as posted (authored by) Challies Dot Com. I could add more, but why, when someone has said it so well. Despite the imagery of Naomi Wolf’s article, and despite Challies’ well-founded attack on porn in relation to sin, I realized, while reading her article, that I have been blessed by not growing like this generation. Continue reading →
In Are Computers Causing us to “Cocoon” Ourselves?, WXPNews editor Deb Shinder questions as to whether we are really cocooning ourselves, and whether its really bad. I think she makes, not intentionally, another point in my Technological Enervation zeitgeist, our rationalization and justification
You may or may not be a fan of Chuck Colson, but in his 18 July 2007 Breakpoint Commentary, Gorging On Politics, he makes a number of points regarding the flaw of the Information Age, the need to CREATE information to maintain flow and interest. He mentions Jacques Ellul’s book, The Political Illusion, which predicted this very thing. Colson’s Point?
But the real evil of the illusion is that it distracts us from other aspects of life.
Nicholas Carr is quoted saying that people are changing the way, and need, to remember things, because the majority of it is available on the internet. He also mentions that this means that “cultural baggage” (whether for good or bad), is being left behind as well. Of course, that also means long views and perspectives, something the Western World is already trying to leave behind at light speed.
Where ARE we going? Perhaps we ought to think about that. And that leads me to what I am finding out about myself. I love technology, but I’m really becoming confronted with what it is doing to me, my children, my country, everyone. At one point, Technological Enervation was going to be just a phrase, but now I’m changing it to a zeitgeist. This is the spirit of the age. Yay.
footnoteIn case you’re wondering the reason for the title name, it is from Johnny Mnemonic (an okay Keanu Reeves movie), where a guy has rewired part of his brain to allow him to carry data. He says, “Hit me,” right before more information is uploaded into his brain than it is wired to tolerate (thus we get the whole, “I’m gonna die,” suspense for the movie). And I’m sure at least one other person out there saw this movie, it’s not just me (I hope). The really funny part, is that the plot of the movie is about information overload.
In her article,
Hey There, Lonelygirl15 – Prison Fellowship, Dr. Stephanie Bennett has an interesting view of the vlog phenomenon, and what it means about our needs for relationships.
In here, Mr. Garibaldi, you cannot hide from yourself. Everything out there has only one purpose, to distract us from ourselves, from what is truly important. There are no distractions in here. You can learn much from silence.
Citizen G’kar
“Messages From Earth”
Babylon 5, Season 3
Have you ever heard, “We’re too busy”? Have you said it yourself? Through God’s creation, we have been blessed with many things. Satan (yes, I believe he exists) takes those wonderful things, and corrupts them, and that’s what this post is about.
The one thing I like about Science Fiction is the way questions can be asked without being threatening, but still be thought provoking. The quote above from Babylon 5 (Wikipedia entry), is one of those. Cellphones, wireless networks, Blackberrys, and now iPhones surround us. Constant noise. Think about casinos. They are engineered to be the noisy places they are: to distract.
As life has caught up with me, I no longer have the time I probably need for solitude. I might very well be less for it. With 3 kids, a cat, a dog, and way too much technology to play with, I’m at that point where I am afraid of solitude.
About the only time I get it is very early in the morning a couple of times a week. I can focus on silence and God. That time of solitude, though little, and relatively rare, I think keep me from completely snapping at times. As we become more distracted, we reach out in less tangible ways. I look at MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other such sites (I’m guilty of this too, as you can see to the left) and see people aching to connect.
People say they are more connected now, but are they really? Kids are text messaging their parents into the poorhouse. They are text about inane things. Are they really connected to each other? Really?
My wife and I had one of those really deep discussions the other night, discussing friendship. We talked about people we know who have lots of friends. Neither of us do, but then, we need our friendships to be deep ones. Really deep.
Adults who aren’t living children’s lives say that kids these days have just as meaningful relationships as people did a generation or two ago. Hmmm, so if my “friends” keep updating me via Twitter on what they’re doing, that’s connected. I think that says more about the adults making the statement than the kids.
So what’s this about Satan, again? While the first liar has been perfecting his art for a long time. A very long time. We need these things, this (albeit very cool) electronic stuff, to keep in contact with each other. No, what we need is to take a deep breath and connect.
