Dear technology, please stop making me dependent upon you. Thank you, once-powerful human being.

I don’t understand why scientists would make advancements in technology to the point we would have thinking machines in our world. If technologists were able to confine the future thinking robots to scientific labs where they could help in the discovery of the cure for cancer, for example, thinking robots would not terrify me as much. What puzzles me mostly about the controversial topic of eugenics, robotics and nanotechnology is the idea that humans would allow technology to become intelligently superior to us. Additionally, we are already allowing technology to leave some people that have no hopeful professional options in life jobless and guess what? Even more hopeless.

In relation to robotics: If human beings have the highest capabilities of thinking on earth,
why would we ever allow machines to surpass us? If there is the possibility of making
us less capable, less intelligent and less powerful, we should do everything, scientists
especially, to prevent this from occurring. 

In relation to genetically engineered humans: If our society correctly
implements modified
genes into fetuses, scientists could prevent new coming babies from having the
genes that contract terrible diseases. It would be so simple, effective and probably one of the
best inventions in science to remoce cancer and diabetes genes, if only it were accessible to
everyone. However, there is the frightening chance that science and government will allow 
for parents to request every type of gene to be modified in order to produce “designer
babies”, then our world will be threatened by a possible take–over by these genetically
modified superior beings. Not only that, but this treatment will never be available to the lower
class, which means inequality will boost and opportunities of success for the poorer
population will diminish to an even smaller chance than the one that exists now. 

In relation to machines taking over many low-wage jobs: It’s happening. In grocery
stores, parking lots, subway stations, airport check in desks and subways even… Machines
have already started taking away the jobs of a large number of people that rely on low
paying jobs that do not require any sort of superior academic skills or diplomas.

Perhaps I am thinking too much into the future or something too “sci-fi movie

ish” that actually won’t happen. Yet it is a threat notorious technology experts such as Bill
Joy and Theodore Kaczynski agree will happen if we are not careful. It is imperative that
influential and powerful institutions like governments and GNR (Genetics, Nanotechnology,
Robotics) companies come up with agreements that will allow for the advancement of these
incredibly beneficial technologies without implementing their destructiveness that can harm
many sectors of our society in the long term.

“What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of
such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of
the machines' decisions” Bill Joy, Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us

Sounds scary? I confess it made me a little more relieved. As the author points out earlier,
“[scientists and technicians] are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily
turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power”. But we
would become so dependent on machines that they would “naturally” overpower us. Due to
this threat of dependency and consequent take-over of machines, government and GNR
companies should impose policies that would reduce the number of powerful technologies
launched into the market yearly, in order to reduce our dependency on machines for literally
every aspect of life. Furthermore, they should come to agreements that companies will stop
producing technologies that facilitate or replace every chore and task; that companies will
give humans some space to solve their problems without the help of technology, so that we
can still put our brains to work to prevent this machine take-over. There will certainly be the
issue of profit for the companies, since they’ll be limiting their production in some way, but
since they are aware of the extreme dependency that their inventions are imposing upon the
human race and the threat machines pose to human capability, thinking, and effort, they
should be moral enough to want to prevent this too. The whole issue with the possible take
over of machines is the fact that we are becoming lazier and lazier each year to “manually”
perform our tasks, which occurs because of technology companies’ yearly inventions of
machines that substitute every type of manual labor. If any type of powerful institution
succeeded in limiting these inventions, not only in quantity but also in level of facilitation that
it provides, we could delay this take-over for quite a lot of years.

"The GenRich - who account for 10 percent of the American population - all carry synthetic genes... that were created in the laboratory ...All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class...Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as labourers, and their children go to public schools... the GenRich class and the Natural class will become...entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee", Lee Silver, Re-making Eden.

I had hope in relation to eugenics, but let's face it: only the upper class will be
benefitted by the utopian idea of genetic engineering. Lee Silver's claim that the future
genetically enhanced upper class will exercise even more control over the world and will
widen the gap of the rich and the poor is probably very accurate. I thought inequality would
shrink in future years but it just bewilders me to realize technology can destroy that potential
solution. Before I even researched about genetic modification, I did not think it was unethical
to remove disease and disorder genes from embryos since it would prevent so many 
sicknesses and burdens from taking place. But after pondering upon the social impacts that 
the implementation of human genetic engineering would bring, I could not help but aspire for
some sort of worldwide regulation that made this new technology available to everyone. I
can myself that will not happen, but is it too much if I ask that future parents that decide to
enhance their future babies not alter their personalities or intelligence? There is enough lack
of ethics in human genetic engineering already. 

