Technophilia was very intersecting to read and it really opened my eyes about who we are know. “This love still simmers in our cells. it is why we keep pets, and potted plants in the city, why we garden when supermarket food is cheaper.”pg1(paragraph 2). I agreed with this one because everyone says that we have changed so much from the olden days which we have but not really we have just made most things less. for example if we really wanted to change it complete we wouldn’t pay ten times more for food at the farmers market but we do still want it around so we are willing to spend that.
” we are embarrassed to admit it, but we love technogly”. pg 1 ( paragraph 3)
I agree with this very much because even myself I don’t like to admit it. its a very strange thing to admit to because if you do admit to it then your just saying your lazy and you just go on your phone and you don’t do anything with your life.
” I had no idea what they were”pg2(paragraph 3) I have a very strong option about this because as a society I feel like we have put our knowledge most;y to not simply things and we just rely on someone else todo it. for example an oil change is so simple but no one knows how todo it and we would be so lost if we couldn’t just bring our cars into a shop and them do stuff to it and we get it back and no lights are on.
Page 4 paragraph 1 Kelley talks about how dams inspired dread and disgust and also awe and admiration. I agree and disagree with what he says and explains. He talks about how our biggest technological creations are like people. I feel that is true but I do not agree with the way he explained it.
On page 5 paragraph 2 Kelley states that he is no longer embarrassed to admit he loves the internet. He explains how he thinks it is beautiful and he enjoys going on it. I completely agree with everything he says because I feel the same way about the internet. While some people still do not like what the internet has done to us, some people feel the opposite.
On page 6 paragraph 2 Kelley talks about how technology does not want to remain “utilitarian”. I feel how he says that is a little strange, but I also agree with what he says.
“In the technium revulsion and reverence often go hand in hand. Our biggest technological creations are like people in that way; they elicit our deepest loves and hates.” This is on page 4, in the middle of paragraph 2. This passage does two things: it compares technology to humans, and also describes how differently people can feel about technology. I agree with the second part, mostly because I have seen a lot of this first hand. People may be disgusted by changes in technology, while others are happy about it. I also think this can be applied to any change. When there is any change in any society, there are always people on both sides. Many political systems are built on the fact that people will have differing opinions about many things. I think this passage is moreso talking about the extremes of these emotions-some may be terrified of the new technology, and some may be absolutely in love with it, like a few passages described earlier in this essay. I also believe comparing technology to humans is a valid idea. Humans create technology, so how could it possibly not resemble us in some way? We are creating tools to fill our needs, so of course some of them will eventually evolve to resemble humans.
“It has insinuated its tendrils of connection into everything, everywhere. The net is now vastly wider than me, wider than I can imagine, so in this way, while I am in it, it makes me bigger too. I feel amputated when I am away from it.” This is on page 5 and in paragraph 4. I partially agree with this passage. While I do agree that technology is very widespread and many people rely on it for many things, I don’t agree that technology has the sort of effect on everyone’s lives that Kelly describes. Feeling bigger when using something and then feeling amputated, as in severely hindered, when not using something sounds like a severe addiction. A lot of this essay kind of shows that as well-complete fascination with technology to the point where it makes me, a reader, slightly uncomfortable, is kind of concerning. I have never felt this way, nor have I felt physically sick without technology like Kelly mentions of another person earlier in the essay. I think Turkle is a bit extreme with her thoughts, but I feel like this essay is the opposite extreme; glorifying technology and describing the use of it as a crutch.
“We keep specific technology around not only because it may be useful, but because we like to have it around. The gear, devices, networks form an interdependent ecosystem of interrelated parts, and we have a technophilia for its survival. We love…the way we can lose ourselves in it. We rebel at the negative costs…but we have a deep affinity for its web.” This is on page 7, in the first paragraph. This is an interesting view, and there is absolutely some truth to it. People are absolutely upset about the effects technology has on the Earth, but not enough people care and other people just don’t care enough to really do anything about it. And, I do agree with the statement that they don’t care because they like technology too much to want to preserve it. I feel like the first part of this passage may be related to the term, “first-world problems.” In developed countries like the US, people have developed and have access to a ton of technology, not all of which is necessary. A lot of people have little gadgets that they “can’t live without,” which is untrue; you can, but you just don’t want to. Or, maybe, they have integrated themselves so much into our lives that we wouldn’t be able to live without them. That part is the scary part.
On page one paragraph one I had a lot of thoughts related to it. Kelley is talking about teens and their use of the internet. He says, “It’s an always-on job, this endless encapsulation of the moment.” I agree and I think it’s an exhausting job. Yes, I have free will to stop using it and not answer people, but the reality is I have to use it, especially in college. If I was to not check my email, I would miss out on a lot of important things I need to do or hear about, same with checking my assignments. Yes, it’s my choice on my usage of the internet but at least some part of it’s not my choice if I want to be successful in the world today. Even outside of being a college student there’s certain things I do online that I have to do like my online bills, for my car insurance and phone bill. I think the worst part is that these little things we have to do constantly with us, usually in our pockets (our phones). We are constantly reminded of everything and everyone and don’t sit in our own thoughts as much as people used to. We don’t give ourselves a mental break and it’s an always-on job.
