Entry 2: The Big Picture

I think that Suzuki is suggesting that we have become accustomed to certain luxuries which have become more like "necessities" and part of everyday life. Circa 1995, life continued on, despite the absence of these technologically advanced gadgets. We, however, have since forgot these more simplistic times and gave grown largely dependent on technology. Though it is irrefutable that iPods, high speed internet and cell phones make life incredibly more convenient, it is not to say that we as human beings cannot live without them. I think Suzuki is urging us to remember the less-technologically-dependent time of 1995 (which was by no means a 'Stone Age' either) and ponder our own capacity to function without the gadgets which have been so cleverly marketed as essential to our own day-to-day lives.

In today’s world, technology is essential. It’s hard to imagine life without cell phones, iPods, or using the Internet as an efficient way to communicate because our society has become so accustomed to their ease. On the other hand, networking websites, such as Facebook and Twitter, are consuming people’s lives. For some reason, I have not been sucked in to the Facebook addiction, but I know that I would have much difficulty living without my cell phone. I think Suzuki is trying to get us to realize that technology should improve, not dominate life.

I think Suzuki is trying to raise the question of when exactly technology became so entwined with our lives that living without a cellphone or facebook would raise questions about your sanity. There was a certain point when being "normal" meant you had to be able to use all the aforementioned products but no one seems to know when exactly or questions why they became necessary to living a normal life in the first place.

In my understanding of David Suzuki's comment, he demonstrates that while modern technology enables its users to connect with others 'easier and faster than ever before', perhaps these gadgets actually isolate us physically from others. Instead of allowing people to connect more efficiently, maybe it has made physical human interaction more complicated, if not difficult for some. I think Suzuki’s simple phrasing of “What’s wrong?” from friends and family members embodies our society’s focus on using technology and pathologizes those who do not, meaning there must be something wrong with that person. Suzuki could be questioning why these technologies are viewed as necessary in order to participate and communicate with others in everyday life and whether they are even necessary in order for society to function.

Suzuki is trying to show that what we think are necessities now, are not really necessities. So much so that if we stopped using them people would think we are crazy. The main question is that is it really that much worse off in 1995 then 2010?

Suzuki in this quote is noticing how quickly technology trends can evolve. Another interesting aspect of technology trends is how they evolve separate from logic. What products are developed or have staying power is not based on logic reasoning but the invisible aspect of the consumer. There is an infamous story in my family. My father, the engineer, sat down and weighed that pros and cons of whether to invest in the a-track or the VHS tapes. He thought about it logically and since the a-track tapes were the better technology he told the whole family to buy them. However the VHS tapes dominated the market and my family never trusted my father again. My father made this decision forgetting to keep in mind that technology trends are heavily influenced by the consumer and what they want. Not every consumer sits downs and logically thinks before purchasing something. Instead they are influenced by the products commercial, how it looks, and what personality types it is associated with. Suzuki should maybe also reflect on what the world today would look like if all of the other alternative technology product succeeded from 1995.

To me, this quote means that all this technology that seems to run our lives now is not as important as we have constructed. People lived for years without anything close to the technology we have now and didn't miss it. I wouldn't mind living in 1995 (again) at all, but I think it would be easier not knowing what you were missing in terms of easy communication with a blackberry or the convenience of working out with an ipod. Still, I hardly think people's lives were more difficult or hard to deal with or deprived in 1995 as compared to now. While new technology makes some things easier, it always comes with a price-time, money, frustration when things break, less personal interaction.

We have definitely seen a technological boom in the last couple of years. Growing up, I always thought new technologies were only for those who were really well off, like cell phones and the internet; now I think completely different because cell phones and the internet have gone from being a "want" to a "need." I think Suzuki's argument is simple: what was once a luxury has now become a necessity and we have, greatly, become accustomed to them. If we honestly think about it, would we be ok with getting rid of all that the author lists above? Not completely. It is true that these gadgets have made everything for us simpler, but I do not believe that we would not be able to survive without them, to the point of going to counseling. I think Suzuki is suggesting we go back to being less dependent on technology. On the other hand, I also feel it would be difficult to do so given the fact we are so accustomed to it already and because of all the new gadgets and technologies that are yet to be introduced to us.

David Suzuki elicits a provoking perspective on the subject of technology and its use in modern society—that many technological inventions and innovations that people deem essential are really excessive and unnecessary. Suzuki states that if one were to remove what are considered standard technological elements of life such as cell phones or DVD players from their daily routines, they would be emulating a lifestyle from 1995. Although technological progress has increased the efficiency of various aspects of human functioning throughout the last decade, Suzuki demonstrates that without the extravagant technology that the modern, average individual utilizes, people would still survive.

