This second part of the book is exciting because it charts the way facebook becomes a "real" company. Through its rapid growth, it needed rapid infusions of major money. I find it incredible that so many people saw the potential of the idea that Zuckerberg had for them to offer to give young men control of millions of dollars. It has obviously paid off in spades and those who had the chance to invest early and didn't are kicking themselves throughly because of their lost millions. But who knew? The idea wasn't a new idea. Nor was it one that their team had any experience with. Nor did they have a track record of any sort that would inspire confidence or trust with massive amounts of money. But the confidence that Zuckerberg had in himself showed potential investors that he was the one that they were banking on. Without his somewhat geeky way of explaining, when he felt like it, Accel would have never bankrolled them to the extent they did. It is inspiring to see that there are success stories involving kids and their ideas that can happen even when the sharks get involved.
But none of it would have happened without the leadership of Zuckerberg. He saw past the naysayers and followed his vision of what facebook could be in order to make it a success. Even with opposition from within his own circle, he continued to expand facebook to fit his vision. When he added the ability to add photographs to profiles, he expanded the use of facebook to be part of the culture of America. He recognized the social importance of seeing yourself, and the relationships that that represented way before anyone did. His definition for this phenomenon is "..."social graph," meaning the web of relationships articulated inside Facebook as the result of users connecting with their friends."(157) This is so true. People want to share and want their friends to share as well. And share they do. Pictures are tagged, sometimes minutes after they have been posted. In fact, people who don't want their social lives out there are often caught unaware that pictures have been taken until they have been made public. This can be positive but also has negative effects. I personally know people who have been tagged in photos of them in compromising situations that have been the talk of the office, because they unwittingly let their boss be their "friend". Not smart for most jobs, especially ones in education. I know we have talked in class about having two profiles, one for partying and one for professional reasons, but sometimes they mix and the results can be ugly. Nothing has happen to these people I know, but it sure can make for an awkward conversation around the boss's office. So the lesson that facebook users must take away is that it is good to share but don't share everything. You never know who looking and making judgments based on a silly moment with your friends.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The Facebook Effect Part I
Was the movie screenplay The Social Network using this book as its blueprint because it mirrors it almost exactly? Or maybe it's because I saw the movie and I have the pictures so fresh in my mind. David Kirkpatrick seems to have unlimited access to Mark Zuckerberg and his machinations to create Thefacebook, and shows how a computer savvy yet socially awkward young man can create one of the world's highest valued and influential websites without having the goal of being a multimillionaire can happen.
The journey of how it begins is chronicled from the bowels of the Harvard dorm room to the formation of a real company requiring real financing. It also goes more in depth than the movie about the business end and how leveraging stock options gave them the money to explode the site so it wouldn't crash and fail. What was interesting was that they were able to pitch their idea to hardened businessmen and have them competing for the opportunity to be financial backers in a then still unproven site. Although they had began the march across the college campuses of the country, there was no proof that it could make money. It was also interesting that Zuckerberg did not make Thefacebook his only focus and split his time on a website called Wirehog. Although it caused dissention in the ranks, Zuckerberg doggedly pursued the idea of Wirehog, but didn't let it take his mind away from Thefacebook enough to cause it to be any less successful. "Facebook seemed to be thriving, but Zuckerberg was thinking about Wirehog almost as much."(98) Parker, who was as influential as he could be, couldn't understand why he was hedging his bets and not totally believing in facebook but went along with it. This belief in Zuckerberg that had businessmen and partners on the same side proved itself to be correct.
But what I really liked about the book so far is that it begins with what impact facebook can have on real world events. Though it is most well known as a way for people to communicate with their "friends", it also has definitive impact on what common citizens can do to make real change on their governments. This is illustrated in the story of Oscar Morales and his frustration with how the Columbian government were handling the guerrilla group FARC. By using facebook to coordinate a demonstration against FARC, regardless of the potential danger to himself, he informed and educated many that normally wouldn't get involved in something they felt they had little voice against. "He expected 50,000 to show up. In fact, 300,000 did, about 15% of the city's population.(5) He showed the best side of what facebook is and proved to the world that it is to be taken seriously as a networking tool that can change lives and determine new events. These types of spontaneous involvement in a normally ambivalent society reinforces the idea that Zuckerberg's creation that intimacy through the web can facilitate "efficient communication and cultivate familiarity" (12) is one to reckon with and is here to stay. Through the expansion from the original college students who were allowed to use the site to all populations, facebook reaches across barriers normally not easily overcome; generational, cultural, lingual and political affiliations. This site is indispensable in most people's lives today and will continue to grow. This will change American culture today and in days to come.
