Matthew Dewhurst
Professor Jesse Miller
English 110
8 March 2024
Why Technology Usage Should Be Limited (400 Word Draft)
Do the positive, helpful aspects of technology outweigh the detrimental negative effects that it has on us in a social sense? Some people, such as Sherry Turkle, argue that technology obstructs us from having conversations, and by doing so makes us less empathetic. On the other hand, Kevin Kelley implies that he has a special connection with technology; he claims that it is critical to his life, and changes his life for the better. Both writers share ideas on the matter that resonate with me. Reading both essays in quick succession demonstrates how both sides of the matter are correct, and neither of them are necessarily wrong. Having said this, no matter what the negative effects of it may be, technology is crucial to life as we know it, and is here to stay. My life would be more difficult and stressful if it weren’t for my wide access to technology. As Kelley puts it, “Our creations are now inseparable from us. Our identity with technology runs deep, to our core” (1). My everyday life and routine runs through technology; life would be altered for the worse if we were to completely relieve ourselves from digital technology. While people such as Turkle may argue that digital technology use should be limited, I would push back on this idea. Limiting usage of technology may go hand in hand with removing some of the positive aspects of technology. Instead of decreasing its usage, we should monitor what it is being used for. Instead of wasting time on unproductive activities on technology, we should allow for more time on digital technology doing things such as reading, writing, and connecting with friends and family. Digital technology is one of the great innovations of our time, and it has made our lives more productive and efficient; we must use this to the highest of our capabilities instead of limiting the amount we are using this resource.
Kevin Kelley argues that humans have a special connection with technology, and its intense usage has contributed to our identities. The way we live our lives is being altered by technology, because it is now changing the way we think and act. Kelley points out that, “These bits of the technium are totems that serve as a springboard for identity, or for reflection, or for thinking. A doctor may love his/her stethoscope, as both badge and tool; a writer might cherish a special pen and feel its smooth weight pushing the words on their own” (5).
Matthew Dewhurst
Professor Jesse Miller
English 110
19 March 2024
Why Technology Usage Should Be Limited (800 Word Draft)
Do the positive, helpful aspects of technology outweigh the detrimental negative effects that it has on us in a social sense? Some people, such as Sherry Turkle, argue that technology obstructs us from having conversations, and by doing so makes us less empathetic. On the other hand, Kevin Kelley implies that he has a special connection with technology; he claims that it is critical to his life, and changes his life for the better. Both writers share ideas on the matter that resonate with me. Reading both essays in quick succession demonstrates how both sides of the matter are correct, and neither of them are necessarily wrong. Having said this, no matter what the negative effects of it may be, technology is crucial to life as we know it, and is here to stay. My life would be more difficult and stressful if it weren’t for my wide access to technology. As Kelley puts it, “Our creations are now inseparable from us. Our identity with technology runs deep, to our core” (1). My everyday life and routine runs through technology; life would be altered for the worse if we were to completely relieve ourselves from digital technology. While people such as Turkle may argue that digital technology use should be limited, I would push back on this idea. Limiting usage of technology may go hand in hand with removing some of the positive aspects of technology. Instead of decreasing its usage, we should monitor what it is being used for. Instead of wasting time on unproductive activities on technology, we should allow for more time on digital technology doing things such as reading, writing, and connecting with friends and family. Digital technology is one of the great innovations of our time, and it has made our lives more productive and efficient; we must modify it so we can use the positive sides of it to the highest of our capabilities while also finding a way to limit the negative, distracting sides of it.
Kevin Kelley argues that humans have a special connection with technology, and its intense usage has contributed to our identities. The way we live our lives is being altered by technology, because it is now changing the way we think and act. Kelley points out that, “These bits of the technium are totems that serve as a springboard for identity, or for reflection, or for thinking. A doctor may love his/her stethoscope, as both badge and tool; a writer might cherish a special pen and feel its smooth weight pushing the words on their own” (5). Kelley demonstrates how technology, digital or not, defines who we are as people. Our professions and occupations are centered around technology. Adding onto this point, Kelley argues that, “Our creations are now inseparable from us. Our identity with technology runs deep, to our core” (1). This passage illustrates how technology is detailing how technology has an intense effect on who we are and why we act the way we do. Kevin Kelley argues that we are connected with technology due to its man-made production; either way, there’s no denying, according to Kelley, that our actions are controlled by technology. Contrary to Kelley’s idea about our shared connection with technology, Sherry Turkle believes that it is an addiction and a drug to us, rather than a special connection we possess with one another. She claims that technology needs modification in order to not be a negative, addiction-riddled creation. Turkle exemplifies this idea in her essay, “These days, we see that when people are alone at a stop sign or in the checkout line at the supermarket, they seem almost panicked and they reach for their phones .We are so accustomed to being always connected that being alone seems like a problem technology should solve” (348). In Turkle’s eyes, this is proof that digital technology is an addiction, and it prevents us from living the same lives we had before it. Technology blocks us from the ability to be the same people we were without it. In this passage we get the idea that technology is a coping mechanism for boredom and loneliness. In fact, as Turkle details later in the essay, technology only promotes these feelings and makes us feel them more so. While Kelley argues that we are unified with technology due to its positive pros, Turkle debunks this idea, claiming that that is only the case because of the negative sides of technology.
