small object, Large Subject-iPod

Americans have always appreciated listening to music at any time of day. However, only recently has the portable music player become a reality. This technology was revolutionized by Apple’s iPod. In a matter of years, the signature white iPod headphones have been injected into nearly everyone’s ears. The iPod is about instant satisfaction, one can listen to music essentially anywhere at any time. The iPod also offers unprecedented personalization. Users can created their own playlists and buy an entire album or a single song online. As a result of its portability, and customizations the iPod has become a cultural icon.
Over ten years ago, the word “iPod” did not exist, yet today many Americans do not leave the house without one. It is hard to go out in public without seeing someone listening to music or watching a video on their iPod. Joggers strap their iPod to themselves as they take their morning exercise. During the daily commute people will have their “Monday Morning” playlist blaring in their car as they are stuck in traffic. On trains it is nearly impossible to look down the aisle without seeing someone stare dumbly at nothing as they sit with their headphones on. The iPod’s success is that it offers instant entertainment at any moment in our daily lives. It also creates a social wall where people can retreat even in public.
Another striking feature about the iPod is the number of different models. The iPod touch for example, is one of the more ‘advanced models’ that uses programs called “apps”. As Apple boasts, there is an “App, for just about everything”. Some of them are useful such as maps for the NYC subway, while others are trivial and to some absolutely useless. In the end, the “apps” are just another distraction in a time when many Americans need to feel ‘connected’ at all times. New “generations” of iPods are also constantly made. The newest iPods have more memory than the last, which means more songs and further customization.
The iPod reflects the notion that Americans desire products that are highly personalized. No two iPod’s are exactly alike since everyone’s taste in music is different. The fact that many people do not leave home without their iPod demonstrates that as a nation, Americans want to be constantly entertained. However, this constant need to be attached creates its own set of disadvantages. When listening to their iPod many people become distracted, making everyday actions like crossing the street or driving a car even more dangerous. The iPod allows people to be detached from society even when operating in public, which reflects the idea the Americans want an escape from their everyday lives. The iPod has only existed for a short amount of time, but now it’s impossible to think of life without it.

 

Chris Carroll’s “High-tech Trash”-Abstract

The millions of ‘dead’ electronics in the United States and other Western countries are unfortunately, sent to rot in developing nations. As revealed in Chris Carroll’s “High-tech Trash” many who live in poverty stricken areas salvage the remains of these devices for money. However, by burning the scrap in hopes of obtaining the process metals within, they expose themselves to “a bouquet of carcinogens and other toxics” (Carroll 30). This “e-waste” is mostly the result of an “out-of-sight, out-of-mind solution” (Carroll 32). Essentially, many recyclers in the Western world find it easier and more profitable to sell the trash to developing nations where environmental laws and regulations that are hardly enforced. This results in hazardous trash heaps piling up around the local people. In Guiyu China, for example, the presence of the electronics created a chemical called dioxin, which seemed into the soil and air. Dioxin is known to disrupt the endocrine and immune systems and is only one of many dangerous that exists in villages with e-waste. (Carroll 35).
There is a growing movement to help end the cycle. In the United States the EPA encourages “responsible recycling” by utilizing a “rating system that rewards environmentally sound products” (Carroll 33). Also in the U.S. recycling machines are used to breakdown the e-waste in a safe and environmentally friendly matter. However, only a few of these machines exist in the United States. Even with this technology, it is still more profitable to send the trash to developing nations.
Carroll is clearly writing to those living in the nations that produce the e-waste. For many Americans, the turnover rate for cell phones and laptops are only a few years. With these technologies growing in both volume and popularity only more e-waste will be created. Therefore, it is necessary for the nations that create the e-waste to take responsibility and not place the burden onto an innocent rural village.

Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google making us stupid”- Toulmin model

The internet has completely reshaped the way in which people process information, yet is this technical wonder somehow making us “stupid”? As author Nicolas Carr asserts, the internet has conditioned his mind to absorb information “in a swiftly moving stream” resulting in a new inability to focus on lengthy articles. However this loss of concentration is not a sign that the internet is making users dumber, but instead changing the way our minds interpret information. Throughout history, there are examples that demonstrate how new technologies alter the way in which people read and write. After receiving a typewriter, Friedrich Nietzsche’s writing style became “tighter [and] telegraphic”. In response to this change, he later wrote that “’our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts’”. This concept is seen in text messaging. People now send quick bursts of information between one another that are usually no more than a sentence long, yet clear thoughts are communicated. With the way we read and write becoming quicker and shorter, it is understandable why people fear we are losing our “capacity for concentration and contemplation”. Yet skepticism is always attached to revolutionary technologies. Humanist Hieronimo Squarciafico feared Guttenberg’s printing press would lead “to intellectual laziness” because of “the easy availability of books”. Yet, it inspired just the opposite, as books and the knowledge they contain spread throughout the world.

The use of the internet has become so widespread and dominant in our lives it was inevitable that it would change the way people ‘think’. Although healthy skepticism should always accompany technology, it appears that we adapt to the changes successfully. If the way we process our information is changing as well, than society as a whole will also adapt.

Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google making us stupid”

I get distracted very easily whenever I use the internet. I find that Wikipedia creates the largest distractions. After five minutes of using it I always have several different tabs open with completely unrelated articles. Sometimes I don’t even finish reading the first few sentences of an article because I already clicked to go onto another page.Overall, people want the quick and simple answers to a question and the internet helps us do that. Because of this, it’s very understandable why people are finding it harder to focus when reading a long piece. It’s easier to search for something on Google and jump to the next link then to sit and absorb something. This very damaging since we’re no longer analyzing material in a deeper context.