The journey of how it begins is chronicled from the bowels of the Harvard dorm room to the formation of a real company requiring real financing. It also goes more in depth than the movie about the business end and how leveraging stock options gave them the money to explode the site so it wouldn't crash and fail. What was interesting was that they were able to pitch their idea to hardened businessmen and have them competing for the opportunity to be financial backers in a then still unproven site. Although they had began the march across the college campuses of the country, there was no proof that it could make money. It was also interesting that Zuckerberg did not make Thefacebook his only focus and split his time on a website called Wirehog. Although it caused dissention in the ranks, Zuckerberg doggedly pursued the idea of Wirehog, but didn't let it take his mind away from Thefacebook enough to cause it to be any less successful. "Facebook seemed to be thriving, but Zuckerberg was thinking about Wirehog almost as much."(98) Parker, who was as influential as he could be, couldn't understand why he was hedging his bets and not totally believing in facebook but went along with it. This belief in Zuckerberg that had businessmen and partners on the same side proved itself to be correct.
But what I really liked about the book so far is that it begins with what impact facebook can have on real world events. Though it is most well known as a way for people to communicate with their "friends", it also has definitive impact on what common citizens can do to make real change on their governments. This is illustrated in the story of Oscar Morales and his frustration with how the Columbian government were handling the guerrilla group FARC. By using facebook to coordinate a demonstration against FARC, regardless of the potential danger to himself, he informed and educated many that normally wouldn't get involved in something they felt they had little voice against. "He expected 50,000 to show up. In fact, 300,000 did, about 15% of the city's population.(5) He showed the best side of what facebook is and proved to the world that it is to be taken seriously as a networking tool that can change lives and determine new events. These types of spontaneous involvement in a normally ambivalent society reinforces the idea that Zuckerberg's creation that intimacy through the web can facilitate "efficient communication and cultivate familiarity" (12) is one to reckon with and is here to stay. Through the expansion from the original college students who were allowed to use the site to all populations, facebook reaches across barriers normally not easily overcome; generational, cultural, lingual and political affiliations. This site is indispensable in most people's lives today and will continue to grow. This will change American culture today and in days to come.
Audit for our midterm project
Scientology! What a controversial and unknown topic we finally chose. After having several choices shot down by our esteemed professor, we settled on Scientology, (mainly because medical marijuana was already taken and we couldn't do a profile on a person). As we soon discovered, Scientology is a "religion" that is much disputed and has many core enthusiasts as well as many disbelievers.
We first looked at the site and discovered that there were 266 sources listed and we agreed to each take 50 to research individually and divide the remainder later. Although we didn't discuss in detail what each would do, we all basically did the same thing, which was to click on each source, follow the link, read what the source had to say, decide on validity and whether it was biased, and create a list to count how many came from each place. I was assigned # 200-250, which were mostly newspaper articles, some essays written by acknowledged followers of the religion, and journal entries found in the Marburg Journal of Religion. Several were foreign news reports, where Scientology gained some notoriety in other countries like Australia and England, but most were based here in the United States. We noticed that a disproportionate amount of newspapers were local to where Scientology had a large base, and were reporting on controversies that were local and sometimes took a very biased view against Scientology. There were also some news clips from the main networks affiliates, NBC, as well as online news like CNET, that reported on the questionable circumstances when a member died in the care of Scientologists and the court battle and undisclosed settlement reached after court had began. I also learned that Scientologists are not afraid to sue for any press that they feel in inflammatory or negative, and they seem to have buckets of money to support their litigations. We also looked at information that was omitted and tried to figure out why it was omitted.
The girls and I met at Livingston Campus Center on Saturday to compare and collate our independent research and do the PowerPoint presentation. During that meeting, we realize that our sources were limited, with only 24 main references of which 13 were unreliable due to the author's bias. We also discovered that there was a Wikiprojects page, which was created as a way to show Scientology in a positive light, and we felt that in itself made the whole entry biased towards Scientology. Also, the Scientology entry has restricted editing features but that could be due to vandalism as well as the desire of those people who choose to portray Scientology only positively.
