Draft Four:
Finley Morrison
Professor Jesse Miller
English 110
March 22nd, 2024
Technological Thoughts: How Humanity and the Internet Can Coexist
Technology, especially the internet, has become an essential part of the way we live our lives. Whether it’s being used for work or entertainment, humans rely on this new tool to get through their day. With the rise of technology, varying perspectives were bound to arise, especially critiques regarding the use. Humans rely on this new tool to get through their day, as both writers Kevin Kelley and Sam Anderson have shown in their respective articles Technophilia and In Defense of Distraction. Both Kelley and Anderson are authors who have a strong (mostly positive) relationship with the internet, with differences in viewpoints shifting only ever so slightly. Despite our current and undeniable parasitism (often disguised as attraction) to “shiny” and “new” technology, there are real benefits and uses that far outweigh the harm that being online does to us.
Neither Kelley nor Anderson deny that society nowadays has grown attached to their phones. Kevin Kelley begins Technophilia with a definition of the title: “But we are likewise embedded with technophilia, the love of technology. Our transformation from smart, hominid into Sapiens was midwife by our tools, and at our human core we harbor an innate affinity for made things. We are embarrassed to admit it, but we love technology. At least sometimes” (1). Even though we may hesitate to confess, technology has become a crucial part of us. Kelley claims that this is something of a guilty pleasure, that despite the fact we’re all connected, society has shunned each other for talking about it. Anderson opens his paper with sentiments from technology critics: “Adopting the Internet as the hub of our work, play, and commerce has been the intellectual equivalent of adopting corn syrup as the center of our national diet, and we’ve all become mentally obese” (2). Although Anderson may not share these *exact* sentiments, both authors acknowledge that the internet has done SOME damage to society, whether that be individually or wholly. While Anderson, Kelley, and I can all agree to this point, I would like to broach the topic with a different perspective in the form of a question: have we really become mentally “obese,” as naysayers would suggest, or have we implemented a type of learned helplessness into our lives? I would strenuously advise you to think about the way humans have a tendency to use technology as a crutch. Because of this self-inflicted handicap, the absence of the internet tends to induce panic, leading people to assume that we are incapable of continuing life as we were. This could be because of how we use electronics, but it could also be because we have told ourselves that we are useless without them and there’s nothing we can do to change it. This is the learned helplessness that we must overcome in order to see the benefits of staying online.
One of the many benefits to the internet that prospers in many is the feeling of belonging it gives. As Kelley and Anderson approach this topic with their own respective views, Kelley begins with “[The internet] knows so much. It has insinuated its tendrils of connection into everything, everywhere. The net is now vastly wider than me, wider than I can imagine, so in this way, while I am in it, it makes me bigger too. I feel amputated when I am away from it” (5). Not only has the internet become a place of serenity for Kelley, he also feels as though it’s a part of himself that, if lost, would leave a devastating hole in his being. Anderson jumps in with a look at the benefits of distraction on a personal level: “Sometimes I wonder if the time I’m wasting is actually being wasted. Isn’t blowing a couple of hours on the Internet, in the end, just another way of following your attention? My life would be immeasurably poorer if I hadn’t stumbled a few weeks ago across the Boston Molasses Disaster” (10). While Kelley’s perspective is more so about technology (and his love for it) being a part of him, Anderson talks more about how our use of the internet as a distraction has allowed him to improve his life. I believe that depending on how it is used, both of these sentiments can be applicable. Whether or not viewing the net as an extension of oneself is “good” could be argued, but to deny the beauties of stories and information that can be found by following your distracted-attention feels like an unfair judgment stemming from malicious bias. The internet has opened up a gate for many individuals, including myself, to be more educated and learn new things. If, when reading articles the things learned are taken with a grain of salt, knowledge about anything and everything could expand at rapid rates.