On page 5 paragraph 2 Kelley says “the internet is closer to the technological equivalence of a place. An uncharted territory where you can genuinely get lost.” I agree, diving into the web is its “own world” in a sense. You go look up one thing and then there’s link upon link, leading you to all sorts of different and new information. The internet is full of unknowns and that keeps us hooked. It gives us access to all sorts of media, music, movies, books. It’s basically a one in all at that point. That’s why it’s so easy to love getting lost in the “world of technology.” I don’t think I love technology but I do like it. I like that I can call my friends and family whenever I want. I like the easy access of information and unknowingness of it. But the reason I don’t love it is because I do see the problems it’s bringing along with it such as the constant buzz of social media and how overtaking it can be. It overtakes when you allow social media to surround your life and it’s easy to let this happen, like I said I agree that’s it easy to get lost in the web.
On page five paragraph four, he says “I find myself indebted to the net for its provisions. It’s a steadfast benefactor, always there.” Technology is always there, whether it’s in your pocket, car, house, honestly, it’s everywhere now. He says “rarely does it fail to please” but I have a complicated response to this since in a certain sense yes, it’s always there with resources, and various amounts of information and media. It will always be somewhere you can get lost in through the mysterious ways of the internet. But it’s not always reliable, computers, phones, cars break or have manufacturing errors etc. In that case it can fail to please and it’s kind of scary to me that we are even thinking of putting so much trust into the internet, like robots now and their plans for future robots. And who says, this new technology will be steadfast.
Page one paragraph three. This paragraph seems very important as it tells you want technophilla is, “the love of technology”. He goes on to use this word a few times throughout the piece. It also helps to set up the essay, while in the end, he says he loves technology. In this paragraph, I also believe that we love technology most of the time. My generation doesn’t know a life without it, it can but annoying and frustrating at times, but people love it. We complain about it but still use it daily. This topic is complicated, as I do love technology (my phone) but I also get sick of the constant beeping. Too nervous to leave without it or turn it off as if someone needs to get in touch with me, but also annoyed that everyone is messaging me wanting a quick response.
Page five paragraph three, Kelley writes, “In that lovely surrender, the web swallows my certitude and delivers the unknown.” I love how he puts this. I agree with this quote, we surrender our time to technology/phones. The web brings us in to scroll and find new information, falling down the rabbit hole of new possibilities. I will get lost on the internet, scrolling Instagram, and TikTok and the next thing I know an hour has gone by, but I’ve also now learned new random facts. Sometimes just playing a game and listening to a book, the minutes tick by, and I let my phone feed me information until I feel I’m done.
Page nine paragraph two, Kelly quotes Jaron Lanier, a worrier of technopilla, “We make ourselves stupid in order to make computers seem smart. I don’t worry about computers getting intelligent, I worry about humans getting dumber.” I feel he perfectly puts this, I agree that the more technology becomes integrated into our lives, the more we rely on it. This generation’s common sense has slowly dwindled, not knowing how to solve a problem without looking it up.
“Turkle says, “we think with the objects we love, and we love the objects we think with.” She suspects that most of us have some kind of technology that acts as our touchstone. I am one of them. I am no longer embarrassed to admit that I love the internet. People love places, and will die to defend a place they love, as our sad history of wars prove.” On page 4, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Kevin Kelley’s essay “Technophilia,” my view is complicated. I can agree that, yes, I love the internet. But I don’t love it to the extent that Kelley talks about in this essay. He seems to be a little, overly obsessed with it. I’m a little worried about him. Dying to defend a place wasn’t ever a good idea, I don’t think that dying to defend the internet would be any better.
“But the internet is closer to the technological equivalence of a place. An uncharted territory where you can genuinely get lost. At times I’ve entered to web just to get lost. In that lovely surrender, the web swallows my certitude and delivers the unknown. Despite the purposeful design of its human creators, the web is a wilderness. Its boundaries are unknown, unknowable, its mysteries uncountable. The bramble of intertwined ideas, links, documents, and images create an otherness as thick as a jungle. The web smells like life.” Also, on page 4 in paragraph 3, Kelley claims the web is life of sorts. Again, my take on this is complicated. This feels like a very dumb and poetic way of thinking about technology. On one hand, it’s poetic because the way Kelley imagines the web sounds very beautiful. But on the other hand, its dumb because he says that it “smells like life.” Poetic? Yes. Dumb? Absolutely. The web is technology. Technology is not nature like a jungle, and it doesn’t smell.
“We keep specific technology around not only because it may be useful, but because we like to have it around. The gear, devices, networks form an interdependent ecosystem of interrelated parts, and we have a technophilia for its survival. We love the jungly mesh of the technium, and the way we can lose ourselves in it. We rebel at the negative costs of this interrelatedness, and its negative externalities such as pollution (global warming is a type of pollution), but we have a deep affinity for its web. We continue to manufacture new ideas and new artifacts, not because we always need them, but because the technium needs them, and because we find the technium attractive.” A little dumb and poetic on page 6 paragraph 1, as well. But I do like this take because of my Marine Science major. However; I do not agree with this fully. It is all connected and we do lose ourselves in technology sometimes. But the talk of technium being attractive is concerning for me. Really, the entire essay rubbed me the wrong way.
Page 4, Paragraph 1 “In the technium revulsion and reverence often go hand in hand. Our biggest technological creations are like people in that way; they elicit our deepest loves and hates.” I think I somewhat agree with Kelley in this comparison of people and technology. While we usually have some sort of connection with our phones making us always want to carry them around with us, they can never have the same qualities that a human does. So even though we have the ability to love or hate it the technology doesn’t have the same ability making the relationship one sided.
