Second Life: A Threat to Humanity?

In Part III of Open Sky, Virilio discusses how technology has changed traditional relationships, making physical relationships more uncommon and virtual ones more popular. "From now on, distancing prevails over nuptial abduction; as, with teleconferencing, what counts above all is the separation, the putting asunder of face-to-face parties; touch, physical contact between partners, being no longer the go so much as the rejection of the other person" (108).

Society is functioning at a much faster pace than it used to, so as a result we need speed up the way we go about our everyday lives. The Internet, particularly social media, is intended to provide information quickly. Social media is intended to keep people connected in this busy and fast-paced world, however our obsession with staying connected is resulting in more online relationships and less physical contact.

I agree with Virilio that all of this technology that we are exposed to on a daily basis takes away from physical relationships. Much of the Internet is now interactive and demands attention, taking us away from paying attention to the real world and what's going on around us. While social media sites (ie: Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) are interactive forms of media, the connections and relationships all take place online, in a virtual world, rather than in the physical world with interpersonal relationships.

I believe the purpose of social media is to serve a supplement to physical, interpersonal relationships; however, I see more and more people creating two different accounts (personal/public and professional/private accounts) to separate their different relationships in the virtual world. By creating two different accounts people are no longer using social media as a supplement to their interpersonal relationships, but rather using it as a substitute to these physical relationships.

I disagree with Virilio's claim that this obsession with virtual relationships could result in the loss of physical relationships altogether, which in turn would result in threatened reproduction and continuity of the human race. I think that statement is a bit extreme, especially since a lot of relationships that begin on the Internet (the virtual world) end up turning into physical relationships (in the real world). 

Let's look at online dating as an example of virtual relationships turning into physical relationships. Many online dating websites such as EHarmony provide people with a directory of potential mates. It's up to the individuals to choose who they want to meet. Most of these relationships are initiated through the Internet, but are continued as an interpersonal/face-to-face relationship. The image below shows a couple that met through eHarmony and got married after forming an interpersonal relationship.

It wasn't until a few weeks ago that I learned about a website called Second Life, which allows people to essentially play a video game of their life - so they are virtually living their life. This honestly worries me and makes me question humanity and Virilio's claim that the human race could become extinct. However, I have yet to meet someone who plays Second Life, and only lives in a virtual world. 

So there are options for people to live an entirely virtual life (Second Life), but I have yet to meet anyone who participates in this form of living. I'm sure that there are many people who have a Second Life account, and maybe even people that do nothing but play Second Life; however, I do not believe that this form of living will ever replace physical relationships that take place in the real world.

Is Technology Making Us Lazy Or More Productive?

In the second part of Paul Virilio's Open Sky, he talks about the law of proximity, grey ecology, and continental drift. He relates the law of proximity to the law of least action. In today's age the help of technology has made people think that "less is more."

Virilio's example of the stairs and elevator is a great example to show how lazy people have become, but how much faster they can get things done simultaneously. The characteristics "lazy" and "productive" seem to be almost opposites, but modern technology has allowed people to possess these two characteristics simultaneously. His stairs and elevator example shows that when there's a choice between the two, no body takes the stairs anymore. They're getting to their destination faster, but without having to do any extra work.

In the chapter "Grey Ecology", Virilio points out that acceleration of geographical knowledge has led to loss of meaning in scale and physical dimension. Travel was seen as the best form of education in the past, since it allowed people to free themselves from their everyday familiarities and experience diversity first hand.

Today there are so many different forms of technology that allow people to learn about different geographical locations without even having to leave their physical location. While there is a lot a person can learn about a place without visiting it physically, there is also a lot of information that can be missed such as experience. I believe that relatable experiences, which are obtained through traveling, are what make information so meaningful and memorable.

The theory of continental drift is that the locations of the continents are changing, in relation to one another. Virilio argues that with the help of technology we are reversing the traditional theory of continental drift. The continents were once all connected, but over time have moved further and further apart. Virilio states that metropolization for this coming century is the "world-city," meaning there will be a virtual city of which every real city will be a suburb whose "centre will be nowhere and circumference everywhere."

I do agree with technology and the convenience it brings, in terms of quick communication, that there is already a more connected world, I just am not sure if I'd describe this as a virtual city where real cities will be irrelevant.

Tying all of these chapters together, I see where Virilio is coming from when he describes the typical person's use of technology and how it is making them less reliant on people and more reliant on virtual experiences; however, I do believe that there will always be a connection to the real world.

I see more and more people using their cell phones for more things (for example it went from solely using it for phone calls to adding text messages and now people can pay their bills on their mobile phones). But I do still see people actively connecting with the world and other people in ways that are impossible to do virtually, a perfect example would be physical exercise.

I see the danger of technology from Virilio's point of view, but I believe we should take everything with a grain of salt. I personally believe that yes, too much technology can be dangerous to one's "real time" social life, but I also believe that using technology within reason helps the average person balance everyday tasks more efficiently.

Discussion Questions:
1. What are some ways in which you use technology everyday? What is one example of an activity that you do that in no way involves technology?

