Q&A 7

1. Which of the Luddite criticisms of computers listed in Section 7.4.1 do you consider 
the most valid and significant? Why? 

Of the Luddite’s criticisms on the significant effect of computers, I believe that the most significant is that computers cause social isolation. I know in my lifetime I have seen the effect of computers, and have seen how they can create false reality, as well as social isolation. When I grew up as a child, when I wanted to play and have fun, I would run across the street and see if neighbor’s kids were home. I’m not completely sure how kids do it now-adays, but I do know that all of my little cousins, even at 10 years old, spend a lot of time on facebook. It’s just a different social world that people live in, when it comes to the internet and computers. 

2. Some people lament the fact that children currently in elementary school will never 
read a printed newspaper. 

(a) What will they miss? 

They will miss the news stands and smelling the fresh ink on the newly pressed paper. They will miss the paper cuts and ink smearing on their fingers. They will miss the hype of current events. Newspapers even promoted well-roundedness by providing a large amount of information. Now, kids can easily avoid anything that doesn’t interest them, and go for the meaty, funny parts.

(b) Is anything of significant personal or social value being lost? 

Perhaps some social value is being lost, because there is less of a sense of community. When people used to read the newspaper, they had a common connection and link to societal events. Now, people can easily surf straight to the information that interests them most, and completely avoid other information. Unless it is a viral hit, chances are that your neighbor is not reading anything similar to you on the web. 

(c) Overall, is the change away from printed newspapers good or bad? Why? 

I think progression is a positive thing. Not only does it allow for much quicker transition of information, it saves paper, which in turn saves trees. It’s hard to argue about jobs lost because, just as some jobs are lost, many more are created. As technology evolves, I am curious to see what the next form of information sharing system is adopted next. 

3. Suppose a computer program uses the following data to determine the number of years 
remaining of a natural resource (e.g., copper) 

•p the number of tons of the known reserves of the resource 
•p the average amount of the resource used per person (worldwide) per year 
•p the population of the world 
•p an estimate of the rate of growth of the world’s population 

List all the reasons you can think of why this program would not be a good predictor 
of when we will run out of the resource.

There are many reasons why this program would not be a good predictor of when we will run out of a resource. Technology evolves each day, and as technology evolves, we learn more efficient ways to “use” resources wisely. As technology evolves, there is always a possibility that we can discover ways to synthesize more resources. There is even a possibility that unknown resources could be discovered. There are just too many factors that could easily throw numbers off when they are so generalized. Even a few natural disasters around the world, or a medical epidemic, could throw the numbers off greatly. The guidelines for a program to determine the number of years remaining for a natural resource would have to incorporate much more specific numbers that can be accurately followed and transcribed. Even then, I don’t believe that using a computer program to determine such a thing would be feasible, because of all of the factors that could change the outcome.