Page 5, paragraph 2 “Despite the purposeful design of its human creators, the web is a wilderness. Its boundaries are unknown, unknowable, its mysteries uncountable. The bramble of intertwined ideas, links, documents, and images create an otherness as thick as a jungle. The web smells like life.” I think this is an interesting comparison Kelley makes. While I agree that the internet is a place of unknown that might seem like a jungle when it comes to the content available. But in reality it’s made of so many layers underneath that are structure and made by people and really not all that wild at all.
Page 6, paragraph 2 “Technology does not want to remain utilitarian. It wants to become art, to be beautiful and “useless.” I don’t think I agree with Kelley in this passage. Technology isn’t a being with feeling no matter what it could never truly “want” something in the same way humans do. It design is based mostly on our needs and what we want to get out of it not to be seen as beautiful. I also feel like him saying it wants to be useless makes no sense since its soul purpose is for us to use it and make things easier.
Jaidin Fuentes
On page 5, paragraph 3, Kelley describes the internet like it’s a forest. She says “It’s boundaries are unknown, unknowable, its mysteries uncountable. The bramble of intertwined ideas, links, documents, and images create an otherness as thick as a jungle”. This gives the reader a perfect image to describe the internet. I agree with this take heavily. There is so much of the internet that is unexplored that it’s impossible for one to explore it all. There is resources for us to use and take to our advantage. There is so much beauty in it for a user to enjoy but at the same time there is danger lurking. And worst of all, if you go to deep in the wilderness and don’t be careful, you can find yourself lost in the wilderness of the internet. So with this is mind we need to be careful with how we interact with the internet.
On page 6 of the essay, Kelley makes another analogy that hits the spot perfectly. On paragraph four of the page, she says “The continual rise in technological variety is propelled by the needs of other technologies. You have a house, then you get a car. Now your car needs a house too”. It seems like no matter what we do with technology, it doesn’t stop evolving. No matter how advanced we may think we have come, there seems to always be another step to take. The worst part is technology also becomes more involved with our lives with every step it takes. I agree with this quote because it is straightforward with the message it is trying to get across. Technology is going to become more apparent in our lives and it’s going to doing so unless we stop it.
On Paragraph one of page 9, Kelley agrees with Sherry Turkle with a quote saying “We are so eager to love technology that Turkle is worried this love blinds us” and also goes to say on the second paragraph “In the future, we’ll find it easier to love technology. Machines win our hearts with every step they take in evolution”. I have complicated feelings on this take> I don’t necessarily disagree with it because it can very well be true, but that doesn’t mean I have to be okay with it. I find it saddening to be told there’s a future that I cannot prevent and so instead I must just accept my fate. What can the human race to take care of this issue?
Page 1 paragraph 1 Kelley says, “Our identity with technology run deep, to our core.” I agree with this because technology is such a big part of our lives now that we would feel lost without it. It’s been a part of our life for so long now that if it was taken away it would almost be like losing a part of us because It runs so deep.
Page 5 paragraph 3 Kelley relates technology to a favorite place. I do not agree with this. I don’t think loving technology has anything to do with a favorite place. A favorite place is somewhere you can escape to and just think. A favorite place has a certain feel, temperature, smell, and surrounding. Technology has none of these traits. Technology is too stimulating to be able to relax and think. It also changes too much so how can it be equivalent to a favorite place when its always changing.
On page 6 paragraph 1 Kelley asks, “If you can honestly love a cat, which can’t give you directions to a strangers house, why can’t you love the web?” This connection makes no sense. At cat is a living thing with a heartbeat. You can love a cat and it will love you In return. You can love technology too, but In a completely different way than you would love a cat.
Kevin Kelly goes so far as to suggest in the introduction (page 1, paragraph 5) that our deep connection with technology is just another form of biophilia — and that technophilia has become “second nature” for us. Response: Complicated. Although I appreciate the evolutionary view that technology is an outgrowth of human creativity, this glosses over some very real social and psychological forces. Common access to technological resources is not a fully “natural” or equal state, it has many cultural paternalistic factors influenced by history, economy and socio-political setup. Different societies have been more open to technology grown out of passion based on availability or regulation and specific historical context. I am wary of romanticizing technology as we do nature since history has not been entirely kind to all the advances technologically. This ladder honored a more neutral, balanced perspective that felt important — to anchor us in the coexistence of awe and eye-lid critical awareness from whence our relationship with technology could get re-orientated.
Page 2, Paragraph 8: People can generate a sense of awe from technology as evidenced by the respect given to machines such as dynamos and classic cars that remind us of natural wonders seen in ancient cultures. Response: Agree. Fascinating Status of Not Being Real: This is a corollary to the point mentioned above when we introduce technological artifacts into our world, they automatically become these awe-inspiring symbols of human achievement, much like ancient monuments or natural landscapes. That this “worship” manifests our sense that technology is an alien force with the power to rework everything around us? But I also believe it speaks to a more profound emotional response — those relics stand for dominion over our realm and the desire of mankind to ascend its own restrictions. Reverence, here is not for the object so much as it was for what this institution represented: our potential to create and innovate.
Page 3, Par 14: Kelly likens emotional connection to technological networks like the internet as a quasi love affair implying people might become too emotionally attached and thus dependent on such systems. Response: Disagree. I don’t quite feel like characterizing our relationship with technology, and by extension digital networks as “affection” really gets to the heart of it. Oftentimes, the usefulness of technology induces a sort of reliance similar to an emotional dependence through function_WORD. While many of us may have an emotional connection to some popular devices and software, that affection is a product of their availability or convenience not the result of a built-in need. There are even pitfalls in casting this dependency as love — it somewhat excuses the ethical concerns behind tech companies that design addictive technology and prey upon people.
