The commonsensical perspective shows technology as equal to advancement. Needless to say that nearly all of the views regarding the byproducts of this phenomenon are seen as in an optimistic manner. However, the article provided by Gelernter is a series of arguments presenting the pessimistic visage on the topic of technological advancement. The main thesis of the article intimates that “we are not in the information age, and computers and the internet are not revolutionary development in human history.” The succeeding arguments provided by the author are divided into three areas. The first argument succinctly implied that what people currently perceive as the “information revolution” or the “information age” is merely a continuation of what began during the industrial revolution. The need for information today is as important several centuries earlier. The second argument measures whether these byproducts actually bestow benefit or disadvantage to society as a whole. Gelernter covers issues ranging from accumulation of wealth, leisure activities, to the creation of social structures. The author even pushes things further claiming that the emergence of the internet is like “plumbing, without the health benefits.” The third argument claims that these advancements are given undue hype and optimistic publicity that its shortcomings become trivial to say the least. It focuses on the line of reasoning that man, along with the social structures surrounding him, could never be replaced by any form of intelligent technology. In the end, the discussions are summed up by saying that the improvements in technology seen in computers and the internet are just phases of what began several years ago. It would not be fair to categorize it as an actual revolution or a start of a new age.
The arguments provided by the author are compelling. He presents his arguments through refuting every claimed advantage that computers and the internet provides, from the ascendancy of the physical elements over the virtual ones, to the machine ingredient of today’s society. Looking back at the article, the author effectively uses both narrative and persuasion in supporting his claim regarding the three major arguments of the paper. On the first part, a historical account on the industrial revolution has given a sense of intensity in his arguments. Comparing the first flight of man and the emergence of computers is merely one of these elements seen in the paper.
However, as the discussions progressed, the arguments and its supporting claims tend to fizzle out bordering to a series of rants and bitter declaration of someone who was born a little too early. Gelernter appeared to be highly informed about the topic he is talking about but there are some holes in his arguments. For instance, comparing man’s first flight and emergence of computers and the internet is akin to comparing apples and oranges. Besides, nowadays man’s flight and the current developments on it have been aided by the emergence of these very products that Gelernter has been bashing. In the same regard, his claims regarding computer games shows limited research on the existence of peripherals that allow gamers to physically interact with the computer games (i.e. Nintendo Wii). Claims on wealth, information and the pursuit of happiness in the article shows that they do not equate with each other. This shows how the author attempts to fit his own “naive” reality into his arguments. Because the truth of the matter is, the accumulation of wealth and the acquisition of information are the exact ingredients for people today to achieve “happiness.” Anyone who will say otherwise may well have more than enough of these things… or has been living in a perfect albeit different world.
0 comments:
Post a Comment