The sad reality about the impacts upon the lower class with the future implementation 
of genetic engineering is not the only factor that is already depriving people of jobs,
unfortunately. It is unbelievable how machines are taking over the low-wage job sector of 
society in so many different departments of service. In one of the supermarkets in the East 
Village, there are usually two cashiers in the check-out desks out of the available five or six.
The other supermarket customers line up in the self-service check out machines, which work
surprisingly well. It's only a question of time until most of the supermarket's clerks are 
replaced by machines. Independent and technological service is probably much less costly 
then maintaining paying workers that are equally efficient compared to the machines. In 
many airports, the check-in desks are slowly being replaced by....machines! I've tried them a 
few times and it's ridiculously quick! Since the check-in desk employees are still there, 
but in much smaller qualities, there are usually no lines to use these machines, and the 
employees that lurk around the travelers serve only to guide us where to place our suitcases. 
These machines are so useful and efficient already that the only change that will occur in the 
next years is the application of more machines and firing of more workers. The social 
consequences of the implementation of machines to substitute low-educated workers will
increasingly concern governments who will find it hard to maintain these workers employed
in our future technologically dominated economic system. An increasingly amount of jobless 
people will arise, since professions requiring low schooling and no machines will decrease 
significantly in the years to come. Combine this "promising" fact for low class people 
together with future designer humans who will control all the main industries in the world and
we leave to them a hopeless world in the name of technology.  

Westernization is not a synonym for Homogenization

I am trying to figure out the negative aspects of a society being privileged enough to have more access to more resources of different cultures. There is no doubt that huge multinational corporations are imposing their presence in more countries, especially in low and middle income ones. But coming from a middle-income country that has been greatly Americanized over the past century, I know my culture has not lost one bit of its genuineness because of foreign influences. Yes, I must agree and include in this post that we are great consumers, especially when regarding the fact Brazilians travel to the United States many times to shop for clothes, electronics and housing objects. But having more access to foreign influences in all aspects of culture does not homogenize Americans/Westerners and Brazilians, it simply makes us, and other cultures similarly influenced by them, more aware of international trends and culture. A society secluded within its own culture results in a close-minded, primitive and culturally stagnated country. Cultures develop through time with the introduction of new technologies and foreign influences, but with most nations, especially Brazil, their true, original culture isn’t erased by foreign stores, food, music and movies. A person can be influenced by foreign cultures, but it takes one’s true will to want to abandon one’s original custom in order to become homogenized with another society. Is Brazil similar to the United States? No way. But we do see American presence in certain restaurants and in music/movie stores and festivals. What can be seen the most is people’s desire to sometimes get more “western” food, seen as many Brazilians find foreign goods and culture more sophisticated and interesting. But that in no way results in the abandonment of Brazilian culture; it simply reflects our willingness to become aware about different people’s, customs, music, movies and food.

Culturally, we still love listening to music from Brazil such as Bossa Nova, MPB (Brazilian Popular Music), Samba, Funk, Axé and a few others, but the presence of American, British and other international pop and rock singers is still prevalent. I can't disregard the fact that some people simply do not enjoy Brazilian music and would rather have electronic and hip-hop/R&B music from America in their iPods. The movies we all cannot get over and still talk about are City of God and Elite Squad 1 & 2, two incredible products of our not very notable cinema industry. But again, some people simply do not enjoy Brazilian cinema, which is incomparable to Hollywood, but that does not make those people less Brazilian. Taste should not be mixed with culture. The event we look most forward to is the famous Carnaval, a week full of street and Samba school parades that reflect the true essence of Brazilian history and atmosphere. Paradoxically, Brazilians also adore buying coffee from one of the three over-priced Starbucks around the city, as well as getting burgers at McDonald’s or Burger King. Furthermore, we love Hollywood movies and foreign music, but that does not in any way make us more Western or American or more similar to parts of the world where this culture dominates. Western influence in Brazil has led to great cultural achievements such as Film Festivals around the country airing many movies from multiple nations. In recent years, Brazil has been investing more and more on the entertainment industry and now we have great music festivals (with mostly American, European, Brazilian and some African bands/artists) such as Lollapalooza, Planeta Terra, and SWU (Starts With You) in São Paulo and the huge Rock in Rio in Rio de Janeiro. It benefits Brazilians to have more access yearly to different cultural festivals simply because it opens people’s minds into being more aware of practices and characteristics of other cultures, reflected through music and cinema.