I’ve heard many folks saying that the “Old World” has it right. People spend hours in the café talking with each other. There is a lot of truth in that, however, there is a lot of sloth in the rest as well. There has to be a balance between the hyperactive (and thus shallow) interactions, and the long (slothful) interactions. Both have their place, but like all things, they can go too far.
I believe Thomas Sowell is one of those people that brings great insight in regards to the human condition. In his commentary, Cultural Heritages, he talks about what is a fundamental flaw of certain people’s perception of culture. His particular example, the Navajo, is only one of may that can used, if one looks around. The part that he doesn’t mention is that culture is fragmenting and changing to such a degree, a lot of that based on technology (both computers and transportation, which I have mentioned previously), that trying to create an “ideal” culture (such as “Navajo Culture” in this example) is, I think, a coping mechanism. We need connections, and with a significant portion of the population commuting and separated from family, by hundreds and thousands of miles, I think his example is only the tip of the iceberg.
I’ve decided that I needed to come up with a new phrase to describe the issues I see with technology and its effect upon people, and by default, society. I’m not sure how to even define it, yet.
I’ve gone back and tagged/categorized older articles, in addition to newer articles as they come up.
In a way, this is a zeitgeist, that seeks to gather together the peculiar afflictions of technology, from my point of view.
A survey sponsored by MTV provides some very interesting tidbits regarding the endangered psyche of a technology-savy generation. Even though I found the comment on religion interesting, it just seemed to be tossed in there, and didn’t add to the main thrust of the story.
On top of that, an article in Christianity Today discusses a survey, “Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades”, from the American Sociological Review which describes the increasing loneliness of Americans.
Today, a friend sent a link to an article from Psychology Today which discusses depression, anxiety, self-esteem, and parenting.
Last of all, a link to Der Spiegel (in English), reporting on European towns removing traffic signs, and its effects on people’s behavior.
What on earth do these all have to do with each other? It’s very simple, yet not. All of the articles revolve around balance. At an increasing pace, we are removing ourselves from the very interactions that make us human.
When I first heard of the Michael J. Fox political commercial, I immediately wrote an entry about it, however, I then learned about all the controversy about Rush Limbaugh et al (amazingly I hadn’t heard about that), and decided to mark my post “private” so that I would not add flames to a horribly partisan flame war.
However, I will add my $.02 to the stem cell debate itself.
First and foremost, the troubling part about many of those that are using stem cell research as a political flaming arrow (whether for political office, or for some proposition), is that they always say that so-and-so opposes stem cell research, but the truth is that so-and-so (usually) opposes the “destruction” (euphemism for KILLING) of embryos for the harvesting of embryonic stem cells. The person (or people in the case of propositions) don’t oppose stem cell research per se, but the source of the stem cells.
What is particularly appalling, is the “pie-in-the-sky” cures that are being placed at the alter of stem cell research, especially embryonic stem cell research. John Edwards during his and John Kerry’s presidential campaign, fell deeply into that trap, saying that Christopher Reeve would walk again, and other, well frankly, absurd claims. I am not saying that stem cell research will not allow paralyzed people to walk, or cure Alzheimer’s, or cure Parkinson’s, but in certainly won’t happen soon, REGARDLESS of the source of stem cells.
Also, those that are using stem cell research as part of their political arsenal, either refuse to acknowledge or are deliberately not speaking of (because it interferes with their TRUE political aims, whatever they might be) adult stem cell research. There have been a number of publicized stem cell treatment studies, which only when read in their entirety, mention that ADULT stem cells are what are being used.
From what I understand, at this point, embryonic stem cells are only producing tumors. If that is the case, why is it being pushed? Because of its “potential”? If that is the reason, then these same folk should be trumpeting adult stem cell research (especially in light of its currently greater successes), pushing for the same federal and state funding they are trying to direct towards embryonic stem cell research.