2. Based on your answer to the above questions, do you believe you are "too reliant" on technology? Or too unfamiliar with it? Do you see either as being an issue?

Connected or Disconnected?

Paul Virilio's concept of dromology is defined as the logic of speed that is the foundation of our current technological society. Virilio see this term as form of pollution that society is facing on an every day basis. I found it interesting that he compares dromology alongside air and water pollution. We live in a fast paced society where the demand for information is increasing at a rapid pace.

How is this information provided at such a quick rate? Technology. My generation tends to be glued to their cell phones are have an online presence in almost every social media outlet. The question is whether this form of connectedness is really keeping people connected. Virlio believes that people are so engrossed in the virtual world that the concept of real life and real time relationships are lost.

I found this reading to be very confusing, primarily because of the unfamiliar terms and how the author spoke a lot about physics, which is not my forte. My main question was why so many connections to the environment when talking about how society goes about communicating through technology? Maybe it's because technology has become the main mode of communication in the past decade?

I constantly see people glued to their cellphones. In today's world there are a lot of applications such as Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook that allow people to communicate but not in real time. These conversations are not taking place instantly, but rather have a time lag between when the post is made and when the audience members/friends are obtaining the information.  I think Virilio sees communicating through technology as an issue that is affecting all of society, just like air pollution is an issue that affects all of society.

I can see where Virilio is coming from when he characterizes dromopsheric pollution as a pollution that attacks the liveliness of the subject and the mobility of the object by wasting away the journey to the point where it becomes needless. What he is saying with this statement is that through this new form of digital communication we are losing the meaning in our messages as well as losing meaningful relationships, by being so involved in our online social media and relationships.

My generation has become so dependent on technology and the modes of communication through technology that meaningful, and personal relationships are being lost. By being so attached and engrossed in our cellphones, iPads, and computers we're losing touch with reality. So is technological communication really the way to go? I understand that it allows us to multitask and stay connected... but is it really keeping everyone connected, or just creating distance?

I SEE What you MEAN

The main point that I took away from Kress and Leeuwen's article "Reading Images" was the importance of composition of images in order to derive meaning. Meaning is derived from images through three interrelated systems:

1. Information value - The placement of elements gives specific informational value attached to the various "zones."
2. Salience - The elements are made to attract the viewer's attention to different degrees, as realized by such factors as placement in the foreground or background, relative size, contacts in tonal value, differences in sharpness, etc.
3. Framing - The presence or absence of framing devices disconnects or connects elements of the image, signifying that they belong or do not belong together in some sequence.

These three principles of composition apply to not just single pictures, but also to composite visuals, which combine text and images and perhaps, other graphic elements.

This article made me think of the term "visual literacy", which has been used a lot in my mass communications class on a daily basis. Office of the Chief Information Officer lists the "7 Things You Would Know About Visual Literacy."

The main take aways that I got from this website were:

• The definition of visual literacy: the ability to interpret, and make meaning from information presented in an image, communicate effectively through principles of design, produce visual messages and use visual thinking to conceptualize solutions to problems. 
• Who visual literacy affects: everyone - on a daily basis. We start making meaning from images at a very young age, interpreting facial expressions and making meaning from things that can only be explained (ie: senses such as taste and feeling). 

Today's world is becoming more and more visual - 90% of what we take in today is taken in visually. While basic texts still very much exist (ie: newspapers) there has been more emphasis on the addition to images and graphics in what is seen to be as traditional forms of information sources. Alternatives to traditional text sources are becoming more popular today with the boom of the digital world.

We live in a fast-pace world where people don't have the time to sit down and read word for word. Instead we rely on pictures to help communicate messages and more broken down text that allows us to scan for information that we are seeking. With new technologies becoming more accessible, images, video, audio and words can now be used together to communicate. Image combined with text gives deeper meanings and new ways to interact with information. Educators are beginning to promote visual literacy and help students develop skills in order to survive and communicate in a highly complex world.

Below is a Ted Talk about the importance of visual literacy, and why we need it. What I found most interesting about Brian Kennedy's Ted Talk is the fact that visual literacy is a form of critical thinking that enhances one's intellectual capacity, not a skill. This isn't a new concept, it's just becoming more important due to the rise in digital media - which provides us with infinite amounts of images.

Visual images have the power to bring our senses together simultaneously and evoke our emotions. It is important to be visual literate in today's world to not only see, but to understand all that is going on around us, in order to promote communication throughout the world.

Look at 40 of the Most Powerful Pictures Ever Taken and decide what is is in these images that make them so powerful. Is it the information value, the salience, or the framing? How do these systems give meaning to images?

Journalism As A Science? Blogging As An Art?

“In the end, the discipline of verification is what separates journalism from entertainment, propaganda, fiction, or art. Journalism alone is focused first on getting what happened down right."

What stood out to me and stuck with me during the entire time I was reading this article was the comparison of journalism's approach to the scientific method. I found it interesting that the author compared the two since these categories are from two entirely different academic disciplines. 