Suzuki presents the dramatic leap of technology that is overlooked by a majority of the population. Technology has become a perceived necessity by those who have come in contact with its functions; yet considering that the list of items presented by Suzuki did not exist during 1995 an argument against their true value can be upheld. A population existed and conducted daily routines prior to the introduction of these instruments, suggesting that technology has crossed the boundary between an individual’s needs and desires.

There are currently more than 350 million active Facebook members and half of them sign in to their account in any given day. Facebook as well as other communication sites have become a necessity. Technology has greatly advanced since 1995, so much so that it has become a part of everyone’s daily life. We have become so accustomed to using fancy electronic devices that we wonder how others function without them. Suzuki is depicting the opposite of this, that these “necessities” are really only wants since the population was just fine without them. Ironically enough, now that we have been introduced to this vastly technological world, we cannot go back to the “simplicity” of 1995.

I think that Suzuki is trying to show that life has not changed all that much since 1995. By pointing out possessions as the means by which American life has changed, it seems like he is trying to argue that nothing has hugely changed the quality of life that people enjoy. When he talks about being viewed as crazy for throwing these newer possessions away, I think that Suzuki is arguing that many people are in a strive to get to the freshest or newest lifestyle. It is becoming more apparent to me, however, that these new technologies are becoming necessities in American life today.

Suzuki is pointing out the attachment that we have developed to electronic communication in the past 15 years. We have this idea that all of these various forms of communication will bring us closer when they can actually pull us apart. Instead of having face-to-face conversations we chat online. This allows us to hide our true emotions and therefore causes our relationships to be more shallow. It is easier to put up a facade of how we want our "friends" to view us by only writing e-mails, posting photos, or youtube videos that portray us in the manner of which we would like to be perceived. We can create a completely opposite persona to our true selves and those closest to us may never know the difference. As Suzuki suggests, we have become accustomed to the shallow form of communication which is why our friends and families would call us crazy for giving it all up. Suzuki brings up an interesting thought: if we turn off, log off, tune out, and communicate with ourselves, would we like the person we are conversing with?

If I were asked to give up all the devices listed above now, knowing that they do exist and having used them before, I don’t think I could do it. I’ve grown accustomed to having these objects around. Even though I don’t need them to survive, they comfort me. Living the life of a person in 1995 without these items, I’d feel disconnected. I could live without the satellite television, DVD player, and HDTV, but not the Facebook account, high speed internet, and Blackberry. The three necessities are how I keep in contact with family and friends. Many people I know will no longer answer their phone because they don’t like to converse in spoken words. Technology has given them a more pleasurable form of communication. If it weren’t for texting and chatting, I’m not sure I’d ever hear from them.

David Suzuki is trying to raise a point on present technology dependency. Technology is no longer a luxury, its more so a necessity, actually... more than anything, it's an addiction.

Some important topics that are introduced to me personally are:
-How the addiction to technology has created a rise in social interaction via technology (e.g. email, texting, facebook, myspace, etc.), but a decline in personal social interaction.
-Corporation control of society through technology and advertisement. And furthermore, subliminal messages we might be willingly receiving through technology and advertisement.
-The rise in instant gratification. For example in 1995 the norm for internet speed was dial up, but now it is high speed. It is like a drug induced effect, we constantly NEED it to be faster. Not only does it have to be faster, but it has to be handy on our cell phones.

David Suzuki is trying to raise a point on present technology dependency. Technology is no longer a luxury, its more so a necessity, actually... more than anything, it's an addiction.

Some important topics that are introduced to me personally are:
-How the addiction to technology has created a rise in social interaction via technology (e.g. email, texting, facebook, myspace, etc.), but a decline in personal social interaction.
-Corporation control of society through technology and advertisement. And furthermore, subliminal messages we might be willingly receiving through technology and advertisement.
-The rise in instant gratification. For example in 1995 the norm for internet speed was dial up, but now it is high speed. It is like a drug induced effect, we constantly NEED it to be faster. Not only does it have to be faster, but it has to be handy on our cell phones.

I think that Suzuki means that our life is as happy as before although our life in 2010 is more convenient than that in 1995. Convenience doesn't mean happiness. Two years ago, I didn't have my cell phone, Facebook account, television, iPod, and DVD player, but I didn't feel I was unhappy. Therefore, in my opinion, technology doesn't matter our happiness.

