This story is unavailable.

Great piece. I really liked this statement:

Without identifying our intentions and our increasingly interconnected relationship with technology, we are submitting ourselves to a limitless pattern of development and change with no purpose or end in sight.

I believe you are right. If we continue to simply roll out these technologies with little regard to impact and sustainability what good are they? Shouldn’t we stop and consider — is this really helpful to humans? Is this progress for progress-sake? It is a slippery slope when we try to label and categorize ideas and intent. I always cringe a bit when we as society feel we have to put label on it so we can assess it, be it “determinism or socialism.” It seems to divide the issue into sides to choose, rather than considering all aspects of an issue or idea. It lends it’s self to divisiveness rather than contemplation and reflection, either thumbs up or thumbs down, winner, loser. This doesn’t seem to be helpful in a thoughtful, non-biased assessment of anything. I think you’re right I think we need to clearly identify what the intention of the technology rather than immediate try to put a label to it. This would seem to suggest that McLuhan’s laws of media — the tetrad –are better idea in considering how, why and if we should fully implement at technology into our culture.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Jill Helser’s story.