Technology: The Bad within the Good

Do you ever stop to think about the true cost of modern conveniences? 

We all get used to using the latest gadgets and merchandise, man-made, or processed foods and items without realizing the impact these could have on others. 

 

Growing economically and technologically has always been the central goal and measure of success in our society.  This means building up cities, expanding urban life, creating new buildings with new jobs using the latest technology, etc.  Even though this is thought of as “good”, there are many harmful environmental impacts known today such as air and water pollution, acid rain, and deforestation. This leads to the question:  are there any more negative influences of technological progress?

Cutting-edge technologies may make our lives easier, but there are always consequences to these “goods”.  One example is of farmers in India (as discussed in Raj Patel’s Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System 2008).  Rural families cannot afford the education or new technologies (such as improved irrigation and harvesting methods) to keep up with the demands of expanding Indian cities.  As a result, many farmers are so economically devastated that they are driven to suicide, forever scarring those they leave behind.  In other words, cities expand, but rural areas are left behind and become poorer (example: blue collar jobs disappear).  The following video explains some of the hardships faced when farmers can no longer support their families.

 

This example shows that even though success is measured by “progress”, many do not have the means to be flexible with the ever-changing society. This dependence on advancing technologies is the “bad” within the supposed “good” of development.  Many suffer from the inability to take part in these advancements.

This is seen in many other places, even in our hometowns!

 

Being a college student myself, I felt like I needed a laptop to survive the upcoming years at school.  I never thought about what happened to those who could not purchase this necessary item.  Although many excel, others must invest extra time earning capitol to buy these prerequisites, and thus face lower grades (not to mention the social stigma of not having the latest or coolest new electronics).  What about those young adults who do not have the means to attend college? What about their chances of finding a successful career when they were unable to gain the necessary education?  In rural areas, many people are unable to gain internet (or even cell phone) connections.  These technologies are seen as necessary to stay in touch with society, but these people are left out.  Farms were popular near my hometown, but due to low incomes, many had to find jobs in the larger cities.  New technology is typically seen as good, but many are left behind and face the bad within good. 

Not all is bad.  Many people see the problems caused by advancing development and are working towards mitigating them, or else promoting the importance of lower technology in society.  This includes valuing the underappreciated jobs today such as the farmers discussed above.  Going “green” and going back to organic foods emphasizes the importance of these “rural” ideals.  This shifting paradigm can be seen in new car technologies in which less harmful toxins are released into the atmosphere as well as restaurant advertisements bragging about products being made from farm-grown fresh produce.

With a better understanding of the externalities (positive or negative) of technology, we can work for more advancements, but also consider the impacts of our choices. 

To learn more about the farmers in rural India click the link here:

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-india-farmer-suicide-20140805-story.html#page=1

 

Every drop in the ocean counts

The future will either be green... or not at all. 

     The natural craving for bigger and better things are driven into every one of us, because bigger is better... right? Is it?  We are all contributing to the concept knows as the growth machine, our population and production growing with no concern for the environment. And most people when starting a company don't want to hurt the earth but it becomes a problem and unaccounted externality. The benefits and/or problems that can arise that have not been associated with the product.  if you will. You know, I have always laughed because the one thing that gives us life and keeps the millions and trillions of oxygen particles all at a balance so we can wake up and breath and go to work at the factory day after day, is being taken advantage of. Earth. Our planet... The one place in the infinite amount of space that has just the right balance of everything in order to sustain life, and yet we view it as a thing and money and something you can claim and we rip it apart, tear it down, and kill it.

Do you remember this guy? 

Do you really understand how perfectly in balance our environment t is..? Let's just take a run through on what would happen if we lost oxygen for five seconds, please remember it's five seconds. Anyone under the rays of the sun would get sunburns (molecular oxygen protects our skin against UV rays), the sky would go black as night (fewer oxygen particles in the sky means fewer things for light to bounce off of). Second, the earths crust would crumble (oxygen makes up 45% of earths crust), EVERYONE'S INNER EAR WOULD EXPLODE (because we would loose 21% of air pressure), every building made out of concrete would turn to dust (oxygen is an important binder in concrete). Now if you have to read through this again and just think about all of this happening in a matter of five seconds. This is crazy, if we keep up what we are doing to the environment and cutting down every tree we see, polluting, etc. We are going to die. I refuse to say we are going to be in big trouble because we are already there. We have to go green, we need more oxygen in the air, more animals, more trees, less money, people need to help other people, etc. We know what to do as a human race we just don't because it would affect our lives. Yes... yes it will. Every day hundreds of thousands of animals are being mass produced and slaughtered but we don't want to recycle or eat healthy and organic. The human race is lazy, this is the laziest we have ever been. We can not call ourselves hard workers and productive citizens until we do our part for the environment. It needs our help. 

