final paper/ blog2

As I am reading and writing for this paper my main theme is connecting America's history of production and consumption with today's. I have found that companies have not done anything to improve their tactics of manipulating consumers or making products on the basis of durability rather than aesthetic design. I answered the question to whether we will remain on this disposable path or move to a greener culture and my answer is essentially we will always be a culture driven by the newer and more modern founded on an economy driven my profit. It is frustrating and disturbing to admit that the ultimate motive has always been and will always be MONEY. As much as we like to deny it( including myself) we are constantly duped into buying the newest and best technologies. We are a generation that no longer needs books but kindles. We moved from radios to television to ipods to ipads and the trends are endless. Furthermore when thinking of the green movement we are seeing so much of recently I only see an emphasis on recyclable items like plastics, glass and paper ( not to say that it is not important) however where is the attention on the millions of electronics we throw away and the indestructible and harmful toxins they contain? I think the main thing needed to be done is EDUCATION. We must educate the public on these potential consequences and promote the recycling of electronics along with making use of items rather then simply throwing them away. Finally educating ourselves on obsolescence is key in moving to a greener environment.

Final/Process/#1

So when choosing which question i wanted to take on I was torn at first but ultimately decided on the second question regarding America's battle in "going green." I chose this question because frankly I enjoyed Slade's "Made to Break" more than Postman's "Technopoly" and mainly because i feel it tackles an issue that is becoming more and more real, serious and is overall more relevant.  Americans have been consuming goods for years . Goods that were manipulated and strategically made to create more consumption. I plan to engage with the culture of American consumption, mass production and the techniques used to sell us these products over and over again. What long term affects will this create? Is the effort for an eco-friendly green society completely futile? Moreover, to refresh my memory on Slade's main arguments and themes I went back to my old blogs as well as reading some of my fellow classmates' just to get a broader perspective on the topic. I plan on really delving into the book and looking for arguments I find significant enough to use in my own. 

Midterm/wikipedia audit experience

I think Wikipeida should not be used as a scholarly source. What I learned during this process what that many people pick and choose information that sometimes does not correlate with the articles. Furthermore, it is hard to deem a source as credible for example I noticed while doing this project that when we discussed our section of sources we were all quick to say that government publications or websites were 100% credible/unbiased. I thought maybe they aren’t and can possibly have their own agendas. Some strengths are that it could be helpful in getting a brief idea or grasp on a topic but one should be cautious to readily accept all information as true. I feel this is an example of how technology is making society lazier and ignorant. We are so ready to accept all information we read online as true because we do not want to bother with research and it is the first and quickest thing that comes up when searching a topic. Since the project whenever a friend cites Wikipedia I tell them how credible it really is. I definitely will be taking information from Wikipeida with more caution and an open and educated mind.

social network/ extra credit

I had written this a while back but noticed I did not receive credit for it so I am copying and pasting it into its own post. Thank you!
P.S-  Last weekend I saw the film The Social Network with some preconceived notions that it would be ridiculously exaggerated and have little to no truth in the actual story of how Facebook was created. Yes, the film may have been exaggerated to society's assumptions of what cool fun college kids like and I am not too sure about the accuracy of the legalities presented. The film pretty much went back and forth between the depositions between two lawsuits  of Marx Zuckerberg's best friend- who co-founded facebook and business partners who originally proposed the idea to Mark. I really enjoyed the film I felt like it was made for my generation. It had this theme of new opportunities for young entrepreneurs. Mark may not have been represented as the most ethical individual but he was portrayed as almost an innovator and revolutionist. The characters of  Mark and Napster's creator played by Justin Timberlake gave me the sense of "If he could do it, why cant I?" The film spoke to technology's possibilities and how fast paced it is.They thought Facebook would be nothing but a "cool" site for meeting girls and it turned into a worldwide phenomenon. I give the film a 4 start rating!

made to break/ part2

In the second part of Made to Break, Slade generally sums up the histories of innovative new technologies like the radio, television, synthetic silk, to more modern inventions differential analyzers, analog computing,  etc.  Slade argues that "many of the things that happened in this country have happened as a result of obsolescence-automobiles and other things" (98). Slade also argues that although technologies like automobiles and televisions are different their philosophy is the same. The emergence of transistors and printed circuits marked the obsolescence of consumer electronics because it made them unrepairable. Moreover, miniaturization of products also increased the demand for electronics. Furthermore, by the 50's product life spans we predetermined also known as "death dating."

the theme of "Technopoly's" technocracy was prevalent where science and technology prevails over human knowledge and logic. This is evident in the rise of graphical mechanical instruments and it's value among students over problem solving. 