Page 1, Paragraph 3. I agree with this passage. Kelley brings up an interesting point, “We are embarrassed to admit it, but we love technology. At least sometimes.” This relates to what we discussed in class, that technology can be an addiction. Kelley believes that it is a problem that many of us have, but are aware of. I agree and can see this in my own life. Everytime I use my phone, play video games, or watch television, I am aware that I could be doing something more productive. I do it anyway because I enjoy it and feel like I often need it. By saying “At least sometimes,” Kelley implies that we love technology, but sometimes regret that we use it. He seems to believe that technology has both positive and negative effects on society, rather than choosing a side. In my opinion, this gives him credibility since he is explaining both sides of the argument. He is giving us the knowledge needed to form our own opinions.
Page 4, Paragraph 1. I have a complicated opinion on this passage. Kelley argues that” Our biggest technological creations are like people in that way; they elicit our deepest loves and hates.” This sentence stood out to me because it sounds really meaningful and a little aggressive in a way. I don’t necessarily believe that technology brings out both love and hate in people. I think it has less polar emotions and is more of a spectrum. Kelley uses a dam as an example, saying it “…inspired dread and disgust as well as awe and admiration.” This is because it hinders fish spawning while helping reduce flooding. This is an example of two extremes, but there are many other things that have less extreme emotions tied to them, like television or simple pieces of technology. It’s not about the technology itself, it’s about how people use them to elicit a response.
Page 5, paragraph 2. I agree with the ideas presented in this paragraph. What caught my attention was the sentence, “People love places, and will die to defend a place they love, as our sad history of wars prove.” I thought it was interesting that Kelley referred to the internet as a place, not just a digital thing. Usually, I think of a place as a physical area that you have to travel to and observe. I guess Kelley means technology is a mental place of refuge. By comparing the web to something a war is fought over really stresses the importance of technology in our lives. Suggesting that the internet is a place people love, and will die defending, is an idea I agree with. In the future, technology could become more worshipped than the physical Earth itself. It feels like we are currently plateauing in technological advancement, but they probably thought the same thing decades ago. As the years go on, technology is increasing in importance, and I agree with Kelley’s statement.
Kelley states “Technology is an extension of our own being, a part of our evolution.” I agree with this passage because in my opinion technology functions as an extension of human nature. It serves as a tool, technology has consistently evolved to meet human needs and further progress our abilities. For me this poses the idea that technology is not an external force but an important part of human nature. By viewing technology as an extension of ourselves, we can use its ability to help in shaping our society and future.
A quote I found interesting was that “The relentless march of technology will inevitably lead to a utopian society where all needs are met.” I disagree with this passage because the idea of a society that is only driven by technology does not pay tribute to the complex relations of human social structures. While technology can address many challenges, it is not a replacement for societal interactions.. Believing that technology alone can create a perfect society is overly simplistic and ignores many of the things that make us uniquely human.
Finally, Kelley introduced the idea that “Our addiction to technology is not a flaw but a sign of our adaptability and ingenuity.” My response to this passage is complicated because it acknowledges both positive and negative aspects of our relationship with technology. On one hand, our ability to adapt to new technologies showcases the human ability to adapt. On the other hand, labeling our dependence on technology as an “addiction” raises concerns about potential negative impacts, such as reduced face-to-face interactions and over-reliance. While our adaptability is another important function of human nature, it is essential to create a balance and remain mindful of how technology influences our lives and well-being.
Page 1 Paragraph 3: This passage is somewhat complicated as Kelley talks about how humans have a natural technophilia, which is the love of technology. He says we are embarrassed to admit it, but we do love technology. Kelley uses this to refer to the love of digital technology and the internet, which yes, at times those are very useful and provide us with connections to people and knowledge that we would otherwise not have access to or not as easily. However, I do not feel like we all have a LOVE for digital technology, I’d say the majority LIKE the internet but are not in love with it. However, in regards to technology in general, I would have to agree because humanity thrives on the use of tools and technology. Technology is any tool or creation that helps with a task, activity, or process, and yes, humanity loves technology because it keeps us going and allows us to improve society and function easier.
Page 3 Paragraph 3: I most agree with what Kelley has to say in this paragraph, as he makes the claim that our digital technophilia might stem from our biophilia, the natural instinct to have love of life. When you think about it, this kind of makes sense, as we are drawn to the natural world for all that it provides us, the wonders of it, the beauty, the unknown. And in many ways the internet provides us with the same. The internet is an ever changing unknown and it provides us with many great and even wondrous things, where it is no wonder we are somewhat drawn to it. However, one could argue that that isn’t the sole reason that we are drawn to technology. Many of us are drawn to it simply for its ease, accessibility, and convenience, and not because we are trying to mimic getting lost in the woods.
Page 5 Paragraphs 3-5: In these paragraphs, Kelley goes on about how he has a deep love for technology and the internet. He says that he is not ashamed to admit that he is one of the people that has a device that serves as his touchstone, as the object that he loves and thinks with. And it is obvious that Kelley is this kind of person from his writing, however, he speaks as though the majority of us are actually that way, and I would have to disagree with that. I do not have some deep love for my phone, I simply use it to make certain aspects of my life a bit easier, but I do not wish to “remain submerged in its bottomless abundance” as Kelley does. And I think that the majority of people I know can agree with me on that, though, I’m sure there are a few in the same boat as Kelley.