 Brazilian Carnaval - Rio de Janeiro

            In Brazil, globalization does not only take place in the highest income states such as Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Rio Grande do Sul. It takes place where tourists go, bringing their culture and influencing local, low-income residents to search for knowledge outside of Brazilian culture. I had the privilege of travelling to the northeast party of my country in January of this year. I was in Lençóis, Bahia, one of the poorest states in Brazil, on a hiking trip with my boyfriend. Lençóis is a tiny village of 9,446 people with an illiteracy rate of 28.53 %. It has one bank located at the town square, one Internet café with no more than 10 computers and the predominant architecture reflects the Brazilian colonial period. Interestingly, the multiple restaurants attracting tourists have cuisines such as northern Brazilian, southern/central Brazilian, Italian, Arab and Mexican. In a tiny city of less than 10,000 people is it not incredible that there is such a strong global presence in the gastronomical scene of Lençóis? But what most bewildered me about Lençóis was Milson, my guide for the hiking trip I took.

            Mílson had such a strong northern accent, typical of one who had the minimum amount of education, a common trend in the northeast of Brazil. He had a “caipira” accent, sort of hillbilly-ish, and he got almost every verb wrong. But only after I actually got to talk to Mílson did I realize how well read and cultured he was, despite the fact he had never left northeast Brazil in his life. There was so much passion when he spoke about the wildlife in that area of Bahia, and so much bewilderment about the idea of humans fearing animals more than they fear other people. Apart from being incredibly eloquent for someone with so little education, Mílson knew and had strong opinions about politics, as well as the 2008 economic recession and about the one now where Greece, Spain and Italy are most recently being affected by. He told stories about French, Dutch, English and American tourists who went on the trail with him and always invited him to come with them back to their respective countries. He did not mind the fact he could not afford a trip to these countries; he was happy staying in Lençóis, his hometown. When we got back from the trail, we invited him to dinner, and to my surprise, Mílson’s great cultural knowledge expressed itself through music too! A musician was playing Metallica covers and our guide did not hesitate in singing along to many of the songs with him. Also at dinner he informed us one of the tourists he guided offered to pay for an English course so he could better communicate with the foreign tourists that hiked with him. He told us he would take it, but that he never intends to leave Brazil. Perhaps one day he’ll leave Lençóis, but he again claimed all he needed was in his town. Mílson is the perfect example of a man who has and will be eternally influenced by foreigners. He learned about economics, politics, words and expressions in foreign languages and a bit of culture from all of his tourists, but he’s still completely immersed within Brazilian culture. Most importantly, Mílson does not want to leave his hometown, his country or abandon his cultural roots, despite the fact he has the knowledge to “Westernize” himself.

 Mílson, the guide!

The benefits of computer usage in a liberal education system class

The technology era we now live in provides students and teachers with a wider scope of available information that brings innumerable benefits when combined with a liberal approach to education.  From the use of computers in class, to the use of blogs as informal writing, to the concept of Internet based university classes- these can bring much more positive outcomes to every student and teacher, provided they are open to a manner of learning in which the student becomes the teacher while the teacher becomes the student too, otherwise known as Paulo Freire’s liberatory education. Using technology for academic purposes in and out of classrooms brings in more information and topics for discussion and analysis, if combined with a completely liberal education, as opposed to the common system of banking education.

