What is this technology stuff doing to us?

Recently, I have immersed myself in various threads of email conversations with different people, some have been for academic purposes, talking about proposals and building on certain ideas kicking around in the 'ol noggin, and other conversations have been just for the pure goodness of connecting with people. Beneath and beyond all of my ranting and raving about how the technology of this world - the computers, the iphones, the gidgets and gadgets, the facebooks and youtubes, the tweets and the twats - is simply altering our very understanding of what it is to be human, in a bad way. I have chosen no particular side to this matter yet, and I don't think that it is possible for me to do so. It seems that the pure traditionalist in me, the part that finds comfort in the idea and practice of a Quaker lifestyle belongs to the same me that also holds great value in technologies of today, or rather, the technological capacities of today. (I conjure an image of a Zen monk meditating with earbuds and MacBook).

Technology, - and I apply this term knowing how broadly overused and ambiguous it truly is - like all things has its limitations, but instead of turning the spotlight on the product maybe it is more appropriate to consider its producers. We humans are constantly testing our perceived boundaries and limitations especially, at this time, in the realm of rapid technological development, and we are expanding these boundaries at rate exponential to the rate of our own social, inter-personal, and biological developments. This poses a problem for us (and the world, of course, but let's be honest, what we are really fighting for is our continued existence on this planet) for too many reasons to highlight now. But a main concern is this: we need to learn the art of saying "no." Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should, right?

The first and foremost issue of knowing when to say this nifty negative (as in negation) word is neither involved with saving the environment, nor is it about choosing to build a (more than one) city below sea level, etc. It is purely about our internal willingness and understanding that "no" is necessary. Without no, you don't have yes. Without true, you don't have false. Without good, no bad. And on, and on. But this is a matter that occurs initially with one's own individual self, and if an individual is complacent and unaware then the collective will most likely have some problems as well, and thus the snowball starts to roll.

It's not all bad though. At least we know, er, at least some of us know that its up to us, and we need to change us to achieve a balance with everything else. And now that we do know that we are responsible, and not the technology, we can look at one or two of this things that is really great with this techno/info revolution. Interweb dialogue. Emails. The delete button. Thanks to these three things we now have created an interconnected global community, a worldwide brain, a gargantuan human nervous system, and we can converse with each other thoughtfully by deleting what we think may not be the wisest thing to say. Email and other forms of *click-send* communication are instantaneous thought packets that can be edited and reworked to the last "farewell". The type of dialogue that takes place allows people to really think about what is said before it's sent and it provides time for the recipient to reflect without responding immediately. Essentially, we are able to think and reflect, write and re-write before it is all said and done. This, I believe, is a true gift, and I would argue that it is a gift that presents us with the possibility of learning how to choose wiser words. And then again, you can't have wise words without stupid ones...

Put on a different hat

Hey all,

We all know it's easy to get stuck in old ways of thinking, to struggle in the media muck that tends to portray the world in irreversible squalor and decay, and no doubt, to understand the issues at hand within ourselves and the world around us is definitely valuable to a point. But don't forget to take off this hat that scours for the apparent problems and troubles in the world. Put on a new hat. Try to find the really good things that are happening with yourself, with your family and friends, with the world. STOP! Before you criticize this positivist perspective, and brand it as useless optimism, actually try it out. It may be difficult at first, but it gets easier. The more links and ties you find to the greatness that is going on in the world, the more inspired you may be to think with a wider perspective and inspire others to do similarly. There is plenty out there to get you going in a good way.

This is a trailer for the documentary "I Am", directed by Tom Shadyac, a man who was forced to see the world in a different light and do something with it. Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAwIzT8cBSA

Who has the right?

See the article that I am responding to at :http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/world/africa/01libya.html?_r=1&hp

Albert Einstein said that you cannot solve a problem on  the same level of consciousness that it was created at, you need to see the world in a whole new light. NATO's decision to bomb Cnl. Qadaffi's home is a good example of trying to solve a problem from this same level of consciousness: it does not work. The bombing resulted in the deaths of four human beings, three of them children and the other, a "black sheep" son of Qadaffi's, and a student at a Munich university relatively unknown to the public eye. Whether NATO intended to assisinate Cnl. Qadaffi is not the most important thing to consider. Instead, one should focus on whether or not NATO's murderous performance is one that is actually better, or more justified than Qadaffi's savage endevours against the Libyan people.

I remember the Bible saying something about an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. To me, this means that you shall do equally unto a person what he or she has done to you. Obviously, this belief falls short of Einstein's concept of solving problems from a higher level of consciousness, and it seems that NATO has chosen to stand by this former, more archaic view. Unfortunately, the world witnesses NATO's actions and these actions influence the world just as Qadaffi's actions have done. Indeed, NATO has killed a Qadaffi; four, in fact. The only dilemma is that these bloody Qadaffi remains belonged to three 12 year-old children and a 29 year-old student. It seems that NATO's efforts to make the world a better place by eliminating human beings is not as easy as they might have first believed.

I assume NATO's intentions to be obvious: assassinate Cnl. Qadaffi and reestablish some sort of balance allowing Libya to resume its place in the international economy so the other countries can benefit from whatever resources or services Libya has to offer. However, NATO, underneath it all, has more concern for maintaining the market economy than it has for universal human rights, and if assisting a rebel cause will do this then so be it. The ethical problems that arise from this assumption are dizzying, but the paramount issue is that NATO, with all of its technology, power, and supposed qualifications for world conflict intervention, is still trying to solve problems from a point of view that, arguably, carries little more valor with it than Qadaffi does. Whether NATO should be intervening in this atrocious war amongst humans in Libya is one question. How NATO is intervening is another question. I support Einstein's belief that only a problem can be solved on a level of consciousness higher than the one that it originated on, and that NATO must transcend its current perspective in order to really affect truly revolutionary change. With the whole world watching, how can these actions be justified? As Gandhi's great saying goes: an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.


P.S. I accept and invite positive criticism and contribution. I really want to know what other people think about this. Challenge me, support me, let me know what you think...