13 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 15”
Technophilia was very intersecting to read and it really opened my eyes about who we are know. “This love still simmers in our cells. it is why we keep pets, and potted plants in the city, why we garden when supermarket food is cheaper.”pg1(paragraph 2). I agreed with this one because everyone says that we have changed so much from the olden days which we have but not really we have just made most things less. for example if we really wanted to change it complete we wouldn’t pay ten times more for food at the farmers market but we do still want it around so we are willing to spend that.
” we are embarrassed to admit it, but we love technogly”. pg 1 ( paragraph 3)
I agree with this very much because even myself I don’t like to admit it. its a very strange thing to admit to because if you do admit to it then your just saying your lazy and you just go on your phone and you don’t do anything with your life.
” I had no idea what they were”pg2(paragraph 3) I have a very strong option about this because as a society I feel like we have put our knowledge most;y to not simply things and we just rely on someone else todo it. for example an oil change is so simple but no one knows how todo it and we would be so lost if we couldn’t just bring our cars into a shop and them do stuff to it and we get it back and no lights are on.
Page 4 paragraph 1 Kelley talks about how dams inspired dread and disgust and also awe and admiration. I agree and disagree with what he says and explains. He talks about how our biggest technological creations are like people. I feel that is true but I do not agree with the way he explained it.
On page 5 paragraph 2 Kelley states that he is no longer embarrassed to admit he loves the internet. He explains how he thinks it is beautiful and he enjoys going on it. I completely agree with everything he says because I feel the same way about the internet. While some people still do not like what the internet has done to us, some people feel the opposite.
On page 6 paragraph 2 Kelley talks about how technology does not want to remain “utilitarian”. I feel how he says that is a little strange, but I also agree with what he says.
“In the technium revulsion and reverence often go hand in hand. Our biggest technological creations are like people in that way; they elicit our deepest loves and hates.” This is on page 4, in the middle of paragraph 2. This passage does two things: it compares technology to humans, and also describes how differently people can feel about technology. I agree with the second part, mostly because I have seen a lot of this first hand. People may be disgusted by changes in technology, while others are happy about it. I also think this can be applied to any change. When there is any change in any society, there are always people on both sides. Many political systems are built on the fact that people will have differing opinions about many things. I think this passage is moreso talking about the extremes of these emotions-some may be terrified of the new technology, and some may be absolutely in love with it, like a few passages described earlier in this essay. I also believe comparing technology to humans is a valid idea. Humans create technology, so how could it possibly not resemble us in some way? We are creating tools to fill our needs, so of course some of them will eventually evolve to resemble humans.
“It has insinuated its tendrils of connection into everything, everywhere. The net is now vastly wider than me, wider than I can imagine, so in this way, while I am in it, it makes me bigger too. I feel amputated when I am away from it.” This is on page 5 and in paragraph 4. I partially agree with this passage. While I do agree that technology is very widespread and many people rely on it for many things, I don’t agree that technology has the sort of effect on everyone’s lives that Kelly describes. Feeling bigger when using something and then feeling amputated, as in severely hindered, when not using something sounds like a severe addiction. A lot of this essay kind of shows that as well-complete fascination with technology to the point where it makes me, a reader, slightly uncomfortable, is kind of concerning. I have never felt this way, nor have I felt physically sick without technology like Kelly mentions of another person earlier in the essay. I think Turkle is a bit extreme with her thoughts, but I feel like this essay is the opposite extreme; glorifying technology and describing the use of it as a crutch.
“We keep specific technology around not only because it may be useful, but because we like to have it around. The gear, devices, networks form an interdependent ecosystem of interrelated parts, and we have a technophilia for its survival. We love…the way we can lose ourselves in it. We rebel at the negative costs…but we have a deep affinity for its web.” This is on page 7, in the first paragraph. This is an interesting view, and there is absolutely some truth to it. People are absolutely upset about the effects technology has on the Earth, but not enough people care and other people just don’t care enough to really do anything about it. And, I do agree with the statement that they don’t care because they like technology too much to want to preserve it. I feel like the first part of this passage may be related to the term, “first-world problems.” In developed countries like the US, people have developed and have access to a ton of technology, not all of which is necessary. A lot of people have little gadgets that they “can’t live without,” which is untrue; you can, but you just don’t want to. Or, maybe, they have integrated themselves so much into our lives that we wouldn’t be able to live without them. That part is the scary part.
On page one paragraph one I had a lot of thoughts related to it. Kelley is talking about teens and their use of the internet. He says, “It’s an always-on job, this endless encapsulation of the moment.” I agree and I think it’s an exhausting job. Yes, I have free will to stop using it and not answer people, but the reality is I have to use it, especially in college. If I was to not check my email, I would miss out on a lot of important things I need to do or hear about, same with checking my assignments. Yes, it’s my choice on my usage of the internet but at least some part of it’s not my choice if I want to be successful in the world today. Even outside of being a college student there’s certain things I do online that I have to do like my online bills, for my car insurance and phone bill. I think the worst part is that these little things we have to do constantly with us, usually in our pockets (our phones). We are constantly reminded of everything and everyone and don’t sit in our own thoughts as much as people used to. We don’t give ourselves a mental break and it’s an always-on job.