Did you know, if we cleaned up the earth, reduced waste and toxins released and replanted trees so the oxygen in the atmosphere was doubled we would; feel more energetic every single day, get better gas mileage, the human race would actually be happier, be more alert and have a higher physical performance. Every day that we pollute and contribute to pollution we are hurting not only the planet but the atmosphere around us. We need to give back to the one thing that keeps us alive every day, earth. 

Click here to watch a video

Commodification of the Season

            At the beginning of America’s longest holiday season, advertisements begin taking on a particular form. Around November, advertisers begin pushing a specific mindset, namely: treat yourself. Eat as much turkey as you want! It’s Thanksgiving! You deserve it. Don’t leave all the cookies for Santa; save a plate for yourself. This is a fun mentality for people. Calories don’t count on special occasions, after all. But the fun doesn't get to last. The second the presents are opened and dinner is finished, advertisers flip the switch.

            The end of Christmas leading into the beginning of the new year brings out a different side of advertisers. Look at how much you ate. Don’t you feel bad? Don’t you want to undo that? Start making resolutions. Join our gym. Eat our guilt-free, calorie-free, taste-free meals.

 

[source]     

 Why do we let advertisers do this? The main reason is that it is all we know. It is just "the way society works." Everyone knows that Thanksgiving and Christmas are all about big family dinners and everyone knows that you are supposed to create resolutions to ring in the new year (the fact that we did not manage to keep last year's resolutions is of no consequence). Advertisers can push almost anything they want during the holidays because they are playing upon traditions and norms. Anyone who suddenly stops attending the yearly family of something their ancestors probably did not do is suddenly seen by their family as strange and deviant. A friend who does not reciprocate gifts is a friend who will stop receiving gifts. To be part of society, we must participate in society's traditions in some way.

           We are conditioned to listen to advertisers, or at the very least consider what they are saying. As children, advertisements were how we learned about what products are out there and we learn to want things we do not already have. Even when we become aware of this fact, the effect does not necessarily wear off. We listen to the Thanksgiving and Christmas advertisements because they reflect what we want to hear. We listen to the New Year's advertisements because they reflect what we are worried about. 
            This all leaves us with a society that is in constant conflict with our bodies and this conflict leads us to consume more and more. This consumption comes with consequences. As some people buy into what ads are selling, other people have to work throughout the rest of the year to create the goods. Land has to be taken up to create places to create the goods. People have to work during the very same holidays that advertisers want them to participate in, or else the goods cannot be sold. It is a cycle and it is growing.

           I am by no means saying that we should stop participating in holidays, but maybe when November comes around again, we should take a step back and only buy what we personally want and not what outside pressure wants us to want.
          

 

 

There's Blood On Our Hands

Dear Typical American Consumer,

I have something to say, and it is not pretty.  As a society, we have become so caught up in the convenience of our technology that we fail to look at the consequences of our actions.  Take out your cell phone.  There’s blood on your hands.

There is something precious inside your phone, or at least something precious in the eyes of the technology market today: Coltan. Coltan is a metal ore used in the making of the iphone’s circuit board.  It is also used in most computers, tablets, and smart phones due to its strong ability to store energy and its resistance to heat.  Consider the fact that google estimates about 6.8 billion phone plans in existence; that means there's a lot of Coltan in all those phones.

So, where does Coltan come from?  A primary location is the Democratic Republic of Congo, where many miners are forced to work at the gunpoint of guards to extract the ore.  The wages are poor and the conditions are poorer.  The average wage is between $1-$5 a day, but even this little bit is subject to corrupt taxing and theft from guards.  Is it really “free” labor if you are being watched over by armed militia and might not get paid?

This ore funded the second civil war in the Congo (officially ending in 2002).  Millions lost their lives due to this civil war, and many continue to lose their lives today.  The war was funded by external sources hoping to hold the Congo down in poverty so that Coltan prices may stay low as well.  One man’s cheap i-Phone is another man’s life.  Civil war and unrest still ravages the country today, much funded by the unfair trade of the countries "blood mineral".