Through the lens of Turkle, technology makes us less empathetic, and in turn more lonely. Technology is replacing conversation more and more, and Turkle believes that stemming from that, kids especially, are feeling the effects of it. She claims that the replacement of conversation is resulting in kids not being able to self-reflect and converse with one another, which causes a chain reaction into kids being more lonely and less empathetic. She details this idea by writing, “Without conversation, studies show that we are less empathetic, less connected, less creative and fulfilled. We are diminished, in retreat. But to generations that grew up using their phones to text and message, these studies may be describing losses they don;t feel. They didn’t grow up with a lot of face-to-face talk” (350).
1200 Word Draft
Matthew Dewhurst
Professor Jesse Miller
English 110
19 March 2024
Why Usage of Digital Technology Needs Modifications
Despite some of the negative distractions that result from the use of digital technology, the positive, helpful aspects of it outweigh the detrimental negative effects that it has on us. Sherry Turkle, a sociologist at MIT, argues, in her essay, “The Empathy Diaries,” that technology obstructs us from having conversations, and by doing so makes us less empathetic. On the other hand, writer Kevin Kelley argues, in his essay “Technophilia,” that he has a special connection with technology; he claims that it is critical to his life, and changes his life for the better. Both writers share ideas on the matter that resonate with me. Reading both essays in quick succession demonstrates how both sides of the matter are correct, and neither of them are necessarily wrong. Having said this, no matter what the negative effects of it may be, technology is crucial to life as we know it, and is here to stay. My life would be more difficult and stressful if it weren’t for my wide access to technology. As Kelley puts it, in Technophilia, “Our creations are now inseparable from us. Our identity with technology runs deep, to our core” (1). My everyday life and routine runs through technology; life would be altered for the worse if we were to completely relieve ourselves from digital technology. While people such as Turkle may argue that digital technology use should be limited, I would push back on this idea. Limiting usage of technology may go hand in hand with removing some of the positive aspects of technology. Instead of decreasing its usage, we should monitor what it is being used for. In doing so, we may be able to limit the unproductive distractions of digital technology, while maximizing its productivity. Instead of wasting time on unproductive activities on technology, we should allow for more time on digital technology doing things such as reading, writing, and connecting with friends and family. Digital technology is one of the great innovations of our time, and it has made our lives easier and more efficient. We must modify digital technology so we can use the productive sides of it to the highest of our capabilities while also finding a way to limit the negative, distracting sides of it. I believe that we need to limit the negative sides of technology such as social media and games, while maximizing the assisting sides of it such as google.
Kevin Kelley argues that humans have a special connection with technology, and its intense usage has contributed to our identities. The way we live our lives is being altered by technology, because it is now changing the way we think and act. Kelley points out that, “These bits of the technium are totems that serve as a springboard for identity, or for reflection, or for thinking. A doctor may love his/her stethoscope, as both badge and tool; a writer might cherish a special pen and feel its smooth weight pushing the words on their own” (5). Kelley demonstrates how technology, digital or not, defines who we are as people. In the context of his essay, however, he views this change, and the growing effect that technology has on us in a positive light. Digital technology is becoming a centerstone to our identity; it is changing the way we think and act. Contrary to Kelley’s idea about our shared connection with technology, Sherry Turkle believes that it is an addiction to us, rather than a special connection we possess with one another. The same effect that Kelley details in the aforementioned passage, Turkle would use as fuel to her argument that technology is a drug that is altering our mindset. She claims that technology needs modification in order to not be a negative, addiction-riddled creation. Turkle exemplifies this idea in her essay, The Empathy Diaries. She writes, “These days, we see that when people are alone at a stop sign or in the checkout line at the supermarket, they seem almost panicked and they reach for their phones. We are so accustomed to being always connected that being alone seems like a problem technology should solve” (348). In Turkle’s eyes, this is proof that digital technology is an addiction, and it prevents us from living the same lives we had before it. The inability that many humans have to go a period of time without using their phone provides power to Turkle’s idea that it is becoming irresistible. In this passage we get the idea that technology is a coping mechanism for boredom and loneliness. In fact, as Turkle details later in the essay, technology only promotes these feelings of loneliness and makes us feel them stronger. While Kelley argues that we are unified with technology due to its positive pros, Turkle debunks this idea, claiming that that is only the case because of the distractions and our addiction to it. I stand with Turkle in this debate. Stemming off of the increased usage of digital technology over the last few years, I am noticing a change in the way some people around me act. Conversations that I once had are being replaced by phones. Social media is replacing the incentive to talk to people in person. Digital technology has backfired on us; now that we have developed it to the point where we love it so much that it is becoming a distraction. Our use of technology needs to be revised so that we take the positive aspects of it while limiting these obstructions that take away from conversation.
