In the opening of Macy’s paper she states that we have more technical prowess and knowledge now than the human race has ever before possessed. That statement got me thinking. If we have so much technology at our disposal, then why do we have so many starving, sick and disadvantaged people on this planet? Why does 10% of the population possess and control 90% of everything? Then it came to me. Even though we have the technology to save the planet and all of its starving and disadvantaged people, we as a race haven’t evolved as extensively in an intellectual or moral aspect as our technology. What if computers ran the world and made decisions for us? Would we or could we have a better planet? If we programmed computers with “fairness and equity” algorithms, could a machine run this planet better than humans? That then got me thinking about something Mr. (Agent) Smith from the 1999 movie The Matrix articulated to Neo,
I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we … are the cure (Wiki Quote, 2010).
Well, Hollywood has taken a run at the idea of machines (computers) running things and every time it ends with the humans outsmarting the computers and taking back the world. So, I come back to my original question. If human beings are so smart, why do we choose to be so blind to the severity of the problems this planet is facing?
Macy suggests that people are not blind to the “pain” in the world. She suggests we are just programmed to shut it out, perhaps like a bad childhood memory that is suppressed? Maybe all of the technology that surrounds us is the human race’s way of distracting us from the real ills of this planet. If we can be connected to and distracted by a variety of technologies that pass for entertainment, maybe we can just shut out the real world. Is this why people choose to have a “Second Life”? Does the real one “suck” so badly that people need to escape it? I can tell you from first-hand experience, people are not creating worlds and lives for themselves in “Second Life” that are polluted and where people are starving and dying from disease! So, if we choose to create an artificial world where all is good and right, why aren’t we doing this in the real one? Why aren’t we diverting the time we spend being distracted (entertained) and putting that time and effort forward to save this (real) planet and the people on it? Would this time not go along way to fixing some of the damage? The Kaiser Family Foundation (2010) states on its website that,
With technology allowing nearly 24-hour media access as children and teens go about their daily lives, the amount of time young people spend with entertainment media has risen dramatically, especially among minority youth, according to a study released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Today, 8-18 year-olds devote an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes (7:38) to using entertainment media across a typical day (more than 53 hours a week). And because they spend so much of that time ‘media multitasking’ (using more than one medium at a time), they actually manage to pack a total of 10 hours and 45 minutes (10:45) worth of media content into those 7½ hours.
If people confronted their despair and reasons for ignoring the problems of the world, would people as Macy suggests, have an increased devotion to fixing the mess we as a race find ourselves? Macy seems to think that from her discussion with Jim Douglass that people can examine and substitute possibilities for loss of hope. I think that Douglass might be right. I think that possibilities equate to hope and as long as people can see possibilities, there will always be hope. I think Mr. Smith is wrong!
When I read Eppert and Simon’s paper entitled, “Remembering Obligation”, the first thing that struck me was the reference to “lived past” and how that might relate to phenomenology and investigating “lived experience”. The other thought that came to me was how this lived past connects to the passing down of human history through stories, legends and myths and the power that storytelling has with people. I then got to wondering if there was a way video game developers could capture the context of the stories we are trying to pass on to our students/children and capitalize (respectfully and not necessarily monetarily) on the exciting medium of video gaming? Stories are only remembered if they are heard and then retold by many people. Could video games not accomplish this?
I have played many video games in and around the theme of World War II. Many of these games include historical content as background for the game. Could video game developers include content that portrayed the Holocaust and other atrocities of the Nazis and teach kids (people) this history? Could this be done in a tasteful and respectful way? If we revisit the statistics I quoted previously in this reflection, I would think that the video game medium could be a very successful vehicle for delivering the message and content we want kids to learn, know and remember about historical events for any era in history. Kids and video gamers of all ages could become “witnesses” to history in a fun, captivating and educational manner! Could these games not make, as Eppert and Simon state, “history come alive”? Would video games as the authors again state, “…represent that story in concrete forms for others?”
Frigga’s paper offers an interesting insight to how people, particularly women, attempt to fit themselves into the social constructs and limitations of a male dominated world. This paper had interest for me in the respect that I have two daughters who are in fact attempting to find their way in this world. My eldest daughter (20) serves in the military which is very male dominated and is often frustrated by many of the “male” social structures that exist that exclude or assume diminished capacity in the female soldier. I have to applaud her for her patience and determination within this system. She has, as Frigga suggests, “…constructed herself into the existing structures” and she is thereby formed by the structures in place. She has figured out how to cope within the structures and does very well, but the experiences she is exposed to are different in many respects to the experiences of the male soldier. Frigga states that, “We live according to a whole series of imperatives: social pressures, natural limitations, the imperative if economic survival, the given conditions of history and culture” and this could not be more true than in the Canadian military. All of these imperatives exist on a daily basis.
In an attempt to stay within the confines of fairness to this reflection’s length restrictions (which I have already greatly exceeded), I will say that the inequities that women face are great. As a white anglo-saxon male and father of two girls, I understand this and try to be a male who treats women as equals. I treat women in the manner in which I would like to be treated and how I’d like my daughters to be treated. This, of course, reminds me of something I tell new teachers: “Don’t treat the kids in front of you any differently than you would want your own kids treated!”
Respectfully,
Brad
No comments:
Post a Comment