These social impacts are beyond disturbing, but what about further environmental impacts?  Extreme soil erosion is occurring due to the lack of environmental regulations.  Poverty and lack of resources has lead to more hunting of the endangered lowland gorilla, elephants, and many other local sources of bushmeat. Desperate times call for desperate measures, right?  You can hardly blame the people of the Congo.

Where should the blame go then?

I cannot answer this question fully, but it sure gives you a lot to think about.  In our society, phones and computers are not only considered a convenience, but also a necessity by many.  This is the way of The Social Order of Convenience. That is, we are so set in our ways of living that functioning in another way seems like an unfathomable inconvenience.  This all seems rather hopeless at this point.  But, of course, as a consumer you have a choice.

There are some things you can do.  For a start, you can be a conscientious consumer.  Look to buy products that are conflict free (meaning you can trace the sources of the minerals).  Another step is recycling your old phones with environmentally friendly companies.  Lobby for stricter laws on the monitoring of the origins of precious metals.  Lobby for alternatives to mining altogether!  The issue may seem out of your hands, but, as consumers, we have the power to make decisions that will not only affect ourselves, but the world over.  We can change the technology we use.

I would like to recognize that there is no way that I am able to cover the vast amount of information and issues related to this topic.  These issues plague many undeveloped and under-developed countries, not only the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  As a student, I feel just as much responsibility (and guilt for that matter) about the results of my actions as I seem to be calling out from you.  For more information on the topic or what you can do to make responsible decisions, check out the links below.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Student- Emily

https://www.freetheslaves.net/congo/

http://www.enoughproject.org/conflicts/eastern_congo/conflict-minerals

https://iphoneproj2011.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/coltan-mining-its-environmental-impacts/

http://tommakau.com/2011/04/02/how-your-phone-or-ipad-funds-civil-war-in-the-congo/

http://www.okayafrica.com/news/what-does-the-congo-think-about-apples-iphone-announcement/

http://www.congoweek.org/en/coltan-facts.html

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/the-environmental-costs-and-benefits-of-our-cell-phones.html

Man and the Machine

The marriage between man and machine is not all roses, long walks on the beach and romantic candle lit dinners. Their bond goes much deeper than screws and bolts. They are of the same nature with different composition. Man and morality, machine and mechanics. The duality between man’s desire to flourish and technology is as pure as Adam’s love for Eve with the success of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries. Is humanity doomed by innovation or evolving into mechanically engineered super humans?

Robots are not longer a Sy-Fi fantasy; they are a staple in modern culture. They control virtually everything we do from our alarms going off in the morning to controlling the firmness of our mattresses at night. We are intimate with robots on a daily basis. Recent technological advancements have taken this relationship to a whole new level- penetration. Scientists have developed a variety of prosthetics that utilize the power of the mind to control robotic extremities. An individual undergoes brain surgery to have a small device implanted in their brain to direct their thoughts to the prosthetic. Then as they think about moving their incapacitated limb, the robot moves in accordance to their mental commands. This technology can be applied in the form of a wearable unit as well as an external device. Individuals with disabilities are given the power of movement and are able to experience a sense of freedom so many of us take for granted.

From the failure of the peg leg to super-human body parts, man and machine are able to progress as a result of the problems they encounter. The relationship between man and machine has conceived a remarkable work of innovation that demonstrates the potential to transform people’s lives for generations to come.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2012/may/16/mind-controlled-robotic-arm-video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NOncx2jU0Q

The cranky voice of environmentalism drives a mazda

Product placement within pop culture has become so common that we may not consciously notice, even if it does have some influence on our consumption. Movies cleverly place brands within the story line or background. Athletes wear name brands on their jerseys. People tote around bags with designer logos. Corporate logos have become cozy. Often these cozy corporations sponsor specific forms of art within pop culture, or they co-brand — two brands existing in the same space—  and they create an outcome like the LoraxMazda commercial. 

It is easy to argue that today, automobiles are our culture’s greatest environmental threat, therefore changing driving habits and attitudes would have a large impact on the environment. But while the commercial is advertising the Mazda CX-5’s use of the new, greener, and more environmental friendly Skyactiv technology, there are obviously other cars that are much friendlier towards the  environment. Although the Mazda receives the “Truffula tree approval seal",  Toyato’s  Prius averages 51/48 mpg. (http://www.toyota.com/prius/). So why is the Lorax, today’s “cranky voice of environmentalism”  (Laurel Sutton), advertising something environmentally harmful, and furthermore why is an environmentally sensitive film about tree conservation, that depicts the impact corporate greed has on the environment , co branding with a greedy corporation. The irony is never ending.