All in all, we decided that the Scientology site on Wikipedia is a biased site based on the limited amount of prejudicial primary sources. Although it was informative on the the basic overview and beliefs of the church, it minimized the negative aspects of some of those same beliefs. When investigated, sources that are not scholarly should not be anyone's primary source for their own research but can be used as a general overview of a topic. This entry in Wiki was clearly not a scholarly source but rather an opportunity for some members to present their information in a convincing way.
By doing this project, I am reminded that this has potential effects on the American way of researching and receiving information. Many students use Wikipedia as their primary source, often not going further to investigate the sources of the entry. The assumption of truthfulness and validity that encyclopedias inherently have is not the same for Wikipedia. Due to the very nature of Wikipedia, it is a source that should always be looked upon as suspect. It is the easiest research for students and is depended on because of its simplicity. Because technology has so infiltrated how research is done today, false or misleading articles can be cited as truth, and the bad information is confused with the good. I think that Wikipedia shouldn't be ever used as a primary source but can be a good place to start to learn about topics. Even using their sources offers potential good primary sources that can lead to a more true paper that would be respected as scholarly.
We first looked at the site and discovered that there were 266 sources listed and we agreed to each take 50 to research individually and divide the remainder later. Although we didn't discuss in detail what each would do, we all basically did the same thing, which was to click on each source, follow the link, read what the source had to say, decide on validity and whether it was biased, and create a list to count how many came from each place. I was assigned # 200-250, which were mostly newspaper articles, some essays written by acknowledged followers of the religion, and journal entries found in the Marburg Journal of Religion. Several were foreign news reports, where Scientology gained some notoriety in other countries like Australia and England, but most were based here in the United States. We noticed that a disproportionate amount of newspapers were local to where Scientology had a large base, and were reporting on controversies that were local and sometimes took a very biased view against Scientology. There were also some news clips from the main networks affiliates, NBC, as well as online news like CNET, that reported on the questionable circumstances when a member died in the care of Scientologists and the court battle and undisclosed settlement reached after court had began. I also learned that Scientologists are not afraid to sue for any press that they feel in inflammatory or negative, and they seem to have buckets of money to support their litigations. We also looked at information that was omitted and tried to figure out why it was omitted.
The girls and I met at Livingston Campus Center on Saturday to compare and collate our independent research and do the PowerPoint presentation. During that meeting, we realize that our sources were limited, with only 24 main references of which 13 were unreliable due to the author's bias. We also discovered that there was a Wikiprojects page, which was created as a way to show Scientology in a positive light, and we felt that in itself made the whole entry biased towards Scientology. Also, the Scientology entry has restricted editing features but that could be due to vandalism as well as the desire of those people who choose to portray Scientology only positively.
All in all, we decided that the Scientology site on Wikipedia is a biased site based on the limited amount of prejudicial primary sources. Although it was informative on the the basic overview and beliefs of the church, it minimized the negative aspects of some of those same beliefs. When investigated, sources that are not scholarly should not be anyone's primary source for their own research but can be used as a general overview of a topic. This entry in Wiki was clearly not a scholarly source but rather an opportunity for some members to present their information in a convincing way.
By doing this project, I am reminded that this has potential effects on the American way of researching and receiving information. Many students use Wikipedia as their primary source, often not going further to investigate the sources of the entry. The assumption of truthfulness and validity that encyclopedias inherently have is not the same for Wikipedia. Due to the very nature of Wikipedia, it is a source that should always be looked upon as suspect. It is the easiest research for students and is depended on because of its simplicity. Because technology has so infiltrated how research is done today, false or misleading articles can be cited as truth, and the bad information is confused with the good. I think that Wikipedia shouldn't be ever used as a primary source but can be a good place to start to learn about topics. Even using their sources offers potential good primary sources that can lead to a more true paper that would be respected as scholarly.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Websites: good and Bad
In doing that little exercise during class, I realize that are many ways that the internet has infiltrated our lives, both good and bad. There are many people who say that it's negatively affecting our lives through loss of privacy, too much dependency, too much information to filter through. I believe that's true for those who let it be more than what it is, a tool to make our lives easier.
