|
A story from the annals of Zen Buddhism goes something like
this:
A man at a crossroads
sees his friend on a horse speeding by at full gallop. Assuming he's on some
urgent, important business, the man on the ground shouts, "Where are you
going?" The man on the horse turns around and replies: "I don't know, ask the
horse!"
A growing movement has been viewing certain technologies, namely
smart mobile devices and social networking, as the horse. These folks--cultural
researchers, psychologists, sociologists, proponents of mindfulness--have become
concerned about technology's effects on our attention span, memory,
relationships, and social skills. While some decry these critics as modern-day
Luddites or technophobes, the red flags they raise seem annoyingly plausible,
even to younger generations of phone addicts.
That most behavioral addictions exist--including smartphone
addiction--is hotly debated, at least in the DSM and other standards. Whatever
we want to term it, however, experts in multiple fields have raised red flags
about "mobile phone overuse," its more PC name. Psychologists
warn that while smart device use gives the illusion of being connected to
others, it's actually reducing our capacity for unique face-to-face emotions
like true empathy. Philosopher and
social critic Louis Székely (okay, actually comedian Louis C.K.) purports that smartphone use
and even texting can rob us of our very humanity (Warning: possibly
offensive language and content).
But we humans have developed a more general predilection for
using compulsions to ease our emotional malaise. Most critics of technology
accept this and point to the fact that we fill that gap with overwork, smoking,
drinking, hoarding, shopping, and eating, and that these behaviors outdate
social media and smartphones. And while science tells us that phones are
ruining our sleep
and memories,
drinking, smoking, and overeating ruin us in other areas anyway.
I happen to fall on
the Luddite side of the smartphone argument. I belong to the 15%
of "young[ish] adults" who don't own one. I see an individual's attention,
as well as my own conversations, interrupted by phone alerts ("phubbing," if you will) all
the time. They're evil, I tells ya. But while it's easy to make the argument
and back it up, I get into problems when considering the history and social
impact of technology.
It's undeniable that technology shapes and changes human
life. The pre-1850 world of carriages and horses was changed immensely by the
stunning growth of the US railroad system. And there was plenty of opposition
to the perceived dangers of such an innovation, as evidenced by the poster on
this page. An
1858 article in Punch complains that "[telegraph wires] within 100
yards of every man's door" would place an individual "always in company with
all our acquaintances" and that "solitude would become impossible." Not only is
this a fascinating look at technological opposition, it also foreshadows a
common argument put forth by those opposed to the spread of social media, some
157 years later. Of course, widespread use of the telegraph enabled development
of the telephone and eventually the internet, both of which seamlessly connect
our global community for better or worse.
To return to the Zen side: it's unfair to decry anything as
objectively good or bad. Amazing new technologies that enable us to never get
lost again or speak to someone halfway across the world at zero cost come with pitfalls.
So what do you think? Should technologies be expected to change human nature
and culture, for worse as well as better? Are these ethical questions worth
considering--for manufacturers, critics, and consumers?
Image credit: US National Archives and Records Administration
| 
Re: Questioning Smartphones and the Philosophy of Technology
Comments rated to be Good Answers: