Thursday

The final film I have viewed for Week 1 of #edcmooc is Thursday.

Once again, I am not going to compose a massive essay... If I did that for every stimulus in the course I would be here forever!

Questions posed:

What message is the film presenting about technology? What losses and gains are described? Who or what has ‘agency’ in this film?

It seems that this film is presenting a somewhat neutral representation of technology.

Sure, it is saying that technology is immersed in our home and work lives (the office scene, the alarm clock, the constant mobile phone reliance, the entertainment elevator), and that it is fragile (bird disruption, hand scanner), but overall the view is quite neutral.

In terms of losses, the film depicts somewhat of a loss of creativity and individuality - for some this would be dystopian - for others, utopian.

In terms of gains, the film depicts a simplicity of existence.

One of the interesting things I noticed was the scene at the train station. The man seemed to blame his hand for the issue, rather than the technology. I think this says something about our attitudes toward technology... Are they changing? I know that if something goes wrong with technology for me, I definitely blame the technology! Many of my colleagues, however, blame themselves.

Hmmm.... Should I be more like them? 

Who/what has agency? All of the characters have agency to some level. Though there is an underlying feeling that there is someone/something bigger that is the main driving force (employer/government?) that is potentially shaping the decisions and actions - either by social factors or physical factors (e.g. the bird has the free will to choose to make a nest, but makes it with electrical cabling).

Is this the metaphor for technological determinism? Maybe... Plenty of food for thought.

Inbox

Inbox is the third film I have watched for the E-Learning and Digital Cultures MOOC #edcmooc

The question posed by our course leaders is:

"Depending on how you interpret the relationship between the two main characters, and the ending, you might argue that this is a utopian account, or a dystopian one - what do you think, and why?"

Firstly, I would like to state that in all cases, the dichotomy of utopia and dystopia annoys me.

There are varying degrees and contexts that must be considered. Certainly, in some aspects, for some people, present society is a dystopia. For others, it is utopia.

I can pretty well eat whatever I want, whenever I want. For some people, I live in a food utopia.

I live in Tasmania. For some people that is a dystopia. (more fool them!)

I will not attempt to describe all of the aspects of this film - that has been done expertly by many others. What I will do is present my opinion with respect to the posed question.

I think that this is a utopian account. It doesn't represent the future, simply a metaphor for the present.

It highlights that simple human interaction is all we really need in order to be happy. The medium through which we choose to communicate with one another is unimportant - it is how we use it.

In the movie, the technology is magical - as do many real technologies seem - this is inconsequential.

What is important is that people can communicate. Simple things, short notes, nothing too in-depth. The ultimate end-goal, however, is to meet in person - it is then that relationships can fully blossom.

For a lot of people communicating with the various social networks today, this is still one of the goals for people that they build friendships with.

When the "technology" breaks in the film, the characters still endeavour to meet. They have hope. They are rewarded.

Some other points:

What was happening to the notes/items/information that went into the bags before it got to the other side?

Are people questioning what is happening in between?

Who has access to that information, and what are they doing with it? Is it really private?

Do you care?

That will do...

Addicted to Technology?

There is a lot of talk in the #edcmooc of us being addicted to technology.

Is it that ALL technology is addictive? Or are people more prone to be addicted to communications technologies? Is it about base human needs? If we NEED something, then is it really an addiction? - perhaps if overdone? Are we "addicted" to clothes (not fashion)? Are we addicted to living in shelters (not architecture)? These are technologies. Maslow was pretty spot on with his hierarchy of needs. Communications technologies provide for all levels of basic human need - apart from physiological (although can help indirectly with these). They enable us to feel safe and secure (knowing that loved ones are ok, knowing that information about weather and disasters is very easy to get). They enable us to feel belonging and love (we can find any number of interest groups and like minded people at the click of a button, we can communicate very easily with loved ones who are away for extended periods, we can find and catch up with old friends and acquaintances, we can explore family history easily). They can boost our self-esteem, enabling us to achieve in a variety of contexts, gain respect from like-minded people who may not be in our physically local community and gain recognition in a variety of forms (badges, "likes" "+1s"). They also enable creativity and the pursuit of inner talent for self-fulfilment more easily than ever. It is interesting that technologies such as tablets, internet access etc... and the ensuing modes of use are simply fulfilling our basic needs, and because of the ease of access some are addicted. Food is a basic need - but we can become addicted and over-eat, becoming obese. I suppose some of us then can of course become addicted to technology, especially because it serves so many of our basic needs. But can we become technologically obese? Yes. Who are the most obese people in the world? People with easiest access to food? Who are the most technologically obese people?

Sorry.... just writing as I think..... interesting concepts...