On page 5 paragraph 2 Kelley says “the internet is closer to the technological equivalence of a place. An uncharted territory where you can genuinely get lost.” I agree, diving into the web is its “own world” in a sense. You go look up one thing and then there’s link upon link, leading you to all sorts of different and new information. The internet is full of unknowns and that keeps us hooked. It gives us access to all sorts of media, music, movies, books. It’s basically a one in all at that point. That’s why it’s so easy to love getting lost in the “world of technology.” I don’t think I love technology but I do like it. I like that I can call my friends and family whenever I want. I like the easy access of information and unknowingness of it. But the reason I don’t love it is because I do see the problems it’s bringing along with it such as the constant buzz of social media and how overtaking it can be. It overtakes when you allow social media to surround your life and it’s easy to let this happen, like I said I agree that’s it easy to get lost in the web.
On page five paragraph four, he says “I find myself indebted to the net for its provisions. It’s a steadfast benefactor, always there.” Technology is always there, whether it’s in your pocket, car, house, honestly, it’s everywhere now. He says “rarely does it fail to please” but I have a complicated response to this since in a certain sense yes, it’s always there with resources, and various amounts of information and media. It will always be somewhere you can get lost in through the mysterious ways of the internet. But it’s not always reliable, computers, phones, cars break or have manufacturing errors etc. In that case it can fail to please and it’s kind of scary to me that we are even thinking of putting so much trust into the internet, like robots now and their plans for future robots. And who says, this new technology will be steadfast.
Page one paragraph three. This paragraph seems very important as it tells you want technophilla is, “the love of technology”. He goes on to use this word a few times throughout the piece. It also helps to set up the essay, while in the end, he says he loves technology. In this paragraph, I also believe that we love technology most of the time. My generation doesn’t know a life without it, it can but annoying and frustrating at times, but people love it. We complain about it but still use it daily. This topic is complicated, as I do love technology (my phone) but I also get sick of the constant beeping. Too nervous to leave without it or turn it off as if someone needs to get in touch with me, but also annoyed that everyone is messaging me wanting a quick response.
Page five paragraph three, Kelley writes, “In that lovely surrender, the web swallows my certitude and delivers the unknown.” I love how he puts this. I agree with this quote, we surrender our time to technology/phones. The web brings us in to scroll and find new information, falling down the rabbit hole of new possibilities. I will get lost on the internet, scrolling Instagram, and TikTok and the next thing I know an hour has gone by, but I’ve also now learned new random facts. Sometimes just playing a game and listening to a book, the minutes tick by, and I let my phone feed me information until I feel I’m done.
Page nine paragraph two, Kelly quotes Jaron Lanier, a worrier of technopilla, “We make ourselves stupid in order to make computers seem smart. I don’t worry about computers getting intelligent, I worry about humans getting dumber.” I feel he perfectly puts this, I agree that the more technology becomes integrated into our lives, the more we rely on it. This generation’s common sense has slowly dwindled, not knowing how to solve a problem without looking it up.
“Turkle says, “we think with the objects we love, and we love the objects we think with.” She suspects that most of us have some kind of technology that acts as our touchstone. I am one of them. I am no longer embarrassed to admit that I love the internet. People love places, and will die to defend a place they love, as our sad history of wars prove.” On page 4, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Kevin Kelley’s essay “Technophilia,” my view is complicated. I can agree that, yes, I love the internet. But I don’t love it to the extent that Kelley talks about in this essay. He seems to be a little, overly obsessed with it. I’m a little worried about him. Dying to defend a place wasn’t ever a good idea, I don’t think that dying to defend the internet would be any better.
“But the internet is closer to the technological equivalence of a place. An uncharted territory where you can genuinely get lost. At times I’ve entered to web just to get lost. In that lovely surrender, the web swallows my certitude and delivers the unknown. Despite the purposeful design of its human creators, the web is a wilderness. Its boundaries are unknown, unknowable, its mysteries uncountable. The bramble of intertwined ideas, links, documents, and images create an otherness as thick as a jungle. The web smells like life.” Also, on page 4 in paragraph 3, Kelley claims the web is life of sorts. Again, my take on this is complicated. This feels like a very dumb and poetic way of thinking about technology. On one hand, it’s poetic because the way Kelley imagines the web sounds very beautiful. But on the other hand, its dumb because he says that it “smells like life.” Poetic? Yes. Dumb? Absolutely. The web is technology. Technology is not nature like a jungle, and it doesn’t smell.
“We keep specific technology around not only because it may be useful, but because we like to have it around. The gear, devices, networks form an interdependent ecosystem of interrelated parts, and we have a technophilia for its survival. We love the jungly mesh of the technium, and the way we can lose ourselves in it. We rebel at the negative costs of this interrelatedness, and its negative externalities such as pollution (global warming is a type of pollution), but we have a deep affinity for its web. We continue to manufacture new ideas and new artifacts, not because we always need them, but because the technium needs them, and because we find the technium attractive.” A little dumb and poetic on page 6 paragraph 1, as well. But I do like this take because of my Marine Science major. However; I do not agree with this fully. It is all connected and we do lose ourselves in technology sometimes. But the talk of technium being attractive is concerning for me. Really, the entire essay rubbed me the wrong way.
Page 4, Paragraph 1 “In the technium revulsion and reverence often go hand in hand. Our biggest technological creations are like people in that way; they elicit our deepest loves and hates.” I think I somewhat agree with Kelley in this comparison of people and technology. While we usually have some sort of connection with our phones making us always want to carry them around with us, they can never have the same qualities that a human does. So even though we have the ability to love or hate it the technology doesn’t have the same ability making the relationship one sided.
