Nipate
Forum => Former duels ➷ => The Coliseum ↟ => Real Pokot vs veritas: is technology harming our kids? => Topic started by: veritas on September 22, 2015, 03:58:06 AM
-
I'll start by saying anything in excess is harmful. There just needs to be a healthy balance.
-
I'll start by saying anything in excess is harmful. There just needs to be a healthy balance.
Depends, it is a subject of continuous discussion. Technology has solved a lot of practical problems
-
...not exactly by kids. There should be ages limits on the amount of exposure a kid has to technology.
(http://rack.0.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDEyLzEyLzA0LzgzL2tpZHN0ZWNobm9sLmFaMy5qcGcKcAl0aHVtYgk5NTB4NTM0IwplCWpwZw/16c004cf/77e/kids-technology-the-developmental-health-debate-9cad2fc991.jpg)
This can lead to visual deficits and an overall harm to a young impressionable mind. Quote:
“I used to say to parents, ‘Look, it’s reversible. Just cut your kid [off] and they’ll be OK,’” says Rowan. “But that’s not true. They’re permanently altering the formation of their brain, and it’s not in a good way.” When asked how she foresaw children adapting or evolving if they were to continue at the level of usage seen today, Rowan responded, “Well, I see them dying.”
http://mashable.com/2011/08/09/kids-tech-developmental-health/#F.Z0B79uOukA
-
I think one needs to define the following:
1) Age of exposure
2) Type of exposure
Let's say we break this down to:
1) Under 3, 3 < 9, 9 < 12 years old
2) Television/DVR, desktop computers, mobile tablets/phones.
Looking at the first subset: Under 3. There looks to be much evidence on the detrimental fx of exposing a child to all conditions in 2).
Doctors and government health officials should set limits, as they do for alcohol, on the amount of time children spend watching screens – and under-threes should be kept away from the television altogether, according to a paper in an influential medical journal published on Tuesday.
A review of the evidence in the Archives Of Disease in Childhood says children's obsession with TV, computers and screen games is causing developmental damage as well as long-term physical harm. Doctors at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which co-owns the journal with the British Medical Journal group, say they are concerned. Guidelines in the US, Canada and Australia already urge limits on children's screen time, but there are none yet in Britain.
The review was written by psychologist Dr Aric Sigman, author of a book on the subject, following a speech he gave to the RCPCH's annual conference. On average, he says, a British teenager spends six hours a day looking at screens at home – not including any time at school. In North America, it is nearer eight hours. But, says Sigman, negative effects on health kick in after about two hours of sitting still, with increased long-term risks of obesity and heart problems.
The critical time for brain growth is the first three years of life, he says. That is when babies and small children need to interact with their parents, eye to eye, and not with a screen.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/09/ban-under-threes-watching-television
I think we should agree technology is a no no for the first subset - under 3s.
-
...not exactly by kids. There should be ages limits on the amount of exposure a kid has to technology.
(http://rack.0.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDEyLzEyLzA0LzgzL2tpZHN0ZWNobm9sLmFaMy5qcGcKcAl0aHVtYgk5NTB4NTM0IwplCWpwZw/16c004cf/77e/kids-technology-the-developmental-health-debate-9cad2fc991.jpg)
This can lead to visual deficits and an overall harm to a young impressionable mind. Quote:
“I used to say to parents, ‘Look, it’s reversible. Just cut your kid [off] and they’ll be OK,’” says Rowan. “But that’s not true. They’re permanently altering the formation of their brain, and it’s not in a good way.” When asked how she foresaw children adapting or evolving if they were to continue at the level of usage seen today, Rowan responded, “Well, I see them dying.”
http://mashable.com/2011/08/09/kids-tech-developmental-health/#F.Z0B79uOukA
It's different depending on which generation you're part of, but I certainly remember a time before the internet, before mobile phones, and before home computers. I don't, however, remember a time before TV or the telephone, for instance.
-
Ironically, tvs and phones are phasing out. Maybe it wasn't even meant to be. I'm going to have throw some philosophy in the mix because I can see you're bored. Adorno & Horkheimer and culture.
THE sociological theory that the loss of the support of objectively established religion, the dissolution of the last remnants of pre-capitalism, together with technological and social differentiation or specialisation, have led to cultural chaos is disproved every day; for culture now impresses the same stamp on everything.
