As the days get closer and closer to the ever-anticipated release of the 3g iPhone on July 11th, there has been much debate, from phone enthusiasts, technology connoisseurs, and regular people alike, of the usefulness of the iPhone and the direction of where phone technology and technology in general is headed.
In this day and age, the line between conspicuous consumption and staying current in technological advancements is a blurred line that can be interpreted in different ways. However, I think that in this technology-saturated culture we live in, investing in new technologies is not a form of conspicuous consumption where it is only used to display wealth, but rather it is a necessary adjustment to adapt to the world we live in. For example, 3-4 years ago, HD TV’s and HD channels were not as big as it is today and many people were content with their analog channels and TV’s. People including my Dad wouldn’t buy a new TV just because a new technology is being popularized. However, fast forward to today, there are many channels being broadcast in HD, and by February 2009, all channels will be broadcast in HD, making analog TV’s obsolete. This just shows that you have to be willing to adapt change.
If you look at the history of technology, you can see that there are several dramatic shifts that influence the way we live.
Radio to TV
Cassette to CD
VHS Tapes to DVD
56k to high speed internet
Analog to HD
All of the shifts have or will have a profound influence, forcing us to adapt and modify how we live.
The problem that arises is defining what a “need” is in this hi-tech culture we live in today. iPhone’s concept is that all of the things they offer are essential tools needed by the modern man to live in this modern world. We were able to live without Hi-speed wifi at your fingertips and fully-functional GPS, but just like the iPhone commercial, “How?” Based off experience of using a friend’s iPhone and owning an old Motorola Razr, the iPhone was much more useful and practical than I thought. Now, I’ve come to the realization that technology is changing and I must adapt and become more receptive to the changes.
That Apple commercial is really intriguing. What strikes me is a certain elision of the situations (or contexts) of history: it does not make sense to ask how people 'in the past' lived without an object of the present, because the past was, simply, *different*.
You claim that "All of the shifts have or will have a profound influence, forcing us to adapt and modify how we live." But certainly, one can *choose* not to adapt and modify how one lives, right? Or to press this issue, are there times when humans have tried to make choices to reverse or undo technological advancements? (Nuclear arms play an awkward role in this respect.) How can humans know when it is wise or prudent to refuse or resist technological changes? You seem to suggest that humans have no agency: we simply *must* submit to waves of technological change. But shouldn't humans be 'in control' of what they 'make', and be able to 'decide' when to avoid something (or make something different)? I put all those terms in scare-quotes because those are the problematic words in this discourse of humans and technology.
1 comment:
That Apple commercial is really intriguing. What strikes me is a certain elision of the situations (or contexts) of history: it does not make sense to ask how people 'in the past' lived without an object of the present, because the past was, simply, *different*.
You claim that "All of the shifts have or will have a profound influence, forcing us to adapt and modify how we live." But certainly, one can *choose* not to adapt and modify how one lives, right? Or to press this issue, are there times when humans have tried to make choices to reverse or undo technological advancements? (Nuclear arms play an awkward role in this respect.) How can humans know when it is wise or prudent to refuse or resist technological changes? You seem to suggest that humans have no agency: we simply *must* submit to waves of technological change. But shouldn't humans be 'in control' of what they 'make', and be able to 'decide' when to avoid something (or make something different)? I put all those terms in scare-quotes because those are the problematic words in this discourse of humans and technology.
Post a Comment