Every day, humanity’s evolution jumps leaps and bounds, and with that, so does technology. Kelley and Anderon discuss this evolution almost resembling a semi-revolution for society. In Technophilia, we are approached with the idea that “We are deeply attracted to its beauty, and its beauty resides in its evolution. Humans are the most highly evolved organs we have experienced, so we fixate on limitations of this form (quite naturally), but our technophilia is fundamentally not for anthropy, but for evolution” (Kelley 9). This perspective implies that our attraction towards technology isn’t just for our love and entertainment but to better the species as a whole. Anderson jumps in with his thoughts: “The truly wise mind will harness, rather than abandon, the power of distraction…It’s possible that we’re all evolving toward a new techno-cognitive nomadism, a rapidly shifting environment in which restlessness will be an advantage again” (11). He leans more into the humanity and practicality aspect of this growth, applying his thoughts to the future as opposed to the present. I find that Anderson’s view seems to be more applicable to today’s world; quite frankly, I disagree that “technophilia” is fundamentally not for anthropy, as anthropy and evolution are so intimately intertwined that implying that the foundation of one is not shared with the other seems rather farcical. With that being said, we are undeniably evolving alongside technology. Using Anderson’s theory of “techno-cognitive nomadism,” using our ability to get sporadically distracted to our advantage could not only strengthen our connection with technology, but change how we interact with it, each other, and ourselves.
Children are born with a clean slate, unable to determine left from right, up from down, or right and wrong; technology is similar in this way. We birth technology just as we do children, we raise it similarly too; but what we have failed to realize is our role as “parents.” In allowing ourselves to misuse the internet we have declared a fruitless battle against the world wide web, blaming it for our mishaps. To achieve victory, we must first remove ourselves from this self-inflicted war and embrace our love for technology while keeping a level head. We need not to treat the internet as a human being if everyone recognizes that there are other people on the other side of the screen. Technology has allowed humanity to achieve an insurmountable number of accomplishments, the internet granting us that same empowerment. With the right constraints, we can see fit to allow technology to coexist with humanity in harmonic mutualism as opposed to minacious parasitism.
Draft Three:
Technology, especially the internet, has become an essential part of the way we live our lives. Whether it’s being used for work or entertainment, humans rely on this new tool to get through their day. With the rise of technology, varying perspectives were bound to arise, especially critiques regarding the use. Humans rely on this new tool to get through their day, as both writers Kevin Kelley and Sam Anderson have shown in their respective articles Technophilia and In Defense of Distraction. Both Kelley and Anderson are authors who have a strong (mostly positive) relationship with the internet, with differences in viewpoints shifting only ever so slightly. Despite our undeniable parasitism (often disguised as attraction) to “shiny” and “new” technology, there are real benefits and uses that far outweigh the harm that being online does to us.
Neither Kelley nor Anderson deny that society nowadays has grown attached to their phones. Kevin Kelley begins Technophilia with a definition of the title: “But we are likewise embedded with technophilia, the love of technology. Our transformation from smart, hominid into Sapiens was midwife by our tools, and at our human core we harbor an innate affinity for made things. We are embarrassed to admit it, but we love technology. At least sometimes” (1). Even though we may hesitate to confess, technology has become a crucial part of us. Kelley claims that this is something of a guilty pleasure, that in spite of the fact we’re all connected, society has shunned each other for talking about it. Anderson opens his paper with sentiments from technology critics: “Adopting the Internet as the hub of our work, play, and commerce has been the intellectual equivalent of adopting corn syrup as the center of our national diet, and we’ve all become mentally obese” (2). Although Anderson may not share these *exact* sentiments, both authors acknowledge that the internet has done SOME harm to society. While Anderson, Kelley, and I can all agree to this point, I would like to broach the topic with a different perspective in the form of a question: have we really become mentally “obese,” as naysayers would suggest, or have we implemented a type of learned helplessness into our lives? I would strenuously advise you to think about the way humans have a tendency to use technology as a crutch. Because of this handicap, without the internet we tend to panic and assume that we are incapable of continuing life as we were. This could be because of how we use electronics, but it could also be because we have told ourselves that we are useless without them and there’s nothing we can do to change it. This is the learned helplessness that we must overcome in order to see the benefits of staying online.