They say pharmaceutical and bio-engineering companies don’t have the money to fund embryonic stem cell research. Yet these same companies have the money to fund adult stem cell research, and are close, supposedly, to a couple of successful treatments. It is disingenuous to say that companies are afraid of the political backlash on supposedly moral and ethical grounds, while, on the other hand, accusing the SAME companies of gouging the American public for medicinal treatments (i.e., unethical and immoral behavior).
The other part of this that I have an issue with is, is the hypocrisy. People who are out agitating for the killing of embryos (or destruction of same, if you wish), and genetic therapies on humans, oppose animal research, including genetic research, and also oppose genetically engineered tomatoes (for longer staying power in the stores) or fish (can’t remember the rationale for this one) or grain (to increase yield, especially for countries with FAMINE and STARVING children). Why is it okay to mess with the incredibly complex and still quite unknown (we’ve mapped the human genome, but do we REALLY know what it means) of human beings, but we can’t mess with fish, tomatoes, or grain?
Just so it is understood, I am against artificial genetic engineering (farmers have been naturally genetic engineering since the beginning of agriculture), whether it be fish, tomato (granted, tomatoes are yucky anyways), or human. Part of lure of genetic engineering is the thought that, for example, my child will be “perfect”, which completely fails to take into account the entirety of the human condition, of which genetics is only a part. The world in the movie Gattaca is a world where genetic perfection is normal (this was also touched upon in the book Red Genesis by S.C. Sykes), but Gattaca also demonstrates the true power of the human spirit, and how it, if the individual is willing, is the true individual, not their genetics.
Back to the topic at hand. What is the motivator for all the emphasis on embryonic stem cell research? I read a report (Stem Cell Research and Applications) sponsored by the AAAS (despite their attempt to appear unbiased, their sponsored papers and seminars show otherwise), and it is quite clear that there is NO evidence that embryonic stem cell research will produce good “fruit”, and they say as such. Yet the paper says that we must continue it. Why? Especially, as it appears, that there are successful treatments using another stem cell source. What is going on?
I have heard is postulated that those that are advocating embryonic stem cell research are advocating that particular branch of research, because abortion can be “dovetailed” into it as a source of such stem cells. I hope that that postulate is wrong. VERY wrong. However, I fear it is true. As far as I can tell, those who advocate embryonic stem cell research (and also disregarding adult stem cell research), and are agitating for it politically, are also pro-”choice”, thus seeming to bolster the “need” to continue to have “choice”. I find it hard to believe that ANYONE could be so detached from their own humanity to think that way. So again, I hope that that postulate is wrong.
The true conflict is between worldviews, and not incomprehension of science as many claim. The questions that seem to apply purely to this topic, and have differing worldviews, are as follows:
- Where does life begin?
- When is it okay to alter genetics?
- What is the value of a human life?
The first question is the hardest, mostly, and is the source of the conflict. For me, it is at conception, which of course causes a conflict with hormonal birth control, and I recognize the inconsistency, and struggle to conform them. Before I go further, I heard someone say yesterday that no one has funerals for miscarriages, while that is not universally true, on the other hand, when my wife miscarried we both mourned. That lost life was valued by us. Those that support embryonic stem cell research usually seem to be pro-choice, which seems to have the view that life begins whenever the pregnant woman says it does. If she calls it a fetus, it is abortable. If she calls is a baby, everything must be done to preserve the child. This is regardless of the child’s (which is what I call it) gestational age. THAT is inconsistent.
The genetics question was discussed above, but the abbreviated answers are: for me, never artificially; for supporters of embryonic stem cell research, the answer seems to be, on humans, when ever we want to, for animals or plants, never. Which segues into the next question.
This, now that I think about it, might actually be harder than I thought. For people such as Peter Singer (a professor of “ethics” at Princeton), the value of human life is whenever that life is valuable to him, or of value to whomever the question is asked. For him, by way of clarification, those that are a burden (such those with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Autism, you name it) should be “removed” so that they do not use up valuable resources. For me, human life is always valuable, however, sometimes (not for convenience’s sake) human life must be taken, but I believe that an unborn child deserves a whole lot more protection than they are getting now.
Those that support or oppose embryonic stem cell research both deserve to be listened to, but by painting embryonic stem cell research as all but the entirety of stem cell research, cannot even lead to possible discussion, but its premise is based on falsehood.