In brainstorming for different sites that have positive uses, we came up with a few for each category. For personal relationships, facebook is the clear winner. But for other segments of the population, eHarmony and match.com facilitate people meeting because of common interests and may develop real relationships that become life partnerships. I know some divorced people who have tried to find a new partner through these sites, and some have been successful. They tell me it's more safe than playing at the bar or club scene and more satisfying than waiting for someone to introduce you to a third party via blind dating. These sites provide a "preview" and hopefully the person, when met in person, has not been lying and it can lead to at least a pleasant evening.
For commerce, Amazon, ebay and craigslist are sites that are useful. Although every store has a website for purchasing goods, these offer the competitive power of having multiple vendors to choose from and if you trust reviews from previous customers, you can gauge whether that vendor is a trustworthy merchant. There are many textbook sites that I have used, valore.com, half.com and others, but I always go to amazon first to see if the price is better and because I've never had a problem with shipping or delivery.
For info sharing, what is better than getting all the news you could want or need from CNN or Google News. All newspapers have a online version so local news is just a click away as well. Local municipalities and towns have websites that updated fairly regularly, so you can find out if your town has a Halloween event or other special things without much search. I know my neighborhood group has a website which publicizes events that are for us only, as well as crime reports of petty vandalism or theft so we can all be aware.
For health, I think that webMD is a pretty good source. I have used it occasionally to try to self diagnose an illness and to research more of illnesses that friends have had. I used it recently to begin to learn about something I was just diagnosed with and it was helpful.
And for public good, there are a glut of websites. We can be as simple as Sparknotes for students who don't want to read or as complex as familywatchdog.us where sex offenders are listed based on proximity to the address you put in. I know that I have used that one before, especially before Halloween and we're about to trudge from house to house in search for free candy. It's good to know who your neighbors are, because they aren't advertising their proclivities.
In brainstorming for different sites that have positive uses, we came up with a few for each category. For personal relationships, facebook is the clear winner. But for other segments of the population, eHarmony and match.com facilitate people meeting because of common interests and may develop real relationships that become life partnerships. I know some divorced people who have tried to find a new partner through these sites, and some have been successful. They tell me it's more safe than playing at the bar or club scene and more satisfying than waiting for someone to introduce you to a third party via blind dating. These sites provide a "preview" and hopefully the person, when met in person, has not been lying and it can lead to at least a pleasant evening.
For commerce, Amazon, ebay and craigslist are sites that are useful. Although every store has a website for purchasing goods, these offer the competitive power of having multiple vendors to choose from and if you trust reviews from previous customers, you can gauge whether that vendor is a trustworthy merchant. There are many textbook sites that I have used, valore.com, half.com and others, but I always go to amazon first to see if the price is better and because I've never had a problem with shipping or delivery.
For info sharing, what is better than getting all the news you could want or need from CNN or Google News. All newspapers have a online version so local news is just a click away as well. Local municipalities and towns have websites that updated fairly regularly, so you can find out if your town has a Halloween event or other special things without much search. I know my neighborhood group has a website which publicizes events that are for us only, as well as crime reports of petty vandalism or theft so we can all be aware.
For health, I think that webMD is a pretty good source. I have used it occasionally to try to self diagnose an illness and to research more of illnesses that friends have had. I used it recently to begin to learn about something I was just diagnosed with and it was helpful.
And for public good, there are a glut of websites. We can be as simple as Sparknotes for students who don't want to read or as complex as familywatchdog.us where sex offenders are listed based on proximity to the address you put in. I know that I have used that one before, especially before Halloween and we're about to trudge from house to house in search for free candy. It's good to know who your neighbors are, because they aren't advertising their proclivities.
Made To Break 3
Upon finishing this book, I realize that this trend towards obsolescence is the theme for this class thus far. We have read books on the history of computers, where the growth of computing in the 20th century was built on technology phasing itself out with the increasing speed of each generation's chips, we have talked about wiki and how knowledge, trustworthy or not, changes and become obsolete daily, depending on the topic and now we learn of the calculation of businesses to make us believe that things are obsolete whether or not they really are. As I begin the facebook book, I see that the theme continues because facebook is designed for intimacy and immediate change, sometimes several updates a day. This again leads to the idea that everything is temporary and we aren't happy unless everything feels fresh and new.