Films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part. Even the aesthetic activities of political opposites are one in their enthusiastic obedience to the rhythm of the iron system. The decorative industrial management buildings and exhibition centers in authoritarian countries are much the same as anywhere else. The huge gleaming towers that shoot up everywhere are outward signs of the ingenious planning of international concerns, toward which the unleashed entrepreneurial system (whose monuments are a mass of gloomy houses and business premises in grimy, spiritless cities) was already hastening. Even now the older houses just outside the concrete city centres look like slums, and the new bungalows on the outskirts are at one with the flimsy structures of world fairs in their praise of technical progress and their built-in demand to be discarded after a short while like empty food cans.
Yet the city housing projects designed to perpetuate the individual as a supposedly independent unit in a small hygienic dwelling make him all the more subservient to his adversary – the absolute power of capitalism. Because the inhabitants, as producers and as consumers, are drawn into the center in search of work and pleasure, all the living units crystallise into well-organised complexes. The striking unity of microcosm and macrocosm presents men with a model of their culture: the false identity of the general and the particular. Under monopoly all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through. The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows. Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce. They call themselves industries; and when their directors’ incomes are published, any doubt about the social utility of the finished products is removed.
Interested parties explain the culture industry in technological terms. It is alleged that because millions participate in it, certain reproduction processes are necessary that inevitably require identical needs in innumerable places to be satisfied with identical goods. The technical contrast between the few production centers and the large number of widely dispersed consumption points is said to demand organisation and planning by management. Furthermore, it is claimed that standards were based in the first place on consumers’ needs, and for that reason were accepted with so little resistance. The result is the circle of manipulation and retroactive need in which the unity of the system grows ever stronger. No mention is made of the fact that the basis on which technology acquires power over society is the power of those whose economic hold over society is greatest. A technological rationale is the rationale of domination itself. It is the coercive nature of society alienated from itself. Automobiles, bombs, and movies keep the whole thing together until their leveling element shows its strength in the very wrong which it furthered. It has made the technology of the culture industry no more than the achievement of standardisation and mass production, sacrificing whatever involved a distinction between the logic of the work and that of the social system.
This is the result not of a law of movement in technology as such but of its function in today’s economy. The need which might resist central control has already been suppressed by the control of the individual consciousness. The step from the telephone to the radio has clearly distinguished the roles. The former still allowed the subscriber to play the role of subject, and was liberal. The latter is democratic: it turns all participants into listeners and authoritatively subjects them to broadcast programs which are all exactly the same. No machinery of rejoinder has been devised, and private broadcasters are denied any freedom. They are confined to the apocryphal field of the “amateur,” and also have to accept organisation from above. ...
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm
-
Technology is becoming more than just that telephone. It facilitates Foucault's panopticon:
(http://payload186.cargocollective.com/1/10/322590/6030599/panopticon_in_context_1.jpg)
In effect it's the antithesis of all things humane about this world. I can't remember a time technology was viewed as the protagonist throughout history. Makes me weary to think it's such an integral part of life now.
-
Ironically, tvs and phones are phasing out. Maybe it wasn't even meant to be. I'm going to have throw some philosophy in the mix because I can see you're bored. Adorno & Horkheimer and culture.
THE sociological theory that the loss of the support of objectively established religion, the dissolution of the last remnants of pre-capitalism, together with technological and social differentiation or specialisation, have led to cultural chaos is disproved every day; for culture now impresses the same stamp on everything.
Films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part. Even the aesthetic activities of political opposites are one in their enthusiastic obedience to the rhythm of the iron system. The decorative industrial management buildings and exhibition centers in authoritarian countries are much the same as anywhere else. The huge gleaming towers that shoot up everywhere are outward signs of the ingenious planning of international concerns, toward which the unleashed entrepreneurial system (whose monuments are a mass of gloomy houses and business premises in grimy, spiritless cities) was already hastening. Even now the older houses just outside the concrete city centres look like slums, and the new bungalows on the outskirts are at one with the flimsy structures of world fairs in their praise of technical progress and their built-in demand to be discarded after a short while like empty food cans.
Yet the city housing projects designed to perpetuate the individual as a supposedly independent unit in a small hygienic dwelling make him all the more subservient to his adversary – the absolute power of capitalism. Because the inhabitants, as producers and as consumers, are drawn into the center in search of work and pleasure, all the living units crystallise into well-organised complexes. The striking unity of microcosm and macrocosm presents men with a model of their culture: the false identity of the general and the particular. Under monopoly all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through. The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows. Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce. They call themselves industries; and when their directors’ incomes are published, any doubt about the social utility of the finished products is removed.