Made to Break

With the transformation of man made products to the industrialized revolution where machinery and technology made mass production possible, the need to solve overproduction rose. The solution was simple- create a demand. Companies began alluring consumers through branding and packaging and the distribution of disposable products that created an endless demand.  For men these disposable products included razors, paper clothing, Yankee pocket watches and condoms. For women products were pads, Kleenex and other hygienic products. This created repetitive consumption. Furthermore, America learned to throw products away easily and became a wasteful society where the new was extremely fetishized. The competition between Alfred Sloan and Henry Ford represents this notion of psychological obsolescence. Ford was an American icon dedicated to durability whereas Sloan was more concerned with style. The notion of aesthetics and beauty of a car proved to prevail with Sloan’s success of LaSalle and their outdating of Ford’s T Model. This can be explained by women’s interest in automobiles and their role as consumers. This becomes the foundation of the automobile industry and an important  marker of this phenomenon is Ford changing the style of its cars regularly on an annual basis like GM. Americans begin to become addicted to products when advertising and marketing become concerned with selling values and statuses through products and in turn people used these products as symbols of wealth, desire and pride.

The notion of shame was also used to manipulate consumers from throwing away  "out-dated" products. During depression people became concerned with technocracy, emphasis on use and prosperity of technologies rather than profits.

At first I thought past marketers attempts to manipulate the American public were ridiculous. Then I began to realize we have not improved much from our history. As a female living in 2010 we are the main targets of advertising. There is always something newer and better to make us beautiful, skinny and “happy.” Slade does a great job explaining America’s roots in advertising and product fetishism. Today we are more concerned with a product’s aesthetic beauty and psychological appeal rather than its functionality and usefulness. I find this psychological obsolescence to be apparent in today’s product market. Cellphones and ipods are changing so rapidly to the point where I find it pointless to purchase one knowing it will improve in a few months.

Technopoly part 2

When I began reading the second part of Technopoly I refused to agree with Postman and the fact that technology has taken control over our lives. I refused to believe that we were passive consumers being fed tons and tons of information to be believed as true or that we have become so heavily reliant of computers that we hold them responsible for our errors, perceptions and actions. Then I really began to think about Postman's statement that "Questions, then, are like computes or television in that they are mechanisms that give direction to our thoughts, generate new ideas, venerate old ones, expose facts, or hide them." (p.127). After reading this I began to think differently as our roles as consumers. As i do research on a paper or project, or read for my pleasure I assume all the information is correct without awarness of WHO/WHAT is controlling or distrbuting the information I consume. Postman goes on to talk about this idea of scientism and how society has become so dependednt and trustworthy of scientific facts and statistics. We no longer question where these messages come from or what the underslying intention is.Scienve has come to dictate our worldviews thorugh advertisements, television and the loads of information scattered thorughout the internet and ineveitable become the standard. Just as television tells us what a family should be the internet tells us what to believe. I liked Postman's comparison to the industry of advertising and I saw many similarities. Like advertising technopoly sells worldviews to generate a profit-Twitter pays celebrities to tweet to gain more exposure and generate the idea that if a celebrity is tweeting it must be cool. Nonetheless, we do chose what we read,, watch, and consume just moer ofthen then not we are unaware of the effects these messages creat and are reluctant to question where they really come from.

P.S-  Last weekend I saw the film The Social Network with some preconceived notions that it would be ridiculously exaggerated and have little to no truth in the actual story of how Facebook was created. Yes, the film may have been exaggerated to society's assumptions of what cool fun college kids like and I am not too sure about the accuracy of the legalities presented. The film pretty much went back and forth between the depositions between two lawsuits  of Marx Zuckerberg's best friend- who co-founded facebook and business partners who originally proposed the idea to Mark. I really enjoyed the film I felt like it was made for my generation. It had this theme of new opportunities for young entrepreneurs. Mark may not have been represented as the most ethical individual but he was portrayed as almost an innovator and revolutionist. The characters of  Mark and Napster's creator played by Justin Timberlake gave me the sense of "If he could do it, why cant I?" The film spoke to technology's possibilities and how fast paced it is.They thought Facebook would be nothing but a "cool" site for meeting girls and it turned into a worldwide phenomenon. I give the film a 4 start rating!