Page 5, paragraph 2 “Despite the purposeful design of its human creators, the web is a wilderness. Its boundaries are unknown, unknowable, its mysteries uncountable. The bramble of intertwined ideas, links, documents, and images create an otherness as thick as a jungle. The web smells like life.” I think this is an interesting comparison Kelley makes. While I agree that the internet is a place of unknown that might seem like a jungle when it comes to the content available. But in reality it’s made of so many layers underneath that are structure and made by people and really not all that wild at all.
Page 6, paragraph 2 “Technology does not want to remain utilitarian. It wants to become art, to be beautiful and “useless.” I don’t think I agree with Kelley in this passage. Technology isn’t a being with feeling no matter what it could never truly “want” something in the same way humans do. It design is based mostly on our needs and what we want to get out of it not to be seen as beautiful. I also feel like him saying it wants to be useless makes no sense since its soul purpose is for us to use it and make things easier.
Jaidin Fuentes
On page 5, paragraph 3, Kelley describes the internet like it’s a forest. She says “It’s boundaries are unknown, unknowable, its mysteries uncountable. The bramble of intertwined ideas, links, documents, and images create an otherness as thick as a jungle”. This gives the reader a perfect image to describe the internet. I agree with this take heavily. There is so much of the internet that is unexplored that it’s impossible for one to explore it all. There is resources for us to use and take to our advantage. There is so much beauty in it for a user to enjoy but at the same time there is danger lurking. And worst of all, if you go to deep in the wilderness and don’t be careful, you can find yourself lost in the wilderness of the internet. So with this is mind we need to be careful with how we interact with the internet.
On page 6 of the essay, Kelley makes another analogy that hits the spot perfectly. On paragraph four of the page, she says “The continual rise in technological variety is propelled by the needs of other technologies. You have a house, then you get a car. Now your car needs a house too”. It seems like no matter what we do with technology, it doesn’t stop evolving. No matter how advanced we may think we have come, there seems to always be another step to take. The worst part is technology also becomes more involved with our lives with every step it takes. I agree with this quote because it is straightforward with the message it is trying to get across. Technology is going to become more apparent in our lives and it’s going to doing so unless we stop it.
On Paragraph one of page 9, Kelley agrees with Sherry Turkle with a quote saying “We are so eager to love technology that Turkle is worried this love blinds us” and also goes to say on the second paragraph “In the future, we’ll find it easier to love technology. Machines win our hearts with every step they take in evolution”. I have complicated feelings on this take> I don’t necessarily disagree with it because it can very well be true, but that doesn’t mean I have to be okay with it. I find it saddening to be told there’s a future that I cannot prevent and so instead I must just accept my fate. What can the human race to take care of this issue?
Page 1 paragraph 1 Kelley says, “Our identity with technology run deep, to our core.” I agree with this because technology is such a big part of our lives now that we would feel lost without it. It’s been a part of our life for so long now that if it was taken away it would almost be like losing a part of us because It runs so deep.
Page 5 paragraph 3 Kelley relates technology to a favorite place. I do not agree with this. I don’t think loving technology has anything to do with a favorite place. A favorite place is somewhere you can escape to and just think. A favorite place has a certain feel, temperature, smell, and surrounding. Technology has none of these traits. Technology is too stimulating to be able to relax and think. It also changes too much so how can it be equivalent to a favorite place when its always changing.
On page 6 paragraph 1 Kelley asks, “If you can honestly love a cat, which can’t give you directions to a strangers house, why can’t you love the web?” This connection makes no sense. At cat is a living thing with a heartbeat. You can love a cat and it will love you In return. You can love technology too, but In a completely different way than you would love a cat.
Kevin Kelly goes so far as to suggest in the introduction (page 1, paragraph 5) that our deep connection with technology is just another form of biophilia — and that technophilia has become “second nature” for us. Response: Complicated. Although I appreciate the evolutionary view that technology is an outgrowth of human creativity, this glosses over some very real social and psychological forces. Common access to technological resources is not a fully “natural” or equal state, it has many cultural paternalistic factors influenced by history, economy and socio-political setup. Different societies have been more open to technology grown out of passion based on availability or regulation and specific historical context. I am wary of romanticizing technology as we do nature since history has not been entirely kind to all the advances technologically. This ladder honored a more neutral, balanced perspective that felt important — to anchor us in the coexistence of awe and eye-lid critical awareness from whence our relationship with technology could get re-orientated.
Page 2, Paragraph 8: People can generate a sense of awe from technology as evidenced by the respect given to machines such as dynamos and classic cars that remind us of natural wonders seen in ancient cultures. Response: Agree. Fascinating Status of Not Being Real: This is a corollary to the point mentioned above when we introduce technological artifacts into our world, they automatically become these awe-inspiring symbols of human achievement, much like ancient monuments or natural landscapes. That this “worship” manifests our sense that technology is an alien force with the power to rework everything around us? But I also believe it speaks to a more profound emotional response — those relics stand for dominion over our realm and the desire of mankind to ascend its own restrictions. Reverence, here is not for the object so much as it was for what this institution represented: our potential to create and innovate.
Page 3, Par 14: Kelly likens emotional connection to technological networks like the internet as a quasi love affair implying people might become too emotionally attached and thus dependent on such systems. Response: Disagree. I don’t quite feel like characterizing our relationship with technology, and by extension digital networks as “affection” really gets to the heart of it. Oftentimes, the usefulness of technology induces a sort of reliance similar to an emotional dependence through function_WORD. While many of us may have an emotional connection to some popular devices and software, that affection is a product of their availability or convenience not the result of a built-in need. There are even pitfalls in casting this dependency as love — it somewhat excuses the ethical concerns behind tech companies that design addictive technology and prey upon people.