Interested parties explain the culture industry in technological terms. It is alleged that because millions participate in it, certain reproduction processes are necessary that inevitably require identical needs in innumerable places to be satisfied with identical goods. The technical contrast between the few production centers and the large number of widely dispersed consumption points is said to demand organisation and planning by management. Furthermore, it is claimed that standards were based in the first place on consumers’ needs, and for that reason were accepted with so little resistance. The result is the circle of manipulation and retroactive need in which the unity of the system grows ever stronger. No mention is made of the fact that the basis on which technology acquires power over society is the power of those whose economic hold over society is greatest. A technological rationale is the rationale of domination itself. It is the coercive nature of society alienated from itself. Automobiles, bombs, and movies keep the whole thing together until their leveling element shows its strength in the very wrong which it furthered. It has made the technology of the culture industry no more than the achievement of standardisation and mass production, sacrificing whatever involved a distinction between the logic of the work and that of the social system.
This is the result not of a law of movement in technology as such but of its function in today’s economy. The need which might resist central control has already been suppressed by the control of the individual consciousness. The step from the telephone to the radio has clearly distinguished the roles. The former still allowed the subscriber to play the role of subject, and was liberal. The latter is democratic: it turns all participants into listeners and authoritatively subjects them to broadcast programs which are all exactly the same. No machinery of rejoinder has been devised, and private broadcasters are denied any freedom. They are confined to the apocryphal field of the “amateur,” and also have to accept organisation from above. ...
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm
Interesting. Why a marxist website? Tvs and phones are not phasing out in United States
-
Veritas, living in a tech age requires some hands on with the equipment that will permeate kids lives. Thing is, kids need to "learn" how to exist/function. Without technology to "connect the dots" in understanding what are they supposed to be learning.
-
Marxism advocates a non-industrial, agrarian society. Anti-technology if you may. I haven't quite figured out the underlying premise of your argument.
Veritas, living in a tech age requires some hands on with the equipment that will permeate kids lives. Thing is, kids need to "learn" how to exist/function. Without technology to "connect the dots" in understanding what are they supposed to be learning.
That's what parents and teachers are for. What are they learning? About trees? Take them outside and let them touch and smell it.
-
What kind of future are we exposing kids to these days? Quote:
From the worker’s perspective the machine can only be seen as the material manifestation of the capitalist’s domination. Besides the lower wages and precarious livelihood, the machine system transforms the factory into a world of torment. While the physical strenuousness of labor may be reduced, the conditions of the workplace worsen: longer hours, deafening noise, intensified pace of production, and hazards presented by the machines themselves. Most important perhaps is the further alienation of the worker from the labor (552). The monotonous repetition of movement and mentally taxing concentration deprive the worker of any gratification from the activity of producing. “The wearisome routine of endless drudgery in which the same mechanical process is ever repeated, is like the torture of Sisyphus; the burden of toil, like the rock, is ever falling back upon the worn-out drudge” (Engels, quoted by Marx, 548).
The alienation of the worker only increases as the complexity of the machinery increases. As the tools wielded by the machinery become larger or more specialized, the machines are linked together to form a complete system of production, powered by a single source or “prime mover.” This is the hallmark of modern large-scale industry. The forces of nature are harnessed to the yoke of capital to create an automaton that can accomplish tasks of “Cyclopean” magnitude (507). Yet, applying natural sciences to the practical problems of production removes the resulting processes further from the individual worker. Under the system of manufacture the tasks were divided according to what an individual human being could do most efficiently. In modern industry, however, the problem is solved without reference to the abilities of a human laborer at all. “Here the total process is examined objectively, viewed in and for itself, and analysed into its constitutive phases” (501). The process of production is then conceived and implemented in abstraction from human beings. The purpose of the worker is to be “merely [the] conscious organs, coordinated with the unconscious organs of the automaton” (544). Once we have reached this level of sophistication in production, we cannot think of the process simply as isolated machines working in conjunction. Instead, Marx proclaims:
Here we have...a mechanical monster whose body fills whole factories, and whose demonic power, at first hidden by the slow and measure motions of its gigantic members, finally bursts forth in the fast and feverish whirl of its countless working organs. (503)
https://20th-century-philosophy.wikispaces.com/Marx+on+Technology+and+Revolution
-
Marxism advocates a non-industrial, agrarian society. Anti-technology if you may. I haven't quite figured out the underlying premise of your argument.
Veritas, living in a tech age requires some hands on with the equipment that will permeate kids lives. Thing is, kids need to "learn" how to exist/function. Without technology to "connect the dots" in understanding what are they supposed to be learning.
That's what parents and teachers are for. What are they learning? About trees? Take them outside and let them touch and smell it.
