Critical Analysis- Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America (Part 2)

The second part of the book, Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America, by Giles Slade, discusses how obsolescence in the United States grew even more after World War I and World War II, especially with the invention of radio frequency and television. With the development of FM radio, new radios needed to be produced to accommodate such new technology. Soon after, radios began to become more compact, cheaper to replace, and a product of planned obsolescence. For example, Japan specifically designed small, cheap, plastic radios that came in many different colors, with the intent that consumers would just throw them away after they died and a buy a new one for a very low price (106). This also became true with pocket radios as they were too small to be repaired, leading to the coining of the phrase "death dating" which sounds exactly what it means (113). When the fabric, Nylon, was invented as a substitute for silk, it not only allowed the United States to end all trade with Japan, but it also allowed women to buy disposable pantie hose for very cheap, which again contributes to this idea of product obsolescence (118).  Later on in the book, Slade discusses how consumerism changes in the 50's and 60's, more specifically with the invention of porchless houses. Here, we see that consumers aren't just interested in purchasing houses as a product of their functioning, but for more reasons of appeal. After the depression, porches became associated with poor households because people would hang out on their front stoops and sidewalks (134). People realized the notion that what you own reflects upon who you are as a person, and no one wants an outdated house (how taboo!!). This same concept of keeping with new technology is also illustrated with the invention of computer technology. Where the ABC computer was once the best thing since sliced bread, new computers such as the UNIVAC came out, and the ABC computer became outdated (141).  It is during the late 50's and 60's that the term "product obsolescence" really comes into play because of the research done on consumerism and technology. Volkswagen realized this and created ads that actually attacked "product obsolescence" in order to persuade the consumer that their cars never became outdated. Volkswagen's advertisements stressing this fact became so successful that there was a six month waiting list for their popular "Bug."  Towards the end of the reading, it becomes evident that product obsolescence comes in many different ways. Either the consumer is forced to purchase a new product to replace a broken one, they need to buy a new product to keep up with newer, better performing technologies, or they just psychologically feel that their technology is "worn out" even though it may be working fine.  I feel that society's constant struggle to keep up with new technology creates a world in which we are always on edge and in competition with each other. We are hostile, materialistic beings and it's only getting worse. Where I can see that in ways, product obsolescence is positive because it forces manufacturers to always strive to create better products, it is also very damaging to our culture in that it's very artificial.

Critical Analysis- Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America

I feel like the first part of the book, Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America, written by Giles Slade, gives us an inkling as to why Americans are over consumptive and materialistic. During the late 1800's and early 1900’s, America began to suffer from an overproduction problem due to the advance in technology. Manufacturers needed to figure out how to increase demand for certain products as well as overcome a distribution problem to ensure delivery all across the United States (10). In response, many solutions came about including branding and the development of disposable products. Branding, which was meant to attract consumers and create an association of reliability with a product, became very crucial for increasing demand. Manufacturers relied on consumers to consistently buy the same product again and again. In fact, branding was such a success that brand names such as Band-Aid, came to be used as generic terms for products. The development of disposable products was also a success. Products such as the disposable razor blades were consistent, reliable, and convenient, and forced the consumer to come back. Women were of special importance in the early 20th century because it was more and more common for women to do the spending and shopping in a household. In a mass consumerist culture, new products such as Kotex and Kleenex were especially aimed at an audience of women. Of course, there were many implications that came along with the invention of disposable products. The throwing away of disposable products caused people to make these same generalizations toward other products that wouldn't normally be thrown away. The wasting of perfectly working things causes product obsolescence (24). As time went by, it becomes more obvious that the aesthetically appealing products are more important than the actual proper functioning of a product- a type of obsolescence of style. For example, as much as Henry Ford is admired for his determination to create a long lasting product and maintaining a low cost, it is this logic that had caused his mistake. Where Ford refused to redesign the Model T, General Motors chose to do just this by "repackaging" their own cars (36). We, as Americans, have become a product of conspicuous consumption. We are addicted to buying new products that specifically display our wealth. We throw out barely worn clothes just to make room for new clothes, in the hopes of increasing our status. It is actually kind of sickening to think of how materialistic our society has become. Consumerism has engulfed our lives to the point that one of the main goals in life is to own every new product that comes out on the market. No one wants to be left behind using obsolete technology. The last page that I left off reading especially bothers me. Manufacturers were and still are encouraged to produce products that last a shorter period of time than they're capable of. We are getting ripped off all in the name of demand and profit.