One of the many benefits to the internet that prospers in many is the feeling of belonging it gives. As Kelley and Anderson approach this topic with their own respective views, Kelley begins with “[The internet] knows so much. It has insinuated its tendrils of connection into everything, everywhere. The net is now vastly wider than me, wider than I can imagine, so in this way, while I am in it, it makes me bigger too. I feel amputated when I am away from it” (5). Not only has the internet become a place of serenity for Kelley, he feels as though it’s a part of himself that he, if lost, would leave a devastating hole in his being. Anderson jumps in with a look at the benefits of distraction on a personal level: “Sometimes I wonder if the time I’m wasting is actually being wasted. Isn’t blowing a couple of hours on the Internet, in the end, just another way of following your attention? My life would be immeasurably poorer if I hadn’t stumbled a few weeks ago across the Boston Molasses Disaster” (10). While Kelley’s perspective is more so about technology (and his love for it) being a part of him, Anderson talks more about how our use of the internet as a distraction has allowed him to improve his life. I believe that depending on how it is used, both of these sentiments can be applicable. Whether or not viewing the net as an extension of oneself is “good” could be argued, but to deny the beauties of stories and information that can be found by following your distracted-attention feels like an unfair judgment stemming from malicious bias. The internet has opened up a gate for many individuals, including myself, to be more educated and learn new things. If, when reading articles the things learned are taken with a grain of salt, knowledge about anything and everything could expand at rapid rates.
Every day, humanity’s evolution jumps leaps and bounds, and with that, so does technology. Kelley and Anderon discuss this evolution almost resembling a semi-revolution for society. In Technophilia, we are approached with the idea that “We are deeply attracted to its beauty, and its beauty resides in its evolution. Humans are the most highly evolved organs we have experienced, so we fixate on limitations of this form (quite naturally), but our technophilia is fundamentally not for anthropy, but for evolution” (Kelley 9). This perspective implies that our attraction towards technology isn’t just for our love and entertainment but to better the species as a whole. Anderson jumps in with his thoughts: “The truly wise mind will harness, rather than abandon, the power of distraction…It’s possible that we’re all evolving toward a new techno-cognitive nomadism, a rapidly shifting environment in which restlessness will be an advantage again” (11). He leans more into the humanity and practicality aspect of this growth, applying his thoughts to the future as opposed to the present. I find that Anderson’s view seems to be more applicable to today’s world; quite frankly, I disagree that “technophilia” is fundamentally not for anthropy, as anthropy and evolution are so intimately intertwined that implying that the foundation of one is not shared with the other seems rather farcical. With that being said, we are undeniably evolving alongside technology. Using Anderson’s theory of “techno-cognitive nomadism,” using our ability to get sporadically distracted to our advantage could not only strengthen our connection with technology, but change how we interact with it, each other, and ourselves.
Draft Two:
Technology, especially the internet, has become an essential part of the way we live our lives. Whether it’s being used for work or entertainment, humans rely on this new tool to get through their day. With the rise of technology, varying perspectives were bound to arise, especially critiques regarding the use. Humans rely on this new tool to get through their day, as both writers Kevin Kelley and Sam Anderson have shown in their respective articles Technophilia and In Defense of Distraction. Both Kelley and Anderson are authors who have a strong (mostly positive) relationship with the internet, with differences in viewpoints shifting only ever so slightly. Despite our undeniable addiction (often disguised as attraction) to “shiny” and “new” technology, there are real benefits and uses that far outweigh the harm that being online does to us.
Neither Kelley nor Anderson deny that society nowadays has grown attached to their phones. Kevin Kelley begins Technophilia with a definition of the title: “But we are likewise embedded with technophilia, the love of technology. Our transformation from smart, hominid into Sapiens was midwife by our tools, and at our human core we harbor an innate affinity for made things. We are embarrassed to admit it, but we love technology. At least sometimes” (1). Even though we may hesitate to confess, technology has become a crucial part of us. Kelley claims that this is something of a guilty pleasure, that in spite of the fact we’re all connected, society has shunned each other for talking about it. Anderson opens his paper with sentiments from technology critics: “Adopting the Internet as the hub of our work, play, and commerce has been the intellectual equivalent of adopting corn syrup as the center of our national diet, and we’ve all become mentally obese” (2). Although Anderson may not share these *exact* sentiments, both authors acknowledge that the internet has done SOME harm to society. While Anderson, Kelley, and I can all agree to this point, I would like to broach the topic with a different perspective in the form of a question: have we really become mentally “obese,” as naysayers would suggest, or have we implemented a type of learned helplessness into our lives? I would strenuously advise you to think about the way humans have a tendency to use technology as a crutch. Because of this handicap, without the internet we tend to panic and assume that we are incapable of continuing life as we were. This could be because of how we use electronics, but it could also be because we have told ourselves that we are useless without them and there’s nothing we can do to change it. This is the learned helplessness that we must overcome in order to see the benefits of staying online.
