the living standard here.
Steve
05/14/08 @ 2:04pm
First of all, technology includes almost every kind of tool we use by definition.
Second of all, this article sucks. This girl might be in the running to compete with Fish’s articles.
Third, I second Bill’s comment… why the hell do all of the SN writers insist on using those stupid lame, one-sentence openers?
Zeke
05/14/08 @ 6:04pm
“I object to the idea that people do not want to build the stuff…”
I was referring to America as a corporation. Why build in America when you can pay someone in Taiwan or Beijing 1/10th of an American worker? With the savings, you can afford a good legal staff and marketing team to smooth over problems with lead paint, counterfeit ingredients, etc…
Bill
05/14/08 @ 7:18pm
I think this was a good column with good points. Technology has not really made peoples lives that much better in the larger sceme of things. With all the new junk coming out, our landfills are being flooded with more waste to make way for the next gadget. If technology really made peoples lives easier then why is there still just as much turmoil, greed, hatred and delusion as there ever was since the dawn of man? Some of the technology has its uses but it’s all pretty uneccessary. People lived for millenia without it, why do we feel that we need it?
Zeke
05/15/08 @ 8:35am
“Some of the technology has its uses but it’s all pretty uneccessary. People lived for millenia without it, why do we feel that we need it?”
Vaccines against smallpox, polio, and influenza. Sanitation systems. C-sections and forceps. CT, MRI, and ultrasound systems. People lived (and usually died early) without these for millenia as well, but I doubt you would throw them away as useless. Be careful labelling “all” technology as useless.
“If technology really made peoples lives easier then why is there still just as much turmoil, greed, hatred and delusion as there ever was since the dawn of man?”
Well, without the internet, satellite links, and television, how exactly would you know about the grief in China? Scrolls? Merchant vessels? Carrier piegons? The amount of turmoil isn’t necessarily the same as it ever was – it’s just more well-known due to improved communication. And on the flip side: consider how much Americans have donated to relief efforts for the 2004 Tsunami, the crisis in Myanmar, and the recent quake in China. How much aid do you think would have been given had we not been aware through the communications technology we have today? Do you seriously think that the grief and turmoil would have been less without it?
Chris Cuyar
05/16/08 @ 9:56am
Actually in journalism one sentence paragraphs are very common Bill Lumberg. It makes the reader feel like they’re getting through the article faster and feel like it flows better, so it is often used. I’m not on the State News staff but I do know that most if not all major papers write in this style.