Extra Credit- "The Social Network"

Now I have to say, I didn't exactly have the highest expectations for this movie in the beginning, but after all was said and done, I actually kind of enjoyed it. I found it really interesting to see how "The Facebook" came to be. To think that some brainy kid from Havard, who invented this simple website to allow people at his university to communicate and share pictures effectively, became the youngest billionaire ever just blows my mind. Two things come to mind when I think about this movie; the first being the actual story behind the creation of Facebook, and the second, the effect that Facebook has had upon the world.

Mark Zuckerberg is one brilliant kid. First, one has to have the computer knowledge to even build a website of that size and second, one has to actually come up with an idea for such a website. I'm not sure if the movie exaggerated on some parts (I'm sure that it did), but I can't believe Facebook was created as the result of a breakup with a girlfriend and the resentment of rich fraternity boys. I feel that it is obvious that Mark Zuckerburg did not steal the idea of Facebook from the twin brothers belonging to the fraternity, but it is obvious, from what the movie portrayed, that he did screw his friend, Eduardo, over. I don't know about anyone else, but I almost felt bad for Eduardo, especially with that crazy girlfriend of his. I also feel like Sean Parker squeezed his way into a company that he didn't belong to and took over his Eduardo's position. But that's a whole other story in itself.

As entertaining as the story line is behind the development of Facebook, a bigger question has yet to be answered... How has Facebook affected the world? That's exactly what I was thinking by the end of the movie. Facebook started out as just a website for Harvard students, and then spread to other colleges and universities, and eventually opened up to allow the whole world to join. Facebook is an example of how influential social networking can be, considering how fast it caught on. As the demand for Facebook increased, so did too, Facebook's quality and what it was capable of. Facebook has reconnected lost relatives and families, brought together college students and other groups, and has even acted in place of the television. You no longer need to turn on the television to watch breaking news, just log onto Facebook and read your friend's statuses. Facebook is a great way to catch up with someone without actually having to talk to them or leave your house, as pictures and statuses can tell us a great deal. These days, Facebook is everywhere, and if you don't have a Facebook account, it is almost like you are falling behind or setting yourself up for failure. So many jobs today, especially in fields of journalism or communications, require that their employees have a Facebook and know how to use it. This right here gives us an inkling as to how big social networking sites have become and will continue to grow in the future, especially with the rise of laptops and smart phones.  

Critical Analysis- The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality (Part 2)

The second half of the book, The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality, by Andrew Dalby, discusses why people love the use of Wikipedia, why its use can be damaging (especially if you are editing an article about yourself), and why Wikipedia can and cannot be trusted. It is evident from the "Why we love it" chapter, and also somewhat amusing, that the authors of certain articles on Wikipedia are very defensive and protective of their contributions and beliefs about what is actual fact. For instance, take the French toast example. What we have here is fellow Wikipedians fighting over whether French toast was always referred to as French toast or if this popular breakfast food was once called German toast before World War I (115-116). To me, it is very comical to take such an unserious subject matter and turn it into something that causes serious debate. Later on in this chapter, Dalby describes Wikipedia as virtual nation or a type of community where one can be free to be as candid or anonymous as he or she likes, and where one can also be recognized (120). Up until reading this book, I'd never really realized how much Wikipedia really emulated a virtual mini world, complete with mailing lists, politics and scandals. Wikipedia is a world where there are no page limits, and where everyone is treated equally, PhD or not. Later on, Dalby mentions some of the things that must not occur on Wikipedia. Although Wikipedians love to talk about themselves and show off their knowledge, it is an unwritten sin to contribute to an article written about themselves because it's hard to remain neutral (148). Unfortunately, Wikipedia contains acts of plagiarism, harassment, and political biases which should also be refrained from as well. Because of all of this, and the fact that you never know a person's credibility or why he chose to edit an article in the first place, or if a source is simply just a mirror of a Wikipedia site, Wikipedia cannot be trusted in some ways. On the other hand, Dalby does make the argument that Wikipedia can be trusted in other ways and is in fact, raising its credibility. Where other encyclopedias can sometimes be one sided themselves, for instance, Encarta only gives credit to Thomas Edison for inventing the light bulb (203), Wikipedia includes information from all points of view. Dalby also claims that because Wikipedia is putting other Encyclopedias out of business, Wikipedia has no choice but to increase its standards. As the years go by, I feel that Wikipedia will, without a doubt, become bigger and bigger. It is sad to see other credible sources go down the tubes, but hopefully this will only make a better product out of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should never be used as a sole source of information, but it is definitely a good supplement to learning. The convenience that it provides millions cannot be beaten. While the world is a reflection of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is starting to become a reflection of the world.

