Planned obsolesce has become so entrenched in our culture that it occurs even in things that we don't normally recognize. Today is Halloween and we are bombarded with images of what is the "hot" costume of this year. Why should there be any "hot" costumes at all? Isn't it just fun to get dressed up as something and go out begging for free candy? Instead, children's costumes are based on the hot movie of the year, whether it was a movie that was appropriate for them in the first place, and there are more packaged Iron Mans, Wonder Womans, and Spider Mans out there than the costumes that could be created from things around the house like tramps, witches, or football players. I get more of a thrill from the clever child who stuffed himself into a dollar store laundry bag and hung dirty socks around his head with a pillow case to carry his loot than I do watching overly muscular Batmans flexing with plastic Halloween themed bags coming to collect my Hersheys and Kit Kats.
For Brooke Stevens, Halloween must be a culmination of some of his ideas penetrating markets he didn't even imagine. He says, "Planned obsolesce,...was simply psychological obsolescence, not product death dating. It grew out of "the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than necessary. In particular, he was fond of claiming that obsolescence stimulates the economy."(153) I believe that he touched upon a psychological phenomenon that he created to spur on the business world that has become so much a part of our society that government supports the idea as the magic bullet to get us out of our current dismal economic situation. Again and again, we try to stimulate the economy with the hope that by giving people more opportunity to spend on things they don't need, we will recover our jobs and reduce unemployment, buoy the stock market, and recreate some of the small businesses that have closed. The problem is that the remedy chosen by our economists is not working, so now what do we do? The desire to own all the newer and better things still exists but so does the massive debt that our nation and individuals accrue. And because of our desire to want and get more as a society, we make less, own less of anything of quality, and owe more. College students who graduate with so much debt now and have no way to pay it back without getting a six figure job upon graduation are commonplace, but the six figure jobs are not. Somehow our culture has to stop encouraging consumption for consumption's sake and go back to some of the Depression era savings ideas. Until then, I expect to see many more college graduates working 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs to keep buying the next ipod or new cell phone in order to feed their habits.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Everything is Made to Break
While reading Made to Break by Giles Slade, I thought if I wasn't paranoid about the things we own and how big business conspires to get inside my head, then I would certainly be now. It is proven that businesses have thought out how best to make me feel inferior based on what I have and not who I am. The amount of money and time that they have invested to get into my head is astounding and what's even worse is that it works. I have happily joined the collective mindset and proven their psychological profile in order to create more profits for the business world. Every year, I update clothes that are not worn out, buy new toys when the previous have not been broken, and purchase things that are unnecessary based on advertisements or the pressure to stay part of the culture that has the newest, coolest, fanciest things. More recently, I shopped for a new backpack and other school supplies for my daughter, knowing well that her backpack from last year was perfectly functional but acquiesced because she wanted a new one to begin third grade. Thus, I realize that even 8 year olds, or especially 8 year olds, are targeted in this idea of obsolescence.
Bernard London and Aldous Huxley both used the same idea to create a non-fiction and fictional world to better illustrate this idea of obsolescence. London wanted government to intervene and set standards to make obsolescence part of the fabric of our country and Huxley fictionalizes what would happen if government did. Today's society is a combination of both, where laws are written to protect businesses and government is the greatest consumer and citizens follow along. "...a product's death date was exclusively a limit imposed externally by a committee of experts and then enforced as a social rule." (77) This is what happens today although it's not broadcasted to the populace. A group of experts somewhere determines what the hot new colors of a item shall be for this season and we are socially pressured to purchase the new thing. Then we are proud of the new thing that we purchase and subtly look down upon someone else who hasn't made that same investment to replace their item. I can think of many examples of this, but the one that comes to mind first is cell phones. How much do we frown when you see someone, usually older, who is using a giant cell phone that does nothing but make or receive phone calls? Isn't there a sense of disapproval that they haven't used their upgrade to buy a new one even theirs works perfectly for their use? But yet when you look at the big picture of our economy, and see the amount of debt that we each owe, and what the accumulation of useless goods contributes to that debt, does that help us as a country or hurt us? Is this the idea of American culture, to owe more than we make, to consume more than we produce, to want more than we need? If it is, we all are fulfilling this business model and it is making us a poorer country for it.