Brazilian educator and theorist of critical pedagogy, Paulo Freire

An example of a college lecture class, or, an oppressive education system known as the banking system

In a classroom where a professor does not exert her/his total authority over students and does not oppress them with her/his teachings, the use of computers can bring much more intriguing topics for discussions as opposed to the common idea that it only brings distractions. Let’s think about it this way, in a liberatory education system class, students are even more encouraged to participate and contribute to the discussion since the topics explored are shaped throughout the exchange of views between students and teachers. Therefore, when one certain topic comes up that interests one particular student for example, it might trigger her/him to look for an article on the internet that contributes greatly to the discussion and might even prompt another topic to be discussed. Additionally, due to the ideology of a more liberal education system, a student is less inclined to procrastinate and become uninterested in the class, since a wide range of topics are discussed. Consequently, the use of computers thus allows students to activate a huge database of information that maintains them intrigued rather than uninterested in the class.

Class participation constitutes the main objective in the liberal education system

Outside the classroom, based on the wide range of topics and ideas encountered in class, students benefit even further by accomplishing their written assignments with a more liberal approach. As suggested by Cathy Davidson’s article “Collaborative Learning in a DigitalAge”, writing blogs rather than essays permits students to write with a less rigorous structure and less limitations. They are freer to express themselves by approaching a wider range of topics within the issues discussed in class, if the professor approaches the class with liberal methods. In a typical banking education systemized class, blogs would never be allowed exactly because every assignment has very strict limitations. The simple concept of blogging for other people to read creates an idea of competition, which acts as a motivational trigger for students to produce a better-written work that truly reflects their writing characteristics and more personal point of views. Now, as to the question of tweeting for classroom purposes as proposed by Eva Kassens-Noor in “Twitter as a teaching practice to enhance active…”, I believe it is much less effective for student academic freedom. Despite the fact twitter facilitates student-student-teacher communication, the same easy virtual interaction can be found utilizing the school’s/university’s based online networking system (for example: NYU classes, Edmodo, Blackboard etc). I am not arguing Twitter is entirely ineffective, but there are in fact other online mechanisms where students and teachers can interact with one another. But going back to the point about a liberal approach to education- since students and teachers share their knowledge, concerns, experiences and opinions all through class, these online resources allow them to continue their sharing outside of classroom. Additionally, writing online and giving their comments on peers’ ideas online is so effective for the shy or insecure students, especially, since they are not pressured to contribute in class and can thus share their ideas in a more comfortable way.

Online universities are more difficult mechanisms to apply to Freire’s liberatory education system. Because students do not interact personally with other students and the teacher, in a way it becomes harder for both groups to learn from one another. In class, the discussions and sharing of ideas occurs more naturally and some topics or issues that arise are better understood and more striking when listening to another person, due to their emotions and emphasis on certain ideas. But still, since some prospective university students have certain academic barriers, Internet based universities are extremely effective in providing them with an education, even if it is not as effective as going to an actual college. Still, when comparing Internet based university classes to the effects and benefits of blogs, they allow students to express themselves in a similarly virtual way. Although the banking education system might be prevalent in these online universities, the discussion forums keep students, teachers and their ideas interconnected and open for deliberation.

There is no doubt to me that the internet and the use of computers in and out of classroom keeps students intrigued and more aware of the topics discussed in a liberatory education system class. In a banking education systemized class, due to the fact that the teacher is worried about transferring his own knowledge and facts to students, the use of computers drive their attention away since it acts as a resource to escape the depositing of information that the professor focuses on. Computers and the internet can have negative effects upon people as we all know, such as driving attention away from work and study and being an overall great device to procrastinate. However, that happens exactly when either the class or the task are extremely boring or limited to a specific topic, structure and purpose. In a liberal class, computers enhance the quality of the conversation by allowing students to research articles about topics that might not entirely connect with the class discussion, but that will probably open students' (including the teacher) minds into reconsidering their views or simply thinking about one certain matter in a different way. 

                                                   

Psychological Problems Are Connected to Violence, not Video Games!

Video games can be played as a hobby, as a pastime activity, as a social activity, as an escapist strategy or sometimes as a training program. The controversial question as to how video games truly impact players became clearer to me after reading many experiments and analysis, especially in relation to violent video games. In general, they act like the Internet in being more entertaining than harder tasks such as homework and consequently divert players’ attention away from engaging in productive schoolwork. More specifically, I completely disagree that violent video games are the cause for violent or possibly murderous activities that gamers can engage in (ex: murderers of Columbine, Utøya Island in Norway, Virginia Tech etc). One fact I am now certain of is that when the media publishes articles about mass murderers’ natures being connected to violent video games, the arguments can be completely rebutted because there are certainly more factors that play a role on their behavior than simply blaming it on these virtual activities. However, violent video games still should be kept away from little kids just for the sake of innocency. 