Through the lens of Turkle, technology makes us less empathetic, and in turn more lonely. Technology is replacing conversation more and more, and Turkle believes that resulting from that, kids especially, are feeling the effects of it. She claims that the replacement of conversation is resulting in kids not being able to self-reflect and converse with one another, which causes a chain reaction into kids being more lonely and less empathetic. She details this idea by writing, “Without conversation, studies show that we are less empathetic, less connected, less creative and fulfilled. We are diminished, in retreat. But to generations that grew up using their phones to text and message, these studies may be describing losses they don’t feel. They didn’t grow up with a lot of face-to-face talk” (350). Turkle demonstrates to us in this passage that an increased use in digital technology leads to detrimental social effects. For example, using technology too much leads to people being less empathetic. Additionally, it causes people to self reflect less, which causes them to be more lonely due to a lack of relatability. Looking at this matter from my point of view, there are definitely times when I wish that I didn’t use technology as much; I wish that at times I would put my phone down, or close my computer and have that conversation with my friend, mom, dad, or sister. I agree with Turkle’s opinion that digital technology causes us to be less empathetic, and makes us regret some of the actions we made. Taking into consideration Turkle’s opinion on how technology distracts us from what’s important contradicts Kelley’s thoughts. Kelley looks at the matter through a positive lens, hinting that the affection and empathy we lose with one another will convert towards endearment for digital technology. Kelley highlights this idea by writing, “In the future, we’ll find it easier to love technology. Machines win our hearts with every step they take in evolution. Like it not, anthropic robots (at the level of pets at first) will gain our affections, since even minimal life-like ones do already. The internet provides a hint of the maximal passion possibilities of the technim” (7). Kelley’s words shine a light onto what Turkle suggests is the lost future of technology. He claims that with modifications, digital technology will evolve to new heights, and improve to where it’s “easier to love technology.”
Matthew Dewhurst
Professor Jesse Miller
English 110
29 March 2024
Why Usage of Digital Technology Needs Modifications (Final Draft)
Despite some of the negative distractions that result from the use of digital technology, the positive, helpful aspects of it outweigh the detrimental, distracting effects that it has on us. Sherry Turkle, a sociologist at MIT, argues, in her essay, “The Empathy Diaries,” that technology obstructs us from having conversations, and by doing so makes us less empathetic. On the other hand, writer Kevin Kelley argues, in his essay “Technophilia,” that he has a special connection with technology; he claims that it is critical to his life, and makes him harder working. Both writers share ideas on the matter that resonate with me. My everyday life and routine runs through digital technology; life would be altered for the worse if we were to completely relieve ourselves from technology. While people such as Turkle may argue that digital technology use should be limited, I would push back on this idea. Limiting usage of technology may go hand in hand with removing some of the positive aspects of technology. Instead of decreasing its usage, we should monitor what it is being used for. In doing so, we may be able to limit the unproductive distractions of digital technology, while maximizing its efficiency, and positive effect on life. Instead of wasting time on unproductive activities on technology, we should allow for more time on digital technology doing things such as reading, writing, and connecting with friends and family. I believe that we need to limit our usage of the distracting sides of technology such as social media and games, while maximizing the assisting sides of it such as google.
Kevin Kelley argues that humans have a special connection with technology, and its intense usage has contributed to our identities. The way we live our lives is being altered by technology, because it is now changing the way we think and act. Kelley points out that, “These bits of the technium are totems that serve as a springboard for identity, or for reflection, or for thinking. A doctor may love his/her stethoscope, as both badge and tool; a writer might cherish a special pen and feel its smooth weight pushing the words on their own” (5). Kelley demonstrates how technology, digital or not, defines who we are as people. In the context of his essay, however, he views this change, and the growing effect that technology has on us in a positive light. Digital technology is becoming a centerstone to our identity; it is changing the way we think and act. Contrary to Kelley’s idea about our shared connection with technology, Turkle believes that it is an addiction to us, rather than a special connection we possess with one another. The same effect that Kelley details in the aforementioned passage, Turkle would use as fuel to her argument that technology is a drug that is altering our mindset. She claims that technology needs modification in order to not be a negative, addiction-riddled creation. Turkle exemplifies this idea in her essay, The Empathy Diaries. She writes, “These days, we see that when people are alone at a stop sign or in the checkout line at the supermarket, they seem almost panicked and they reach for their phones. We are so accustomed to being always connected that being alone seems like a problem technology should solve” (348). In Turkle’s eyes, this is proof that digital technology is an addiction, and it prevents us from living the same lives we had before it. The inability that many humans have to go a period of time without using their phone provides power to Turkle’s idea that it is becoming irresistible. In this passage we get the idea that technology is a coping mechanism for boredom and loneliness. In fact, as Turkle details later in the essay, technology only promotes these feelings of loneliness and makes us feel them stronger. While Kelley argues that we are unified with technology due to its positive pros, Turkle debunks this idea, claiming that that is only the case because of the distractions and our addiction to it. I stand with Turkle in this debate. Stemming off of the increased usage of digital technology over the last few years, I am noticing a change in the way some people around me act. Conversations that I once had are being replaced by phones. Social media is replacing the incentive to talk to people in person. Digital technology has backfired on us now that we have developed it to the point where we love it so much that it is becoming a distraction. I believe that our use of technology needs to be revised so that we take the productive aspects of it, as detailed by Kelley, while limiting the distracting aspects of it that take away from conversation.