Bernard London and Aldous Huxley both used the same idea to create a non-fiction and fictional world to better illustrate this idea of obsolescence. London wanted government to intervene and set standards to make obsolescence part of the fabric of our country and Huxley fictionalizes what would happen if government did. Today's society is a combination of both, where laws are written to protect businesses and government is the greatest consumer and citizens follow along. "...a product's death date was exclusively a limit imposed externally by a committee of experts and then enforced as a social rule." (77) This is what happens today although it's not broadcasted to the populace. A group of experts somewhere determines what the hot new colors of a item shall be for this season and we are socially pressured to purchase the new thing. Then we are proud of the new thing that we purchase and subtly look down upon someone else who hasn't made that same investment to replace their item. I can think of many examples of this, but the one that comes to mind first is cell phones. How much do we frown when you see someone, usually older, who is using a giant cell phone that does nothing but make or receive phone calls? Isn't there a sense of disapproval that they haven't used their upgrade to buy a new one even theirs works perfectly for their use? But yet when you look at the big picture of our economy, and see the amount of debt that we each owe, and what the accumulation of useless goods contributes to that debt, does that help us as a country or hurt us? Is this the idea of American culture, to owe more than we make, to consume more than we produce, to want more than we need? If it is, we all are fulfilling this business model and it is making us a poorer country for it.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The World and Wikipedia, Part 2
In reading this book, I was surprised to realize that so much research was done on a relatively new medium, Wikipedia. I found it interesting that the author was able to document a great deal that happened within individual articles and create a story that was appealing even to a novice user of Wikipedia like me. The back story to some of the editors of Wiki was fascinating, and the amount of time that they devote to it without monetary compensation was mind boggling. It was also surprising the lengths that people will go through to invent credentials for the pseudonym that they write under in order to garner respect from other volunteers. If one edits on Wiki to serve one's quest to share knowledge with others, then who cares who is writing but care more whether the information is correct in what they are writing. If someone purports to have a doctorate in whatever, do they automatically have more value because of that piece of paper, real or fake? Can knowledge or expertise be measured by a piece of paper? Do we discount knowledge unless there is education behind it? For example, if an uneducated car mechanic was to write about the operations of a car, would we not take it seriously until he gets a degree in mechanical engineering? Who really is the expert?
The positives of the medium of Wikipedia outweigh the negatives and I think that the author does a good job highlighting both. He tells readers to use it carefully and to be aware that there are people who vandalize purposefully, but through the very nature of how it is set up, it very often will be corrected and more good information is there than not. There are stories of how some articles have given more misinformation that others, ex. John Seigenthaler and his battle to correct his biography. But all in all, Wiki allows for even the most individual tastes and interests an opportunity to have credence, whether it be some ancient Greek poet or Sept. 11th. This democratic nature is the strength of Wiki, and because of it, will continue far beyond the printing of this book. "Here, then, is the first reason why we love Wikipedia. We love it because it's a virtual nation, or rather a virtual world." (TWAW 120) Just don't ever use it as a primary source, because the virtual world is not always trustworthy.
The positives of the medium of Wikipedia outweigh the negatives and I think that the author does a good job highlighting both. He tells readers to use it carefully and to be aware that there are people who vandalize purposefully, but through the very nature of how it is set up, it very often will be corrected and more good information is there than not. There are stories of how some articles have given more misinformation that others, ex. John Seigenthaler and his battle to correct his biography. But all in all, Wiki allows for even the most individual tastes and interests an opportunity to have credence, whether it be some ancient Greek poet or Sept. 11th. This democratic nature is the strength of Wiki, and because of it, will continue far beyond the printing of this book. "Here, then, is the first reason why we love Wikipedia. We love it because it's a virtual nation, or rather a virtual world." (TWAW 120) Just don't ever use it as a primary source, because the virtual world is not always trustworthy.
Current Event Presentation
I did my current event presentation on an article that I found on CNN.com entitled Parent survey says that social networks don't protect kids' privacy. (CNN.com 10/10/10) This survey was conducted by a group named Common Sense Media, which is a private lobbying group made up of various people that say that their mission is to provide information to parents and caretakers about different media services since children spend so much time on them. Common Sense Media also gives ratings to movies, television, books, music and more recently, websites and mobile applications. How much influence they have on parents' decisions on what to purchase is varied, but the group seems to have mostly conservative views and are endorsed by many Christian organizations. Although this survey was sponsored by them, I found it to have interesting results.
The article said that 75 percent of the parents surveyed said that they rate social networks' privacy protections as negative. It also said that more than 90 percent of parents polled are concerned that their teens share too much information online. (CNN.com) When I asked the class whether they agreed with these findings, most who answered said yes. When I followed up with a question on whose responsibility it was to limit sharing online, social networks or the users themselves, most answered that it was the user's responsibility. I also asked, "How could/should social networks do more to protect privacy?" The class responded that if the business did not have a profit making reason to do it, the likelihood they would would be slim to none. Everyone agreed that it was always money that drove decision making in these companies, not the good of the consumer. If the good of the consumer happen to coincide with profit, then changes would be but otherwise, profit ruled. That belief is a very cynical one, though probably correct.
