Dream Digital

As a little kid, I dreamt of a society reigned by technological advancements that far outstretched what we as humans believed was achievable at the time, and by that I mean I dreamt of owning a jetpack and being able to shoot lasers out of my eyes. But as farfetched and science-fictional those ideas seem, our global society is rapidly evolving into a more technologically wired body of people, one that will produce ideas and inventions similar in inconceivability. While jetpacks and eye lasers aren't necessarily on the near horizon, there are many new technologies that we now take for granted that twenty years ago seemed like something out of a dream; touch-screen phones, the iPod, laptops, Netflix, and many more commonplace accessories in our modern age prove that our society is no longer dreaming digitally but rather living digitally. Not only that, but we have essentially become products of this new wave of technology, adapting at a cognitive level to meet the needs of daily life. Though we are supposedly moving forwards with each new technological advancement, are we actually moving backwards mentally? Or is this actually creating a more efficient human mind? In the first post of my blog, I will discuss what our society has become under the influence of technology and why I believe it is doing more good for our world than bad.

Technology has had a fascinating effect on our modern world. Using an iPhone or a laptop has become a habitual motion like breathing and blinking. We constantly check our text messages as if we're scratching an itch that can't be suppressed. The Internet has given birth to a new form of vicarious life thanks to social networking websites like Twitter and Facebook that allow others to constantly be up to date on how and where we are. All of these examples show that society is slowly shifting away from the concept of complete privacy and gravitating towards a more open, connected world that encourages the intertwining of each other's lives. However, technology has had more than just a globally holistic impact on mankind. According to some researchers, our excessive exposure to electronics has affected us on a cognitive level as well. In "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Nicholas Carr explains through the aid of various sources that our constant interactions with technology have re-shaped the way that our brains process information. With technological advancement comes an increased need for efficiency and immediacy of results, and as technology transforms, its subjects, humans, morph with it. Our brains have become subconsciously programmed to "power browse" rather than delve into information and search for its meaning. Just as Google wastes no time in delivering results to our queries, we attempt to waste as little time as possible when presented with texts of any kind.

Now some people would argue that this cognitive transformation is bad. In an article published by the New York Times, researchers claim that though our constant access to technology has improved our ability to multitask, it has undermined our focus, making concentration somewhat of a chore. I can personally say that I struggle to concentrate on reading long materials and am guilty of subconscious desires for instant understanding of them. I do believe that there are consequences of this new mind that we are beginning to develop, but the fact of the matter is that our world is quickening the pace at which it moves. Because of that, I believe that our minds are compensating for speed by decreasing our utilization of concentration. Does that mean that we are becoming less intelligent? Absolutely not; it means that our brains are reallocating the levels of which certain cognitive abilities are utilized though not totally eliminating their functions. We are still just as smart as we were before the Technological Age began, arguably even more intelligent. Our minds just operate on a different setting than they did twenty years ago. They are adapting to work efficiently within our progressive world.

Of course, this situation is entirely subjective in terms of how you view it, but in order to argue my point, I would like to make analogy between this and Radiohead, more specifically a drastic shift in their sound in between two albums. Radiohead is one of my favorite bands of all time, and the cover art of their album In Rainbows is actually the background of my blog but I digress. In 1997, Radiohead released OK Computer, which to this day is regarded as one of the hallmark albums of the 1990's rock music scene. By producing hits like "Karma Police" and "Paranoid Android," OK Computer had perfected the British alternative rock sound that had begun to creep into the mainstream music scene in the 90's and had cemented the band as eventual rock legends. In 2000, Radiohead returned with their follow-up album Kid A. The album showed a distinct shift from the alternative rock-based, guitar-driven sound that they had displayed on OK Computer and instead toward a heavily electronic-influenced sound, something that was completely uncommon in rock music. Songs like "Idioteque" showcased the band experimenting in a new, chaotic, electronic sound that struck many longtime Radiohead fans as strange and unfamiliar, even alienating many that were not willing to accept this change. However, Kid A was a massive critical and commercial success and is routinely ranked as one of the greatest albums in recent history. I'm not a huge fan of Pitchfork Media, but the magazine recently released a list of rankings of the Top 200 Albums from 1996-2011 as well as releasing a Top 200 Albums of the 2000's list back in 2009. On the first list, Kid A is ranked 2nd only to OK Computer, and on the second list, it is ranked 1st. Rankings aside, it is still greatly debated among Radiohead fans as to which album is better.

What I am trying to get at with my Radiohead obsession is that it is impossible to say which album is superior. Both albums are distinct in their approaches to crafting songs and both were successes. OK Computer was a great album, but in order for the band to progress, they had to reinvent themselves. When they did, their new work was appreciated just as much as their older work was.

Coming full circle, both versions of our brains - the pre-technologically-exposed and the modern one - have helped us achieve our goals in our then-current and current settings. They are both distinct in the way that they approach certain situations and in how they process information, but they are both good for their own reasons. And because our world is rapidly evolving, in order for us to hold on for the ride that is technological progression, our minds must develop to meet the situations that we are presented with. Can we say which brain is better - old or new? I say that we can't because it's like comparing apples and oranges. These different minds are stronger and weaker than each other in certain aspects, and they are both most effective in the environments in which they were bred. The most important thing to know is that our brain is adapting to keep up with the needs of our daily lives, and with that in mind, I can rest easy knowing that my brain is functioning properly, and though skeptics of the new developing mind may not be in favor of it now, I feel that just as Kid A eventually became accepted amongst Radiohead fans, our new mind will also eventually become appreciated.