800 word draft
Altirique McElveen
Professor Miller
English
3/7/2024
Undoubtedly, the development of technology and the internet have changed human behavior and unlocked a potential in a variety of spheres of existence. This change has switched how people communicate, work, study, and view the world. Sherry Turkle and Nicholas Carr both have 2 sides of this opinionated situation. They both touch on the manner that individuals communicate has undergone one of the biggest transformations due to technology. Instantaneous worldwide communication has been made via the internet, allowing people to connect with each other regardless of location. Social media sites have become effective tools for activism , community development,and self expression. This connectivity has led to worries about disinformation and the decline in face-to-face communication abilities. In Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid” he expresses that our capabilities are gradually morphing into artificial intelligence. “It is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence”. His argument digs into an idea that our intellect is being undermined by artificial intelligence, that is currently leading into a flatbed of the human thought process. He embellishes the loss of cultural heritage as we grow reliant on technology. Carr gives a comprehensive description of how human interactions appear to be predestined scripts that lack the depth and impulsive human thought. He emphasizes the risks and sacrifices that come with our reliance on technology, suggesting that we might be giving up our essential values for convenience and efficiency. His perception about this
McElveen 2
phenomena began in 2001. That specifies an established concern about the trajectory of human sense and society in the digital age. Through enthralling arguments and brooding observations, Carr challenges the reader to examine the implications of the evolving relationship with technology on the essence of humanity itself. I somewhat agree with Carr but he just doesn’t give me a big enough reason to side with him. Just him justifying that we are sacrificing values doesn’t attack the way Turkle elaborated her argument. As he also voices how he had this concern doesn’t aid his case in a way and to me it’s more like useless information if you use it in an argument against another argument. Carr also didn’t have any solutions for his argument because he thinks there is no going back. He expressed that he doesn’t think anyone can even come up with something to save us. “Real people demand responses to what they are feeling. And not just any response”. (Turkle 4) There is Turkle expressing the emotional connection during a conversation between 2 people. Backing up Carr in a way as Turkle does also think we’re losing our human values. But the human value that she thinks we’re missing is empathy. There’s no emotion in these conversations because everybody just wants to talk over technology so that causes them not knowing how to make their words felt. There’s no way you wouldn’t want to talk to someone who is speaking from the heart and you can feel the passion and empathy in their sentences. Turkle also expresses “ I saw that computers offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship and then, as the programs got really good, the illusion of friendship without the demands of intimacy”(4). A brief breakdown from that sentence is simply meaning humans are getting too comfortable with talking through technology to communicate and when that occurs you can’t demand any type of
McElveen 3
intimacy because it seems like you’re just reading words. Most people have adapted to reading text messages with empathy depending if they know the person very well. Turkle and Carr make strong claims regarding how technology affects human communication and insight, but in the end, I believe that Turkle’s viewpoint is more in line with my own. She emphasizes the importance of face-to-face interaction, underlining the emotional depth and authenticity that such conversations grant. Unlike digital exchanges, where meanings can be misconstructed and implications lost, sociable dialogue allows for a more deep understanding of others’ feelings and intentions. This sticks with me on a personal level because I value the abundance and intimacy of live conversations. Turkle’s support of genuine human interaction strikes with my values and life experiences. In essence, she voices emotion that I sincerely share, which makes her stance compelling to me. The main topic of this I don’t think is getting talked about enough is the solutions. What about the people that are fighting this issue and don’t know what to do because they are being attacked instead of helped. We have to all come together so we can figure out these issues. One thing it won’t be is easy because this doesn’t take a small percentage of people. The list of solutions needs to be taught throughout generations so we don’t end up back at the beginning of this problem.