I don't see that how it would benefit the social networks to change what is a successful model without some great tragedy happening that turns public opinion against them. I used the example of Craig's List and the soliciting of sex that was initially tolerated until women were murdered after meeting the killer through a Craig's list ad. When it was discovered that Craig's list had a role in the crime, the company shut down the category of sex solicitation. Although they discontinued the category, sex still is available on the website; it is just more cleverly hidden and subtle. So I think if something terrible happened and Facebook was found to be a contributing player in a crime, then either the government would enforce new privacy policies or more likely Facebook and other social networks would be proactive in creating more stringent privacy policies. Until that tragedy happens, it will be the job of the parents of teens to do the policing, hard as that may be.
The article said that 75 percent of the parents surveyed said that they rate social networks' privacy protections as negative. It also said that more than 90 percent of parents polled are concerned that their teens share too much information online. (CNN.com) When I asked the class whether they agreed with these findings, most who answered said yes. When I followed up with a question on whose responsibility it was to limit sharing online, social networks or the users themselves, most answered that it was the user's responsibility. I also asked, "How could/should social networks do more to protect privacy?" The class responded that if the business did not have a profit making reason to do it, the likelihood they would would be slim to none. Everyone agreed that it was always money that drove decision making in these companies, not the good of the consumer. If the good of the consumer happen to coincide with profit, then changes would be but otherwise, profit ruled. That belief is a very cynical one, though probably correct.
I don't see that how it would benefit the social networks to change what is a successful model without some great tragedy happening that turns public opinion against them. I used the example of Craig's List and the soliciting of sex that was initially tolerated until women were murdered after meeting the killer through a Craig's list ad. When it was discovered that Craig's list had a role in the crime, the company shut down the category of sex solicitation. Although they discontinued the category, sex still is available on the website; it is just more cleverly hidden and subtle. So I think if something terrible happened and Facebook was found to be a contributing player in a crime, then either the government would enforce new privacy policies or more likely Facebook and other social networks would be proactive in creating more stringent privacy policies. Until that tragedy happens, it will be the job of the parents of teens to do the policing, hard as that may be.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The World and Wiki
The evolution of Wikipedia is an interesting one. The premise of everyone having some sort of meaningful knowledge that can be offered to the public is awesome but scary. I have used Wiki as a quick overview of a topic but do not trust it for fact. Although many people who edit the articles have some expertise, many also do not. The chapter on vandalism of articles and the harm they could do was particularly telling of this. Biographies, when written and published, are done using extensive research and sometimes can take years in order for fact finding to be checked and rechecked. Oral stories which are often told through family folklore have roots in truth but are changed with every telling. These are included in biographies only with the most rigorous investigation to separate rumor and innuendo from the truth so incorrect information is not spread to damage the person's reputation. If there are inconsistencies or errors, many times there needs to be a formal disclaimer or retraction so the author or publisher is not sued for libel or slander. Then a revised edition would be released with corrections made. Wikipedia has no fear of this. Wiki has no fact checkers other than the volunteer editors who are only as good as their interest and proficiency in the topic is. That is always hoping for the best but not knowing if that is what it is and expecting a good samaritan to come fix it if it's not. It may happen, it may not. That is not the best resource to use for truthfulness.
Even though the facts may not always be correct, since Google often lists Wiki as the first or second site when any topic is searched, many people believe it to be legitimate. Young people especially, use Wiki as a primary source while researching for papers. Too often on papers, multiple sources may be given on a bibliography page, Wiki is really the one that most of the information comes from. Kids are lazy and who wants to read through a few professional journals or boring research books when all information can be found in a concise page of the "same" info. And there lies the danger. We are once again allowing technology to make things easier but accepting mediocrity. This shows in the state of our country and educational system. When anyone uses Wiki, they should always be aware that what they're reading may not be the truth.
Even though the facts may not always be correct, since Google often lists Wiki as the first or second site when any topic is searched, many people believe it to be legitimate. Young people especially, use Wiki as a primary source while researching for papers. Too often on papers, multiple sources may be given on a bibliography page, Wiki is really the one that most of the information comes from. Kids are lazy and who wants to read through a few professional journals or boring research books when all information can be found in a concise page of the "same" info. And there lies the danger. We are once again allowing technology to make things easier but accepting mediocrity. This shows in the state of our country and educational system. When anyone uses Wiki, they should always be aware that what they're reading may not be the truth.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Social Contract aka The Facebook Movie and algorithms
I went to see the movie The Social Contract Friday night and was pleasantly surprised. Being that I am not a user of Facebook, the phenomenon of this social networking site has me as an outsider. I look objectively at the story of the founding of Facebook and am quite appalled at how greed can change even the most awkward geek with limited social skills into a cutthroat guy who is willing to screw his only friends. Now granted, there is an enormous amount of money at play here, and I would have wanted to be an initial investor so I could be a millionaire now but alas I was not and that chance is past.