One of the many benefits to the internet is having a place to belong. As Kelley and Anderson approach this topic with their own respective views, Kelley beginning with “[The internet] knows so much. It has insinuated its tendrils of connection into everything, everywhere. The net is now vastly wider than me, wider than I can imagine, so in this way, while I am in it, it makes me bigger too. I feel amputated when I am away from it” (5). Not only has the internet become a place of serenity for Kelley, he feels as though it’s a part of himself that he, if lost, would leave a devastating hole in his being. Anderson jumps in with a look at the benefits of distraction on a personal level: “Sometimes I wonder if the time I’m wasting is actually being wasted. Isn’t blowing a couple of hours on the Internet, in the end, just another way of following your attention? My life would be immeasurably poorer if I hadn’t stumbled a few weeks ago across the Boston Molasses Disaster” (10). While Kelley’s perspective is more so about technology (and his love for it) being a part of him, Anderson talks more about how our use of the internet as a distraction has allowed him to improve his life. I believe that depending on how it is used, both of these sentiments can be applicable. Whether or not viewing the net as an extension of oneself is “good” could be argued, but to deny the beauties of stories and information that can be found by following your distracted-attention feels like an unfair judgment stemming from malicious bias, whether that’s intentional or not.
Draft One:
Technology, especially the internet, has become an essential part of the way we live our lives. Whether it’s being used for work or entertainment, humans rely on this new tool to get through their day. With the rise of technology, varying perspectives were bound to arise, especially critiques regarding the use. Humans rely on this new tool to get through their day, as both writers Kevin Kelley and Sam Anderson have shown in their respective articles Technophilia and In Defense of Distraction. Both have a strong (mostly positive) relationship with the internet, with differences in viewpoints shifting only ever so slightly. Despite our addiction being disguised as attraction to the “shiny” and “new” technology, there are real benefits and uses that far outweigh the harm that being online does to us.
Neither Kelley nor Anderson deny that society nowadays has grown attached to their phones. Kevin Kelley begins Technophilia with a definition of the title: “But we are likewise embedded with technophilia, the love of technology. Our transformation from smart, hominid into Sapiens was midwife by our tools, and at our human core we harbor an innate affinity for made things. We are embarrassed to admit it, but we love technology. At least sometimes” (1). Even though we may hesitate to confess, technology has become a crucial part of us. Kelley claims that this is something of a guilty pleasure, that in spite of the fact we’re all connected, society has shunned each other for talking about it. Anderson opens with sentiments from technology critics: “Adopting the Internet as the hub of our work, play, and commerce has been the intellectual equivalent of adopting corn syrup as the center of our national diet, and we’ve all become mentally obese” (2). Although Anderson may not share these *exact* sentiments, both authors acknowledge that the internet has done SOME harm to society. I would argue, however, that this disconnect of “intelligence” stems more from a lack of familiarity. Not only that, but humans love talking about love. We write about it in songs, poetry, and books. The internet is a fascinating wilderness that everyone can share with one another. The fear of the unknown is what brings about these concerns, and causes us to lose our footing. Without a bearing on how we should use technology, we become codependent on it. With more experience, that doesn’t have to be the case.
Thought process:
First thing’s first, I need to pick out the articles I want to use. Honestly, I want to go with my favorite of the bunch (Anderson’s article). Despite the fact that I want to work with Carr’s to show contrast in between the two perspectives, truly I enjoyed Kelley’s more. His work I both agreed with and disagreed with, so I decided it would be more fun to work with it instead. Rather than worrying about my thesis I decided to skip it, make a note, and just let my word-vomit roll off my tongue on the paper. I’ll need to add a tid-bit on Anderson and Kelley earlier in the paper and make my thesis not garbage. At the end of my second paragraph I’ll need a transition but I’m too uninspired currently (with break quickly approaching) to think about what I should put, so I will simply look at my paper with fresh eyes tomorrow.
