The misconception of convenience.
If I were to ask you a question, and neither of us knew the answer, what would you do? You’d Google it, right? Me too. After you figure out the right wording and hit the search button, at what point would you be satisfied enough with Google’s answer to say that you’ve gained new knowledge? Judging from the current socio-technical circumstances, I’d be hard-pressed to say that many of us would make it past the featured snippet, let alone the first page of results.
The internet — along with the complementary technologies we’ve developed to increase its accessibility — enriches our lives by affording us access to the largest information repository ever conceived. Despite physical barriers, we can share, explore, and store facts, opinions, theories, and philosophies alike. As such, this vast repository contains many answers to many questions derived from many distinct perspectives. These socio-technical circumstances are undeniably promising for the distribution and development of knowledge. However, in 2008, tech-critic Nicholas Carr posed a counter argument about the internet and its impact on our cognitive abilities by asking readers a simple question: is Google making us stupid? In his controversial article published by The Atlantic, Carr blames the internet for our diminishing ability to form “rich mental connections,” and supposes that technology and the internet are instruments of intentional distraction. While I agree with Carr’s sentiment that the way we think has changed, I don’t agree that the fault falls on the internet. I believe we expect too much of Google and less of ourselves; therefore, the fault (if there is fault) is largely our own. …
A personal account and analysis of information overload.
Information overload is something that’s been plaguing me for a while. It was only recently that I decided to take the time to understand why my brain doesn’t work the way it used to. I needed to do this to understand myself. The first step in admitting you have a problem is understanding that problem. I have an information problem. This is a millennial’s quest to understand information overload while struggling against it. Here’s everything I’ve learned.
Try to remember the last time your phone was not the first thing you reached for in the morning. …
April 1, 2016
Dear reader,
Arguably, the future is in a constant state of motion. Everyday, with each technological advancement, we get a little closer to the future. Yet, at the same rate, ideals evolve and the future gets further away. But progress is progress, right?
In this letter, I’ll take you to the near future of death, medicine, and sex.
Something we can’t avoid.
Death is something we can’t avoid. But since the 1960’s we’ve been dreaming of doing just that. Cryonics, the technique of deep-freezing a dead body or brain in liquid nitrogen so that one day the deceased can be brought back to life, is our answer to that dilemma. But right now, nothing about this technique is convincing. There’s only a few people practicing cryonics in the world, and aside from the obvious skepticism of the process actually working, these places charge patients up to $200,000 to bet on the future. And if we find that the method does in fact work, making it a social norm will be a bit of a challenge, because of moral backlash. But, if there’s one thing to be sure about, the process is fascinating. …
