Dude, Who Doesn’t Like Technology
I’m so old I can remember when computers were special. They were massive machines used for the most complex tasks. Growing up in the Hudson Valley, the home of International Business Machines, we had their offices and factories all over the place. When we took a class trip to a local bank they showed us their new IBM computer that kept track of everyone’s money it filled an entire 10’x10’ room. When I went to Columbia University for a Science trip they showed us their computer center with its massive tape fed machines, and the punch cards that fed the routine and the tasks into it. I am told all that computational power now rests inside my IPhone.
Clearly, in the past 40-years, the science of computing has made quantum leaps in processing as we moved from the analog age into the digital. But this change has come with what appears to be a pretty significant social cost, so let’s think about that for a moment or two.
Computing is great, but until now it has required human decision making on what is of value and what is the desired end state of the computations. That is slowly changing as we expand the science of artificial intelligence or machine-based decision priorities. Occasionally, despite all the best efforts of the computer we humans still find ways to screw things up. For example, even rocket scientists can make mistakes – like the one that cost the loss of the $125 million Mars Climate Orbiter back in the late 1990s.[1] One group of scientists were using metric, another group wasn’t. I guess this goes to show the “Climate Orbiter Science” wasn’t settled back then. (That’s science humor.)
So, what are the social costs of all this new technology? I believe we see two really significant issues. First, we see an isolation in the human interaction where, under the guise of global communication, we as individuals are actually more isolated from each other than when we only communicated within small social groups or communities but did so on a personal basis and had to physically travel to meet with others. Now we can sit back and give into our base emotions as we criticize or complain about those we disagree with. We do so without the immediate feedback of our choices from those we care about. We can condemn or praise, vilify or worship, mock or support almost anyone on the globe all from the comfort of your chair. We can delude ourselves that we are anonymous by creating false personas, or we are famous for buying false followers, all with a few simple clicks of the cursor.
Along with this isolation, we see almost exponential growth in the violent video game industry where our appetite for death and destruction is met. At this time, it appears to be principally aimed at young men, although it seems only a matter of time before women are drawn in as well. For every study suggesting there are negative consequences in this, there are opposing studies saying we need not worry. It is almost as if the industry funds favorable studies to keep itself profitable. A rich and profitable industry would never do that, would they? No, of course, they wouldn’t (this is sarcasm).
What could possibly be wrong in setting young people in front of video games for hours of isolation, where lives are lost, heads cut off, bodies dismembered or cities destroyed? I’ve got to believe we fuel the idea that violence is an acceptable social interaction, even if real people you know suggest it is not. When people play this out, as it appears to be the case with the Parkland shooter and police and child welfare representatives visit without real consequence then why wouldn’t the belief violence is was okay -- evolve to the point of action?
Isaac Newton, the noted 17th-century English scientist developed a set of theories for gradational effects on objects. These laws have withstood the test of time (at least within the Earth’s gravitational field) and remarkably seem to have some correlation with human behavior. His first law says “a body remains at rest or continues to maintain a constant velocity and direction unless acted upon by a force.” Video gaming has become the de facto “babysitter” for thousands (and perhaps hundreds of thousands) children in the U.S. and maybe around the world. When this occurs what is the moral consequence? What guides the path of the child towards the socially acceptable norms of the day? Is it his/her parents (who seem to be involved in their own struggles), the school system with its rules and changing social expectations, other government agencies with their infrequent contacts, or is it his or her peers? If you are caught up in this world of gratuitous violence, who are your peers? Are they the kids in your class, or the people (young and old) you interact with during the game?
My next question is a simple one, are the behaviors learned in the gaming world reinforced by the public media in the shows, movies, and news reporting that fills our world on a 24/7/365 basis?
(to be continued)
1 comment:
Great bro! Thanks
Post a Comment