Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America Part 1

Let me just start off by saying that out of all the books we have read so far, Made to Break by Giles Slade is definitely the one that has captured my interest the most. In his novel he discusses how Americans have become accustomed to this idea of obsolescence in many aspects of their lives. As Slade states, "we invented the very concept of disposability itself, as a necessary precursor to our rejection of tradition and our promotion of progress and change" (pg. 4). Technological advances and innovations lead to the first phase of product obsolescence, where newer appliances replaced older ones. Then came the second phase known as psychological, progressive, or dynamic obsolescence, where companies used the marketing mechanism of changing their product style as a way to manipulate customers into repetitive buying. Planned obsolescence was also another technique that came about, where manufacturing companies artificially limited the durability of their products in order to induce customers to continue buying their items (pg.5). Looking at American culture today, there is no doubt that we have become obsessed with the idea of obsolescence. It's easier to use a product, and then once it has served its purpose, then to just throw it away. There are thousands of companies that manufacture disposable products such as paper cups, paper plates, paper towels, disposable contacts, disposable cameras, and so much more. We repetitively buy these disposable products because it is more convenient, and the very idea of thrift or durability is not as much of a concern. Desk top computers, laptops, cell phones, iPods, and cars are all products that generally when people buy they consider them to be durable for at least a few years. However, with the marketing mechanism of psychological obsolescence, companies stimulate consumers to repetitively buy these electronic products by coming out with newer models every year. The annual model change for cars is one very good example, or the many iPods that have came out within the decade. As a personal example, I've been using the same laptop computer for about four years now. However, I've been looking into getting a new one, not because mine doesn't work, but it's "outdated" and I would rather have a newer model. Were all guilty of thinking this way about the electronic products we own, but I'd blame this mentality on product manufacturers. There's always newer and faster products coming out every year, with more applications and functions, making our old products seem useless. I've been using the same phone for about three years now as well, and it still does exactly what I want it to do - call and text people. However, I wouldn't mind getting a new iPhone or something of the sort, to able to go on the internet and have all these new applications. Then there is the problem of what to do with all these computers and phones that still function, but are just too outdated for anyone to want to use then. Disposing of these items has become a problem already, and will probably be a bigger issue in just a few years to come. While reading this novel it was eye opening to realize how much American culture has and still is being driven by this constant necessity for the newest and best products out on the market, and just makes me wonder how much worse it will become in the next few years.

The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality Part 2

"First reason why we love Wikipedia. We love it because it's a virtual nation, or rather virtual world...the people of this virtual world, can be as shy and anonymous as we like, and yet our work, good and bad, is listed and others can explore it. We may seldom speak to one another, yet our paths cross unforeseeably" (Dalby 120). The internet has allowed our whole world to connect with each other through websites, blogs, social networks, and so much more. These various internet sources have given people the ability to express their thoughts and opinions to friends, and even anonymously to strangers. Perhaps this is one reason why Wikipedia is so popular, because anyone can anonymously create a Wikipedia topic page or edit and make changes to established pages. People in our society today are more likely to be less inhibited when interacting on the internet, probably due to the fact that there is no actual face to face interaction. Therefore, many 'Wikipedians' as they call themselves, create and edit Wikipedia articles to share knowledge on topics that others want to know about or research. The problem with using Wikipedia as a source of information is that "the articles, which are supposed to become definitive and stable, are in reality endlessly mutable" (pg. 164). The way I see it, a Wikipedia article is basically an ongoing collection of data that various people wrote about because either they have found data on it or claim to have knowledge of it. "Articles get longer because it's easier to go on writing than to compress what one has written; it's easier to write than to edit what others have written; and it's easier to write than to get into a dispute over deleting what other people have written" (pg. 181). Hence, Wikipedia articles turn into a hodgepodge of information, but this could also be something that attracts users to keep using Wikipedia. "Reading Wikipedia is just like using the web...We read half a page, we see a blue link, we click on it and start reading another page" (pg. 216). The fact that so much information is available on one site is definitely a major reason in why I and probably many other people use it as well. Wikipedia has introduced itself as one of our society's major internet research source, and we should embrace it for what it has to offer, but also take into consideration that it shouldn't be our main or only source of gaining information.