When reading the articles, I kept rebutting the assumptions the analysts were making that violent video games directly correlate to violent activities. Despite the fact that I have never played video games as a leisure activity, I believe that different studies can conclude different analysis about how violent video games affect players. It depends on multiple factors such as the psychological background of the player, how much time they play, how addicted they are and how susceptible they are to become influenced by the games. In the study conducted by C.A. Anderson and K.E. Dill in 2000 named “Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life”, they conclude that Playing violent games has been shown to decrease prosocial behavior and to increase aggressive thoughts and behaviors, but it is essential to highlight how many other factors play a role in determining whether a person becomes more violent. Another example that emphasizes on the uncertainty of the correlation between aggressive behavior and violent video games is the ban of the “Call of Duty” games in Norway after the Utøya Islands attack perpetrated by right extremist Anders Breivik in 2011. In an article in The Guardian by Simon Parkin, the sub headline says: “The backlash against games is misplaced. Yes, their focus is narrow, their themes violent, but they can hardly be held responsible for a troubled mind”. Breivik did not kill 77 people because he played “Call of Duty/Modern Warfare”. He was never influenced by them to cause the attacks; on the contrary, he utilized these games to train his shooting skills, as published by The Guardian. This statement proves his self-developed fascism was the cause of the attacks, and the video games played no role in triggering his violent behavior.

            Also in 2011 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, a disturbed 23-year-old alumni of a public school in the Realengo neighborhood shot and killed 12 children. In a home-made video made available by the Brazilian newspaper O Globo one day prior to the attacks (note: video is in Portuguese), Wellington Menezes de Oliveira explains his reasons to commit the murders, and he includes the following statement that provides us with more background to his psychological problems: “Despite my loneliness and practically not having a family- I live alone and have nobody to explain my reasons to-”. Additionally, after media officials talked to his ex-classmates, it became known that Wellington was a victim of bullying and constantly made fun of by his classmates. The connection to make with this case and this blog post is that Wellington was in no way associated with ever playing violent video games. His reasons are totally clear: he had family problems and was a victim of bullying. Wellington’s disturbed mind caused by his family problems triggered him into entering a state of anger against society, ultimately leading to his attacks.

            In a study conducted by C.J. Ferguson, C San Miguel and R.D. Hardley, they conclude that the most obvious positive predictors of youth violence were bad influences (peers, friends), antisocial personality traits, depression, and guardians who use some sort of psychological abuse. The factors that were not found to be predictive of youth violence included neighborhood quality, parental use of domestic violence in intimate relationships, and exposure to violent television or video games. On a more personal perspective, I admire parents not allowing their small children to play aggressive video games at such a young age. Perhaps one might think I am contradicting myself, but displaying gruesome and violent scenes to such young children in a way makes them more knowledgeable in relation to the harsh realities of the world. It is not to say that video games accurately portray the realities of the world, but hiding it from children just makes them have a younger mind full of more beautiful ideas of the world for a bit longer. 

Citations/References:

Anderson, CA., & Dill, K.E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behav- ior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 78,722-790.

Ferguson CJ, San Miguel C, Hartley RD. A multivariate analysis of youth violence and aggression: the influence of family, peers, depression, and media violence. J Pediatr. 2009; 155(6):904-908. 

"Novo Video Wellington Menezes De Oliveira." YouTube. YouTube, 12 Apr. 2011. Web. 25 Sept. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0t-7vctGE8>

Parkin, Simon. "Don't Blame Video Games for Anders Behring Breivik's Massacre." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 22 Apr. 2012. Web. 25 Sept. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/22/video-games-anders-breivik-massacre>.

Pidd, Helen. "Anders Breivik 'trained' for Shooting Attacks by Playing Call of Duty."The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 19 Apr. 2012. Web. 25 Sept. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/19/anders-breivik-call-of-duty>.

Wellington Menezes Era Vítima De 'bullying' Nos Tempos Da Escola." O Globo. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2012. <http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/wellington-menezes-era-vitima-de-bullying-nos-tempos-da-escola-2798927>.