I think his build up and the way he presents his argument is very effective; the way he abruptly forces you to realize our current situation. I think that his main point is that we have lost sight of what does (or is supposed to) really matter. Our society is so stuck on technological advancement and consumerism that the vast majority of our population (at least in developed countries) have become dependent on something that did not even used to exist. We could be, and people were happy before 1995, but we have forgotten how to live in the pre-technological world. Our actions and the developments and goals of our generation will only continue to reinforce a cyclical pattern of technological growth and dependence upon such.

It would be neat to try and perform this thought experiment with the class. Whoever lasts the longest gets an A for the class yea?

I think that one point Suzuki is trying to make is that today's communication is so dependent on cell phones and internet. When we don't use these modes of communication, we are considered antisocial. But a truly social person would interact face to face, instead of through cell phone and internet. We become so dependent on modern conveniences that they become a main source of human interaction, even though they are no where near personal.

Some remarks on digital music from The Nation:

Unlike the introduction of the compact disc, which was developed by major labels and music retailers, as well as Phillips and Sony, the current tumult was unplanned and unforeseen. Digital technology has put far more power in the hands of ordinary consumers to wrest music from its gatekeepers. But crashing the gates has caused the music economy to dip down between cheap and free; people are storing more music on their hard drives than they're likely to listen to in the next decade, yet major labels, music retailers and even jukebox manufacturers are spiraling toward obsolescence. Offbeat and invaluable aspects of the mass music experience are slipping away as well, from the cranky exclusivity of the niche record shop to the tastemaking role of college radio to the music press itself.

Whereas Suisman's materialist study of the record industry's beginnings focuses on market creation and slights artistic fruition, Greg Milner is on the side of the sensible audiophile, someone who cares most about what's lost in the way most people experience music today. In Perfecting Sound Forever, an exhaustive history of recorded sound, Milner is honest enough to admit that the "warm" sound of LPs that vinyl maniacs crave is not some Platonic quality but the product of the way sound is processed by the apparatus--the amp, turntable and speakers. Yet no amount of "warmth" can combat the more insidious developments of our age of Pro Tools and MP3s. Music now flows through various channels in digital form, often never hitting tape of any kind; scrunched into a tiny file containing a fraction of its original sonic information, it passes through tiny cubicle speakers or tinier earbuds blaring at dangerous volumes. Compression might indeed be killing pop music by flattening it out, lopping off its highs while boosting its lows to yield songs boiling over at a fever pitch every moment. Certain pop albums become so loud and distorted that choruses are at the same sonic level as verses, creating a feeling of unending blast and total boredom. Compression has certainly left serious listeners in a crummy cul-de-sac of insufficient quality and decreased dynamism.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100111/boylan

First of all, in 1995 there were substitutions for many things mentioned by Suzuki. Instead of an HDTV, we had a regular TV, instead of an iPod, we had a Walkman, instead of a DVD player, we had a VCR, and so on. Therefore, the point he is trying to make is a little exaggerated.
Nevertheless, I understand where he is coming from. Suzuki wants us to think about how things we think are necessary to function as human beings, are only superficially contributing to our lives. In 1995 we were just as happy or unhappy as we are now, and therefore the perceived personal gain from technological improvement is quite deceiving. Basically, as soon as we get used to new technology, we don't appreciate it any more than we used to appreciate previous technology.

I think that David Suzuki is completely correct in assuming friends would think this person has lost it. I have a friend who recently deactivated their facebook account, and everybody immediately asked them why the hell they would do that. All of the things mentioned in this passage- high speed internet, tv, phones- have changed how we communicate with one another so dramatically that I think we would have a hard time communicating without them. If I couldn’t call my friend up to ask if they wanted to hang out, would it occur to me to just walk over to their house and knock on their door? If I couldn’t watch the news on tv, would I take the time to go read the paper?

I think we take for granted how much technology we have and how dependent we have become on it. The benefits certainly outweigh the disadvantages but it is important to take a break and view from a different perspective.

I find it interesting that Suzuki mentions loved ones being worried about a family member who has decided to rid themselves of all the technological luxuries and necessities that we have available to us today. It seems over-the-top; but in some ways, maybe not to the extreme that he suggests, Suzuki has a good point. Why is it that when someone doesn't answer a text message within an hour, some become worried, or even a little annoyed? Or when I leave my cell phone at home on accident, I feel anxious until I get it back? It seems that people have become highly dependent on these 'gadgets' that allow instant connection to the world around us. It seems in 1995, becoming socially connected required some more effort than now (since using Facebook and cell phones have become the norm), and I feel like that made it a little more meaningful. I know this is a completely different topic than I was writing about before, but now I wonder, had this advancement cheapened our relationships in some ways?