I'm taking a Biology class this semester and what my teacher stresses to tell the class during labs is that the scientific method is a way of conveying theories. These theories cannot be proven, only disproven. Through the scientific method you experiment with different variables in order to come up with a theory of why certain things behave the way they do. But the word theory is stressed because things change over time, and theories can be modified or proven false. This is what I focused on while reading this article for my Digital Communications class.

Technology and mass media is constantly changing. We have gone from newspapers, book, and magazines (all print media) to the introduction of the Internet which has completely altered the way that mass media is distributed. Instead of gathering information, we're forced to sort through information to find what we believe to be true, and what we feel is worthy of attention.

With this scientific method approach to journalism, the citizens of the world should feel comfortable that the information that they are receiving from mass media mediums is verified. This brought me to think about the forms of mass media that I use on a daily basis…blogging. Why is it that I feel more comfortable receiving my information from an everyday citizen, rather than a reliable and paid journalist?

I feel as if this standardized approach that journalists have resorted to makes it feel as if all news is being broadcasted in the same manner and the aspect of entertainment, which is of interest to almost all citizens, is lost. So I turn to blogs in order to read the news in a more entertaining and honest reporting tone. These blogs allow me to inform myself on current issues, or just topics of interest, in a way that I can better identify with.

Discussion Questions

1. Is there any other form of verification you feel journalists should take to inform their audiences? Why the scientific method?

2. Where do you get your daily information from? Why?

"Electracy" & "Is Google Making Us Stoopid?"

"Electracy"

Gregory Ulmer introduces a new theory that is described as a supplement of religion and science; this theory is "electracy.” It is thought to be a skill set needed to effectively communicate in today's world, which has been largely dominated by electronic media. While I've never heard of the specific term for this transition that society is undergoing, I have been able to see the characteristics of the theory being applied more and more in schools as we are growing up.

When I think back to kindergarten and elementary school, I remember a few basic parts of my average school day. I remember snack, naptime, and reading. The emphasis in lower school really was on reading out loud so that students would be able to be able to efficiently communicate, as they grew older. I believe that this strong emphasis on reading in lower school has made me to feel confident in my communication skills today. With the every changing technology and norms and today's world, I cannot even imagine what lower school is like for children attending now, only 15 years later from when I was there.

When I babysit, usually for kids who are between 4 and 10, I notice an obsession that the younger kids have with technology. One kid is four years old and is always carrying around his iPad. I can honestly tell you that I don’t remember what my favorite toy was when I was 4, but I know for a fact that it wasn’t anything nearly as expensive or complex as an iPad. Anyways, this little boy is always playing games that I wouldn’t necessarily consider educational, but I can honestly tell you that I have never met a kid as mature and intelligent as he is. He’s 4 years old and is at a 10 year old’s reading level, and when we talk he will correctly use terms that weren’t even in my vocabulary when I was 4, let alone 10 years old.

I found this article interesting, particularly because I felt the uncertainty of this new theory, since it is so far from our traditional learning styles (religion and science). But I do agree that this new theory is critical since technology is the new way that people are learning to communicate, and while it seems so different from how we learned, we must adapt or else we’ll be unable to effectively communicate the future generations.

Discussion Questions

1. What do you believe are the electrate equivalents to the traditional literate learning methods?

2. Is it thinking faster or thinking further that makes different thinking different? Why are some people so opposed to this new style of learning?

"Is Google Making Us Stoopid?"

This article is critical in today's world, particularly because technology and media activity makes up a large part of our everyday life, whether we know it or not. I was reading for my Mass Communications class about media activity and found it very surprising that the average person spends around 11 hours of their day involved in media activity, only 5 of those hours are intentional. So the other 6 hours that we are involved in media activity is done while we are doing something else.

I’ve never considered myself to be a TV junkie, but I do consider myself to be up to date with most media platforms. I was that kid growing up that was only allowed a set time period to use any type of media (usually that involved watching TV or going on the computer). Growing up I always loved to read and felt that I could spend hours engaged in a good book. I still love to read today, but since times have changed, so have the ways that one reads. I typically read books on my iPad now, and with that mobility and ease also comes the loads of distractions.

I do agree with Carr in that I spend a lot of time online, even though a lot of that time is dedicated to my schoolwork. But with all of the links, banner ads, and other distractions, I feel that I am no longer able to stay as focused while surfing the Internet, but also in my everyday life. You would think that this style of accessing information would make us smarter, since it allows us to reach more information in a shorter period of time, but I believe that it only adds confusion since we aren’t spending enough time looking in the actual information- we’re just skimming it over to get main ideas.

While I do believe that all of this technology has resulted in information overload, I believe that in a few years time we’ll have a different standpoint on it. I feel the main reason why people are so opposed to learning through technology is because it is so different to what my generation, and those before me, is used to. But it’s important to adapt to this new style of learning if we want to be able to communicate with future generations. 

Discussion Questions

1. Why do some people consider knowledge obtained from the Internet not to be "real knowledge"? Those who don't consider Internet information to be "real knowledge," what do you consider to be "real knowledge?"

2. Have you had any classes at Furman that do not use any sort of technology in the classroom? How have those classes compared to those which use a lot of technology in the classroom? Which style of learning do you prefer and why?