The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality Part I

In all honesty, Wikipedia has become one of my "go to" sites when I am searching for information on a topic and need quick and easy access to it. That probably is the best part about Wikipedia, is the convenience of attaining that information, even though being fully aware that all of it might not be accurate. As author Andrew Dalby states, "Wikipedia is a good first stop to get the basics in a hurry, especially for tech and pop culture topics that probably won't ever make it into Britannica" (pg. 91). The first half of the book goes on to discuss how Wikipedia came about. In earlier days encyclopedias were used as a source of information and to obtain knowledge about certain topics. However, printing and creating updated versions of encyclopedias was a tedious and expensive task. Then came the next solution, electronic encyclopedias on a CD-ROM. As this new phenomenon emerged, there were many different electronic encyclopedias sold, however, "Encarta was sold cheap and bundled liberally. It swept the market" (pg. 30). When I read that I laughed, because I actually remember back in the day when I used Encarta as a source for most of my information on school projects. So instead of researching in encyclopedias or checking out books at the library, electronic encyclopedias allowed people to find information in the comfort of their own home at their own computer. It also didn't hurt that the CD-ROM was reasonably priced as well. This is what our society is most obsessed with today, convenience and money, and another reason why Wikipedia is so popular is because it's free and easily accessible. However, the fact that information on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone is it's greatest downfall, but that doesn't seem to outweigh the benefits because millions of people still use it. "'Neutral point of view' is probably the most practical aim for collaborative project like Wikipedia" (pg. 78). However, much of the information on Wikipedia generally tends to be liberal, showing a slight bias against right-wing views. Anyone can use Wikipedia, and therefore anyone can anonymously edit the information presented on topic, so therefore filtering out opinions and biases is not an easy task. Then there is also the problem of citing. Who is given credit for the information posted on Wikipedia? We discussed this in class a few weeks ago how the definition of plagiarism is changing or becoming hazy because of all these sites like Wikipedia. If a student uses a certain website for a school project, but cannot site who the author is, is it plagiarism? If these are the problems were facing with internet sites today, then i can only imagine the problems we'll face in the future. Internet sites have the ability to spread like a viral plague. The problem with our society is, once it catches up to us we get attached and accustomed to it, and by then we don't know how to work without it. We know Wikipedia is not the best source to gain our information, but we still use it anyway. It has become the best alternative to quickly find the information you need, all in one place.

Computers: The Life Story of a Technology (Intro - pg. 83)

I know this blog is extremely late, but I got this book a week ago and it took me forever to get through all of it! So anyways, here's what I thought about the book...


Eric Swedin and David Ferro's book Computers goes through the many stages in the development of technology and computers starting from the very beginning. To be completely honest, I found the book to be too factual and detailed, and nothing seemed to completely grasp my interest at all. However, there are some good points made throughout the book, such as when the need for technological advances came about. "World War II, was fought on battlefields and in the laboratory. Never had a war been so dependent on research in science and technology." The war had summoned a new era, where this understanding of science had brought upon the invention of radar, computers, jets, airplanes, missiles, and the atomic bomb (pg. 47). It's ironic to think that the beginning of our country's technological revolution was caused by such a catastrophic event. However, with the onset of the war, it created jobs for people, and to keep up with our enemies technological advances, it also paved the way for new and better inventions. From then on, the constant desire for better technology and new innovations just kept on increasing. Businesses, such as banks, insurance companies, and government agencies had already started to become dependent on computers that had specialized processing systems and applications (pg. 52). Computers that were invented during this era were used as useful tools to alleviate tedious tasks in the scientific and business world. Even during present day, computers are still used for the same reasons, but are capable of doing many other things as well at a faster speed. Our workforce has become incredibly dependent on the use of computers, from small businesses to large companies, neither one could survive without computers. Then finally, "in the 1970s the microprocessor became the key technology that enabled the computer to shrink to fit the home" (pg. 83). Looking back on it now, this was most likely the key invention that had impacted and lead our society to what it has become today. 

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology Part II

In the second half of Technopoly, Neil Postman continues his ongoing rant about the consequence of modern technologies. While discussing medical technology, he completely takes a negative viewpoint on the matter, saying "doctors rely more on machinery than on their own experience and insight" (pg. 99). Medical machines have definitely revolutionized the way doctors diagnosis and treat diseases and/or medical problems, but the argument that Postman makes is unreasonable. Doctor's must be able to use both their personal judgment through experience and knowledge that they have acquired, along with the results that a medical machine may come up with to make the best possible diagnosis for a patient. For example, I've been working at an optometrist's office for over a year now, and some of my responsibilities are to pre-screen patients before they see the doctor. One of the machines that I was taught how to use actually refracts the patient's eyes, basically giving the doctor a small print out of what the patient's prescription might be; MIGHT being the key word. If all doctor's were to go by this information, I'm sure a lot of our patient's would have many complaints about their vision. The refraction machine is mostly there to give the doctor an idea of where to start, to be able to have an idea of what might be visually clear and/or blurry to the patient. The technologies for the medical industry, I believe, were invented to enhance doctors ability to help their patients as best as they possibly can, not completely replace a doctor's educated judgment. However, there was a certain point that Postman made that I do agree with. He discussed how pregnant women nowadays opt to have a Cesarean section rather than normal vaginal delivery. C-sections are surgical procedures that were mostly an option for women that had complications during child birth. For a woman to choose to have a C-section as just an option puts her in unnecessary danger that she could have avoided (pg. 103). In certain cases Postman has a valid point, patients have become accustomed and reliant on new technological advances available to them, but we have no one to blame but ourselves for that. Moving on to Postman's next argument, he discusses how the world has come to believe that the most serious personal and public problems can be solved using technical solutions, such as computer technology, because of its fast access to information. However, he poses example questions about people dying of starvation, families breaking up, children being mistreated, what can computer technology do in addressing them? (pg. 119) Many charities and non-profit organizations have commercial advertisements, internet websites where people can donate money online, or through text messages even. In this sense technology is a beneficial factor, but in these examples many emotional problems that people suffer cannot be solved through technological solutions. Postman ends his novel with a proposal, for a new beginning of education, where it goes "back to the basics" and in complete opposition of technopoly. By doing so, Postman believes our world will then realize what technopoly has done to our society and only then will we be able to analyze, criticize, and finally modify it (pg. 199). Honestly, I highly doubt our society will ever go "back to the basics" mainly because technology has impacted every aspect of our daily life, and there's definitely no changing it now.