"The lack of durability, in turn, grows from a unique combination of psychological and technological obsolescence." (262, Slade) Since it seems that we are being programmed to want the newest thing verses the something of quality, we don't care if things are broken before they should. Although people buy insurance for their cell phones against the possibility of it breaking, it really shouldn't break unless we do something to it that it isn't designed to handle. I got thrown into a pool this past summer, fully clothed and had all my electronics broken in one fell swoop. But one of my friends has a water resistant/waterproof phone that he kept tossing in the pool after I was moaning about my lack of phone, and as I shoved my phone into a bag of rice with the hope of salvaging it, I wondered, why aren't all phones water resistant? Why is it a special thing to have a rubber gasket around the battery compartment to keep water from getting in? Couldn't it be built into the price of all phones so this wouldn't happen to anyone who happen to fall into a pool or drop it into the toilet? I suspect it has lots to do with the fact that Verizon knew that I would be at the store the next day to get a new phone and doesn't care if the one I had would have worked for another year or two. Replace, not reuse, that's the mantra.
Which brings me to my next point. I was very happy to get a new phone but was mad that I lost some features on my old phone so I could get the water resistant one. "Modern consumers tend to value whatever is new and original over what is old, traditional, durable or used." (265, Slade) The euphoria I felt because I was due for an upgrade lessened that disappointment of having a broken one because I was able to replace it immediately. But other than for electronics, this mindset doesn't work for me. I still buy things for myself sparingly, mainly because I have children that want the latest things and they use the bulk of my money, but really because when I do shop, I buy things of quality and not because they are trendy, and they last. All the jackets I have are several years old, and they make go out of style, but if I hold on to them long enough, they are in style again. I look around at fashion and what people do to fit in by what they wear and I think if the girls would raid their mom's closets from the 80's, they would be perfect for today. In fact, we would save the environment and reduce what goes into landfills if we made everyone shop at thrift and second hand shops. Very little clothing ever gets worn out. Maybe that's what I'll get my kids for Christmas this year, gift certificates for the nearest thrift store, and watch the fun begin. At least I could feel better about not being one of the people who are not thinking about how much I'm contributing to waste.
"The lack of durability, in turn, grows from a unique combination of psychological and technological obsolescence." (262, Slade) Since it seems that we are being programmed to want the newest thing verses the something of quality, we don't care if things are broken before they should. Although people buy insurance for their cell phones against the possibility of it breaking, it really shouldn't break unless we do something to it that it isn't designed to handle. I got thrown into a pool this past summer, fully clothed and had all my electronics broken in one fell swoop. But one of my friends has a water resistant/waterproof phone that he kept tossing in the pool after I was moaning about my lack of phone, and as I shoved my phone into a bag of rice with the hope of salvaging it, I wondered, why aren't all phones water resistant? Why is it a special thing to have a rubber gasket around the battery compartment to keep water from getting in? Couldn't it be built into the price of all phones so this wouldn't happen to anyone who happen to fall into a pool or drop it into the toilet? I suspect it has lots to do with the fact that Verizon knew that I would be at the store the next day to get a new phone and doesn't care if the one I had would have worked for another year or two. Replace, not reuse, that's the mantra.
Which brings me to my next point. I was very happy to get a new phone but was mad that I lost some features on my old phone so I could get the water resistant one. "Modern consumers tend to value whatever is new and original over what is old, traditional, durable or used." (265, Slade) The euphoria I felt because I was due for an upgrade lessened that disappointment of having a broken one because I was able to replace it immediately. But other than for electronics, this mindset doesn't work for me. I still buy things for myself sparingly, mainly because I have children that want the latest things and they use the bulk of my money, but really because when I do shop, I buy things of quality and not because they are trendy, and they last. All the jackets I have are several years old, and they make go out of style, but if I hold on to them long enough, they are in style again. I look around at fashion and what people do to fit in by what they wear and I think if the girls would raid their mom's closets from the 80's, they would be perfect for today. In fact, we would save the environment and reduce what goes into landfills if we made everyone shop at thrift and second hand shops. Very little clothing ever gets worn out. Maybe that's what I'll get my kids for Christmas this year, gift certificates for the nearest thrift store, and watch the fun begin. At least I could feel better about not being one of the people who are not thinking about how much I'm contributing to waste.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Made to break
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)