Page 1, Paragraph 3. I agree with this passage. Kelley brings up an interesting point, “We are embarrassed to admit it, but we love technology. At least sometimes.” This relates to what we discussed in class, that technology can be an addiction. Kelley believes that it is a problem that many of us have, but are aware of. I agree and can see this in my own life. Everytime I use my phone, play video games, or watch television, I am aware that I could be doing something more productive. I do it anyway because I enjoy it and feel like I often need it. By saying “At least sometimes,” Kelley implies that we love technology, but sometimes regret that we use it. He seems to believe that technology has both positive and negative effects on society, rather than choosing a side. In my opinion, this gives him credibility since he is explaining both sides of the argument. He is giving us the knowledge needed to form our own opinions.
Page 4, Paragraph 1. I have a complicated opinion on this passage. Kelley argues that” Our biggest technological creations are like people in that way; they elicit our deepest loves and hates.” This sentence stood out to me because it sounds really meaningful and a little aggressive in a way. I don’t necessarily believe that technology brings out both love and hate in people. I think it has less polar emotions and is more of a spectrum. Kelley uses a dam as an example, saying it “…inspired dread and disgust as well as awe and admiration.” This is because it hinders fish spawning while helping reduce flooding. This is an example of two extremes, but there are many other things that have less extreme emotions tied to them, like television or simple pieces of technology. It’s not about the technology itself, it’s about how people use them to elicit a response.
Page 5, paragraph 2. I agree with the ideas presented in this paragraph. What caught my attention was the sentence, “People love places, and will die to defend a place they love, as our sad history of wars prove.” I thought it was interesting that Kelley referred to the internet as a place, not just a digital thing. Usually, I think of a place as a physical area that you have to travel to and observe. I guess Kelley means technology is a mental place of refuge. By comparing the web to something a war is fought over really stresses the importance of technology in our lives. Suggesting that the internet is a place people love, and will die defending, is an idea I agree with. In the future, technology could become more worshipped than the physical Earth itself. It feels like we are currently plateauing in technological advancement, but they probably thought the same thing decades ago. As the years go on, technology is increasing in importance, and I agree with Kelley’s statement.
Kelley states “Technology is an extension of our own being, a part of our evolution.” I agree with this passage because in my opinion technology functions as an extension of human nature. It serves as a tool, technology has consistently evolved to meet human needs and further progress our abilities. For me this poses the idea that technology is not an external force but an important part of human nature. By viewing technology as an extension of ourselves, we can use its ability to help in shaping our society and future.
A quote I found interesting was that “The relentless march of technology will inevitably lead to a utopian society where all needs are met.” I disagree with this passage because the idea of a society that is only driven by technology does not pay tribute to the complex relations of human social structures. While technology can address many challenges, it is not a replacement for societal interactions.. Believing that technology alone can create a perfect society is overly simplistic and ignores many of the things that make us uniquely human.
Finally, Kelley introduced the idea that “Our addiction to technology is not a flaw but a sign of our adaptability and ingenuity.” My response to this passage is complicated because it acknowledges both positive and negative aspects of our relationship with technology. On one hand, our ability to adapt to new technologies showcases the human ability to adapt. On the other hand, labeling our dependence on technology as an “addiction” raises concerns about potential negative impacts, such as reduced face-to-face interactions and over-reliance. While our adaptability is another important function of human nature, it is essential to create a balance and remain mindful of how technology influences our lives and well-being.
Page 1 Paragraph 3: This passage is somewhat complicated as Kelley talks about how humans have a natural technophilia, which is the love of technology. He says we are embarrassed to admit it, but we do love technology. Kelley uses this to refer to the love of digital technology and the internet, which yes, at times those are very useful and provide us with connections to people and knowledge that we would otherwise not have access to or not as easily. However, I do not feel like we all have a LOVE for digital technology, I’d say the majority LIKE the internet but are not in love with it. However, in regards to technology in general, I would have to agree because humanity thrives on the use of tools and technology. Technology is any tool or creation that helps with a task, activity, or process, and yes, humanity loves technology because it keeps us going and allows us to improve society and function easier.
Page 3 Paragraph 3: I most agree with what Kelley has to say in this paragraph, as he makes the claim that our digital technophilia might stem from our biophilia, the natural instinct to have love of life. When you think about it, this kind of makes sense, as we are drawn to the natural world for all that it provides us, the wonders of it, the beauty, the unknown. And in many ways the internet provides us with the same. The internet is an ever changing unknown and it provides us with many great and even wondrous things, where it is no wonder we are somewhat drawn to it. However, one could argue that that isn’t the sole reason that we are drawn to technology. Many of us are drawn to it simply for its ease, accessibility, and convenience, and not because we are trying to mimic getting lost in the woods.
Page 5 Paragraphs 3-5: In these paragraphs, Kelley goes on about how he has a deep love for technology and the internet. He says that he is not ashamed to admit that he is one of the people that has a device that serves as his touchstone, as the object that he loves and thinks with. And it is obvious that Kelley is this kind of person from his writing, however, he speaks as though the majority of us are actually that way, and I would have to disagree with that. I do not have some deep love for my phone, I simply use it to make certain aspects of my life a bit easier, but I do not wish to “remain submerged in its bottomless abundance” as Kelley does. And I think that the majority of people I know can agree with me on that, though, I’m sure there are a few in the same boat as Kelley.