The problem with marxism is the same problem with fill out the dots. It assumes that leadership is benevolent and well informed.
-
Marxism is about people power. It's about empowering individuals into mass action. It's about abolishing class differences and establishing an egalitarian society without hierarchies. We haven't had a successful Marxist society as of yet.
-
Marxism is about people power. It's about empowering individuals into mass action. It's about abolishing class differences and establishing an egalitarian society without hierarchies. We haven't had a successful Marxist society as of yet.
Why do you prefer an outlined economic system in which all resources are owned, or controlled by the state?
-
I think we need to get back to the issue at hand. I'm no Marxist and I'm no advocate of a public system, nor do I work or contribute to a public system. I took an overarching ideology to justify why technology shouldn't be over-exposed to young minds. There's just too many fundamental flaws in this technological evolution, there's just not enough humane justification for it.
Have you seen the movie Chappie?
-
I haven't seen Chappie. I will give him (Neill Blomkamp) mad props for district 9 (great directing), but I was not impressed by Elysium. I think the guy is a genius when it comes to sci fi weapons and robots and won't mind watching Chappie.
Although for a minor problem. When I caught the trailer for this it immediately felt like a Blomkamp remake of Short Circuit.
(https://krzysztofk.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/johny_5-krotkie_spiecie_2-tristar-pictures_1988.jpg)
And that last sentence is basically the ending to Star Craft 2:
(http://torontoist.com/attachments/toronto_davidf/2008_3_25_endcredit.jpg)
-
Veritas, modern technology has saved many innocent lives in Medical field. Medical science is very progressive and vastly available today. Many life-saving discoveries are all thanks to modern technology. Without brain scanners, fetal monitors, endoscopes, lasers, radioactive chemicals and computers, a lot of people would struggle with their health.
-
The technology isn't there yet for medicine.
For example, the more complex a medical condition like cancers, the more likely the interpretation is incorrect when relying on radio-imaging or biopsies. When I was at MD Anderson, they told me 70% of cases they received, the diagnosis by medical centres and other hospitals were incorrect.
Medicine is still very much behind and really in the eye of the medical team. I've interacted with the best and let me say it was disappointing to say the least. Pure science and even social psychology still has the upper hand when it comes to evidence and technology. At least those peeps can type.
You can get away with a lot of garbage blablablas when it comes to cell novel etc. findings. It's a "behavioral" study of cells and up to the medical "social"scientist.
Cute robot. I didn't understand your blabla about Blomkamp and district 9, Elysium. However, I think I've seen that robot from Wall-E
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140428175138/p__/protagonist/images/e/e2/WALL-E_03.jpg)
-
This thread should not be in the coliseum at all.
That said, digital technology is just one type of technology. There are many others.
In my opinion, the most important things kids of elementary school going age need are friends, enough play outdoors, and tutoring. If something, including technology, gets in the way of this, then it is harmful.
-
Windy... dear, please refrain from jumping in the arena and fighting my battle. I can wrestle RP on my own. 8)
-
Windy... dear, please refrain from jumping in the arena and fighting my battle. I can wrestle RP on my own. 8)
I don't know the average African folks age or Kenyan who blog in Kenyan social sites but most will agree with me. Technology saved this kid
Most Kenyan bloggers have teenagers and would want to know or track where their kids are). I don't have one, but I think most folks from my place need technology. Especially kids
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2015/08/24/how-siri-saved-this-mans-life/
-
The kid would've survived even without a mobile. That's called destiny.
I just came back from an IoT hackathon and was a bit disturbed by the enthusiasm for IoT by developers without much knowledge on the practicalities of implementing IP technology to every object nor the entailing security threats.
The kid below showed me his IoT robot car his dad made and I was thinking ok this is very cool but at the same time saddened it was sort of too exposed and may have long term detrimental social fx for a child. A car should be shiny and red or big and blue etc. akin to a child's cognitive development like those age regulated picture books. Technological exposure should also be censored so the child doesn't develop mental disorders.
-
You just attach a chip to any object like that kiddy proof circuit board mounted on top of that car and voila you can collect data on motion, temperature, facial recognition, lights etc. anything to do with perceptual and cognitive features controlled from an online or local connection. Could we attach it to humans?
From the movie "Falling Skies" alien harnesses. With nanotechnology it would be possible to regulate and collect data on anything embedded in a cell to mere electrical synapses. Yes it may help collect data and control and regulate heart conditions, blood flow, inflammation to just speeding up healing properties. That would be amazing. But what if the same can be hijacked to make someone bleed to death. A hacker could kill someone with this technology.