Critical Analysis- The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality (Part 1)

So far, The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality, written by Andrew Dalby, is actually a pretty interesting read because it is a very current form of technology that greatly influences our everyday lives. Although Dalby, one of the many Wikipedia contributors, obviously seems to favor Wikipedia and believes that there are many benefits, he also discusses the negative outcomes that have come about since it has been invented. The first part of the book states how Wikipedia was started, how it has changed the way society uses an encyclopedia, the damage it has done to printed encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica , and the implications. I found it really interesting to read about the establishment of Wikipedia and the google effect that helped give it popularity. For some reason, it makes me kind of sad that printed encyclopedias are dead. Where as the content on Wikipedia is user generated and can be edited by anyone, printed encyclopedias are written, unquestionably, by credible authors. Because a reader of Encyclopedia Britannica cannot just simply edit information based upon their liking, you know you're getting quality unbiased information. The death of printed encyclopedias is not only a loss of tradition, but it is also a loss of a type of symbolic status. Back in the day, owning a set of encyclopedias was a sign that you were well established. Wikipedia is a form of disconnect because we do not physically own a copy. Wikipedia's anonymity allows people to write whatever they please, whether correct or incorrect, biased or unbiased, because people have a shield to hide behind. Wikipedia can also be used maliciously against other people. For example, Dalby discusses John Seigenthaler and his falsely accused connection to the assassination of Kennedy (58). This being said, Wikipedia is not all that bad. While anyone can contribute and hinder the quality of information being provided, it is because anyone can contribute that also makes Wikipedia so great. The more people that participate, the wider an array of information that is contributed from all backgrounds and perspectives. Wikipedia is also useful because it is so convenient. I would never use a Wikipedia article as support in a research paper, but in the case where I'm dying to know something, I am shown enough information to become familiarized with a subject in matter of a few seconds.

Critical Analysis- Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (Part 2)

Okay, so after reading the second half of Postman's, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, I have come to a few conclusions. The first conclusion is that while Postman definitely holds a biased grudge against technology, he does make some valid points. Throughout the book, he makes references to everything from the negative influences of medical technology in the 1800's, to the personification of the computer, to the transformation that made symbols meaningless. His discussion of the personification of computers is a good example of why he considers the society we live in today to be a technopoly. He explains that since computers have become popular, humans refer to themselves in computer terms.  For instance, the human brain is referred to as a piece of "hard wiring, capable of retrieving data" (113-114). People also refer to computers has having "viruses," which is a human capability. Another example of the negative impact of technology on society is illustrated through Postman's reference of symbols. He claims that once important figures, symbols, and holidays have been rewritten to represent less serious, jargon filled nonsense (167). 

The second conclusion is that Postman goes too much out of his way to denounce the greatness of technology. I feel that the positive qualities of technology much outweigh its negative qualities, but unfortunately, Postman feels otherwise. For instance, he explains that the invention of the Stethoscope and other medical technologies in the 1800's has actually had negative effects on patients' treatment because doctors rely too much on technology and less on their own knowledge or gut instinct (99-106). He goes on to discuss America's over aggressive use of machines in the medical world compared to Europe. While this may be true, we would be nowhere near where we are today in treating many illnesses without these medical tools. To not have these technologies because of a few issues with lack of communication between patients and doctors would be silly; saving lives is more important. Reading on, I am able to come to my third conclusion. It is apparent that Postman must stretch too far out of his reach for examples to prove his point. He goes as far as to denounce social sciences, more specifically discussing Milgram's famous psychological experiment as not empirical nor confirming or disproving to any theory of human nature since the experiment took place in a laboratory setting (151-153). Overall, I feel that Postman has few convincing arguments and that his ideas are very far fetched. While I'm not the most optimistic person in the world, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology is just too pessimistic for my taste.