Through the lens of Turkle, technology makes us less empathetic, and in turn more lonely. Technology is replacing conversation more and more, and Turkle believes that resulting from that, kids especially, are feeling the effects of it. She claims that the replacement of conversation is causing kids to not be able to self-reflect and converse with one another, which causes a chain reaction into kids being more lonely and less empathetic. She details this idea by writing, “Without conversation, studies show that we are less empathetic, less connected, less creative and fulfilled. We are diminished, in retreat. But to generations that grew up using their phones to text and message, these studies may be describing losses they don’t feel. They didn’t grow up with a lot of face-to-face talk” (350). Turkle demonstrates to us in this passage that an increased use in digital technology leads to detrimental social effects. For example, using technology too much leads to people being less empathetic. Additionally, it causes people to self reflect less, which causes them to be more lonely due to a lack of relatability. Looking at this matter from my point of view, there are definitely times when I wish that I didn’t use technology as much; I wish that at times I would put my phone down, or close my computer and have that conversation with my friend, mom, dad, or sister. I agree with Turkle’s opinion that digital technology causes us to be less empathetic, and makes us regret some of the actions we made. Turkle’s opinion on how technology distracts us from what’s important contradicts Kelley’s thoughts. Kelley looks at the matter through a positive lens, hinting that the affection and empathy we lose with one another will convert towards endearment for digital technology. Kelley highlights this idea by writing, “In the future, we’ll find it easier to love technology. Machines win our hearts with every step they take in evolution. Like it not, anthropic robots (at the level of pets at first) will gain our affections, since even minimal life-like ones do already. The internet provides a hint of the maximal passion possibilities of the technim” (7). Kelley’s words shine a light onto what Turkle suggests is the lost future of technology. He claims that with modifications, digital technology will evolve to new heights, and improve to where it’s “easier to love technology.” According to Kelley, we are evolving to where we might hold stronger relationships with digital technology than to what we possess with one another. While Turkle suggests that a way of combating distraction and decreased empathy is using digital technology less, Kelley argues that we need to give it time to evolve and improve. Between the two authors, they can both agree that technology causes us to be distracted, and at times less empathetic; they both admit that technology, or the way we use it, needs alterations in order to prevent these things from happening. However, their view on how we should tackle the future of digital technology is entirely different. Once again, I stand with Turkle’s ideas on this matter. Our relationships with one another are far more important than anything we have, or will have, with digital technology. The conversations we hold with one another, and the way we treat each other are what defines us as humans. If we took that away, and our strongest relationships would be with technology, then what would make us any different from just being a technology?
I can see both sides of the argument that Turkle and Kelley raise. On one hand, technology is a tremendous innovation that has made a lot of people’s lives easier and more enjoyable. However, on the other hand, the brilliance of technology blocks some of the critical interactions from occurring. In my personal experience, almost all of my classes are run through the internet now, my tests are completed online, and my notes are taken on a digital piece of paper. However, there are times when I’m around my family and friends that I notice not just myself, but also the people around me being two different people when around digital technology. My perspective on the matter is that technology is a distraction, and we need to modify the way we use it in order to only draw out the positive, productive aspects of it. One way of doing this is limiting the use of certain apps and websites for kids when growing up. If kids grow up without getting into bad habits of distractions through technology then they won’t have problems later in life. Kids are being distracted by apps and social media which cause them to have less conversations. This causes a chain reaction which makes these kids less empathetic and more lonely. We need to make sure this can’t happen to kids. We’re essentially handing them a drug and then being surprised when they get addicted to them. If we’re able to heed to the concerns of Turkle and limit the distracting sides of technology then we can maximize the remarkable technology that we hear from Kelley.
Works Cited
- Turkle, Sherry. “The Empathy Diaries.” Penguin Press, March 2, 2021.
- Kelley, Kevin. Technophilia. The Technium. June 8, 2009.