The movie itself, aside from the subject matter, was well written, well directed, and well acted. Jesse Eisenberg was a convincing Mark Zuckerberg and I was especially surprised at Justin Timberlake's performance as Sean Parker. Timberlake's portrayal of the evil protagonist in the movie was believable and persuasive. The rest of the cast was ok but not particularly memorable. I was amazed that the actors who played the Winklevoss twins were not twins in real life. The camera angles fool the eye and until you look very carefully, they look identical. All in all, I was glad I went to a movie that I wouldn't otherwise go to, and the people I dragged were pleasantly surprised as well.
What struck me as interesting was that at our last class we spoke about algorithms and how they influence our virtual worlds. Facebook began as an algorithm, written on a Harvard dorm window and now influences millions who have no idea how hard it is to work on an actual farm to take care of their farm animals daily. Ironic, I think, and a bit amusing, to me. So the next time I receive another unwanted email from Target, Valore Books, Priceline or Enterprise, I will not take it personally that they want me to buy something, read a book, go on a trip or rent a car but will realize that some geek who wrote some undecipherable formula without knowing me or anything about me can find some obscure thing that I didn't even know I had an interest in to take my precious time to click and look. Amazing what technology can do!
The movie itself, aside from the subject matter, was well written, well directed, and well acted. Jesse Eisenberg was a convincing Mark Zuckerberg and I was especially surprised at Justin Timberlake's performance as Sean Parker. Timberlake's portrayal of the evil protagonist in the movie was believable and persuasive. The rest of the cast was ok but not particularly memorable. I was amazed that the actors who played the Winklevoss twins were not twins in real life. The camera angles fool the eye and until you look very carefully, they look identical. All in all, I was glad I went to a movie that I wouldn't otherwise go to, and the people I dragged were pleasantly surprised as well.
What struck me as interesting was that at our last class we spoke about algorithms and how they influence our virtual worlds. Facebook began as an algorithm, written on a Harvard dorm window and now influences millions who have no idea how hard it is to work on an actual farm to take care of their farm animals daily. Ironic, I think, and a bit amusing, to me. So the next time I receive another unwanted email from Target, Valore Books, Priceline or Enterprise, I will not take it personally that they want me to buy something, read a book, go on a trip or rent a car but will realize that some geek who wrote some undecipherable formula without knowing me or anything about me can find some obscure thing that I didn't even know I had an interest in to take my precious time to click and look. Amazing what technology can do!
The End of Technopoly, finally
When I began this book, I thought it was interesting but as I read more, I realized that the theme of Postman's Technopoly was getting repetitious and boring. Yes, there are many ways that we are dependent on technology these days, yes, technology can be defined by any innovation through the millennia, but to write for almost 200 pages on how it could and should be redefined seemed an exercise in futility. We can recognize some things should change and maybe even have a dialogue but I would hazard a guess that there is no going back. We aren't going back to a time where classes aren't graded and numbers are not used as benchmarks nor where psychologists and social scientists do not exist. His rant uses examples from many works from history, philosophers, religious and "scientists" and discounts what they have done and studied but understands that those same people have made positive contributions to our world as we know it today.
Postman writes, "...language itself is a kind of technology-an invisible technology-and through it we achieve more than clarity and efficiency. We achieve humanity-or inhumanity."(142) This statement is true, yet it applies to anything, technological or not. Humans can use an invention of any means to suit their will to influence towards good or evil. Language is particularly malleable because it is our means of communication and is the primary way to express ideas but it is not language's fault or responsibility that the creatures that use it, use it properly. That thought would extend itself to anything. Fire can be interpreted as technology. We need fire to heat ourselves, cook our food and numerous other ways that I won't list but fire can also cause immeasurable destruction and pain and suffering. Shall I write a book about the pros and cons of fire and argue its merits and demerits and how it has infiltrated all aspects of our lives? I think not. But it might be a great topic for Postman's next book.
Postman writes, "...language itself is a kind of technology-an invisible technology-and through it we achieve more than clarity and efficiency. We achieve humanity-or inhumanity."(142) This statement is true, yet it applies to anything, technological or not. Humans can use an invention of any means to suit their will to influence towards good or evil. Language is particularly malleable because it is our means of communication and is the primary way to express ideas but it is not language's fault or responsibility that the creatures that use it, use it properly. That thought would extend itself to anything. Fire can be interpreted as technology. We need fire to heat ourselves, cook our food and numerous other ways that I won't list but fire can also cause immeasurable destruction and pain and suffering. Shall I write a book about the pros and cons of fire and argue its merits and demerits and how it has infiltrated all aspects of our lives? I think not. But it might be a great topic for Postman's next book.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)