The Mazda CX5 is neither eco friendly nor kid friendly. Mazda is attempting to use the appearance of the lorax in thier commercial to appeal to the nostalgic parents of the children. a sneaky marketing technique, attempting to make the Mazda come off as nostalgic and eco friendly. This attempt to appeal to parents through the children is a marketing technique called sentimental advertising, attempting to reach out to the viewers in a sentimental way. They are specifically using green advertising, marketing that the car is "eco friendly", which will appeal to some because they will feel that they are doing their part to help the environment; or, often, people will want to show off their economic standing through consumption, this arguably falls under the esteem category of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.Maslow believed that people are motivated to recieve rewards or some unconscious desires, thus creating a hierarchy of needs. Buying a "eco friendly" vehicle could fall under the fourth level of the pyramid, esteem. The advertisments are using the lorax to promote the car as "eco friendly" and appeal to people on a sentimental level, but in reality cars simply  do not appeal in a sentimental way because they have no Hau (things that are mixed into our souls, not about the dollar value of object, but rather appeals to a person on a intimate level) Vehicles are cranked out of companies by people we never meet, and typically bought because of price and convenience. Bell describes that "we care about these purchased goods because of how they serve our interests." The MazdaCX-5 will most likely have no sentimental deep appeal to the parents that are exposed to this commercial, but by having the Lorax shill for the cars, the company hopes to appeal on a level that is beyond convenience and price. If I had to make an educated guess, I would have to say that the lorax probably wouldnt drive a Mazda CX-5. 

Why We're Doomed: Realist vs. Constructionist

The human race has always been perceived as notoriously "shifty" at best. There are the activists who condemn the human race for killing the Earth, the only planet within any traveling distance that humans are capable of living on. There are corporate bigwigs that make big money from polluting the ecosystem, as well as the average citizen who pollutes and either doesn't know any better, or just doesn't care. Overpopulation is an enormous problem and is only getting worse. The world is simultaneously drying up and filling up; we are losing clean, fresh water through careless overuse and keep finding that the ocean's water levels continue to rise, to a point where it's sometimes mixing with the fresh water and forcing some communities to relocate. The rising water levels can be traced to the polar ice caps melting, which can then be traced to global warming. Which we all know is our fault. I'm not exempt from the contribution-- I have a car that runs on gas and oil, similar to almost everyone else in the world. I have a fan that runs continuously day and night in my room, even when I'm not there. Sometimes I leave my light on when I leave. And I have a fridge and microwave that I keep plugged in even though I rarely use either of them. My decisions aren't doing anything to help the environmet, even if they don't sound that bad, besides my occasional recycling of water bottles. This perspective is known as the realist perspective. Basically, I'm describing how consumptiom , economy and technology effect the environment. As said by Michael Bell in his book "An Invitation To Environmental Sociology," "realists argue that environmental problems cannot be understood apart from the threats posed by the way we have organized our societies, including the organization of ecologic relations. They believe that we can ill afford to ignore the material truths of organizational problems and their ecological consequences" (4). I however, did not mention the sociological aspect of considering environmental issues. As Bell describes, bringing in a sociological argument to environmental issues is called a constructionist perspective. "Constructionists," Bell says, "do not necessarily disagree [with realists], but they emphasize the influence of social life on how we conceptualize those problems, or lack of these problems" (4). Environmental sociology considers the impact different societies have on the environment and why.

Bell's book (at least the first few chapters) practically explains why we, as a human race, are destined to extinction if we don't change our living habits soon. He explains that due to social inequality, we want what we can't have and destroy the environment in the process. Working to get that new gas-guzzling Range Rover or brand new house in a great rural neighborhood is not good for the rest of the world. However, since everyone wants to show off their wealth by buying unnecessary flashy items, change is unlikely. From a realist perspective, one would argue that this consumption is a major problem. From a constructionist perspective, one would argue that because social standards are so high, people feel forced into buying such items. While there are other aspects to consider, these perspectives allow you to see why there seems to be nothing done about the environment despite it being a huge problem. It's hard to fix social inequality, and it's not going to be fixed after some major re-evaluation of the individual impact to society and the environment and vice versa.