Beast of Technology

  We live in a time that sees constant addition to our technological options. In what seems to be a very short time, we have computers, cell phones, the internet, self-driving cars, new medicines, etc. We are told that we have to use these things for good, or they will be used for evil. It's strange to me that we never discussed the idea of just not using some technology. I think smartphones are great. They're super useful, convenient and powerful. However, I swapped out my smartphone for a flip phone at Christmas and couldn't be happier. Yes, the technology is great, but so much of what is around us isn't necessary. Facebook, Pintrest and Twitter all have potential good uses, but we never seem to discuss the option of not creating accounts, or even deleting our accounts from these services. If technology can dampen our ability to feel the spirit, shouldn't we teach some form of technological abstinence? I do, of course, believe in the righteous uses of these technologies, but I feel that we aren't nearly as cornered into using them as it seems. It's like any pseudo-addiction: go without it for a week or two, and you'll realize how little some of these things actually added to your life.

Study Journal 7

1. Why don't we have some sort of temple attendance class at BYU?
2. People always talk about technology either being used for good or evil; why can't technology "not being used" be a third option?
3. It will be interesting to see what technology will be common-place in the church in the future.

1. Once we crack open India and China to full-scale proselyting missions, membership in the church will explode.
2. What does someone stand to gain doing a DOS attack on General Conference? The message comes out in so many different ways, it's not like they're really stopping anything.
3. Things that work well in a small-scale setting might be entirely unusable in a large-scale setting.

1. Is temple work the greatest desire of those in the spirit world?
2. The advances with regards to family history technology are just unreal.
3. Family history is closing in on being able to do itself, and simply notify us when family members are found.

1. What is the overlap in digital social media usage statistics? How many of the 1+ billion Facebook users are within the one billion YouTube users?
2. The church has gotten a lot better at making videos.
3. Elder Bednar really seems to be pushing good technological uses whenever he can.
4. People can come to rely on visiting sites that have regular updates; if we can consistently post authentic, uplifting things, we could make a difference to that kind of demographic.

Post 4 (Class Discussion Review) Being Lead by the Weakest Among us

    Some people will always be crippled by the freedom. Others will be liberated by it. Unfortunately, there is a third group that takes their freedom and binds themselves with it. This third group has caused a great deal of rules and regulations to come into existence. It could be argued that these rules and regulations will protect others from making the same mistake; maybe this is true. However, there comes a point where we can "protect" ourselves into a situation wherein we are severely lacking in freedom. Some people misuse the internet, but that doesn't mean it should be taken down. Some people use firearms for nefarious purposes, but they should not be made illegal to purchase. A principle purpose for each person on earth is to learn how to use agency in the face of temptation. Do I think the world would be better if pornography and illicit drugs were completely gone? Yes, of course. However, some try to take this to the extreme, where every questionable item is removed from life and we have no choices except good choices. This is the plan of the great adversary: to remove choice and force correct behavior. While I believe in rules for protection, I also believe that people should be left the ability to choose based on those rules, and reap whatever reward or consequence that follows.

Study Journal 6

1. How much should we really guide someone's interest before we are steering them away from their real interest?
2. Does the Asian STEM focus reduce the average creativity in their learning?
3. I don't see many people from the school of family life recruiting CS majors to come over.

1. There sin't an issue with diversity in the workplace so long as they hire the qualified, regardless of other criteria.
2. Is the workforce an indicator of the target demographic? Like, men making ties or women making skirts?
3. It's strange that the CS field pushes programming so hard in learning, but says in 5-10 years of working we won't be coding anymore. Why is programming pushed so hard, then?

1. People can kick most addictive action by removing their capacity to do it. Addicted to social media? Remove smartphone, lock out social sites. Chocolate? Don't buy chocolate.
2. We shouldn't remove valid opportunities because some people will misuse them; that would invalidate the idea of coming into mortality at all.
3. Intent should be the measuring rod of whether or not something is done.

1. People who are having tech issues should reduce their tech usage.
2. Online time should be measured in terms of how much is spent on recreation.
3. How use are surveys, really? People lie; does this justify data mining?
4. You never know how software will be used or adapted.

Post 3 (Class Discussion Review)

    We spoke heavily for two days about women in computing, the huge disparity in numbers between men and women in CS, and whether or not it needs to be "corrected." I did a little research, and discovered that currently, less than 20% of CS bachelors degrees are earned by women. That being said, trends discussed in class are showing that 30% of the CS jobs are going to women. All other things being equal, I feel that means the system is treating women just as fairly as men in terms of opportunity. I also feel that the market as a whole should be examined in respect to gender numbers. If men and women are equally targeted with a software product, then I feel it's appropriate to have equal input from both genders in the software's creation. However, if the target demographic is predominately one gender (for example, certain genres of video games), I believe it is more sensible so have it produced predominately by that gender. Guys know what guys like. Women know what women enjoy. If people were being denied opportunities based on gender, and whenever that is the case, it is wholly unacceptable. In the case of women in the technical field, current employment trends with the percentage of bachelor degrees. If we want to see a larger female presence in the tech world, the push will have to be made much earlier than the hiring floor.

Study Journal 5

1. If you have to be insanely careful of your word choice when you answer a question in order to not sound like a scumbag...you probably did something wrong.
2. I don't understand why companies were mad when someone sold stock after a one-day gain of 500%. You have to understand that growth on that scale isn't sustainable, and people will jump ship when it's profitable.
3. It's a shame that more venture capitalists won't admit that the dot-com era was all about fast money for them.

1. We can't ask people to explore things that we ourselves are unwilling to explore.
2. Bringing order to chaos is valuable.
3. Are there moral/ethical shortcomings to charging someone 20x the production cost in order to receive a product?

1. The internet isn't the problem, it's a people-problem.
2. Sacred things have a sacred time and place wherein they are appropriate.
3. Is oxytocin release the reason that people will develop a "type" over time after dating similar people?

Current Event 3

This post is in response to classroom discussion and the article found at http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/14/video-game-violence-a-scientific-consens


    For years people have been debating the affect of violent videogames with regards to real-life violence. Ronald Bailey, among many others, is now saying that the correlation that was previously believed to exist is false. This ties back to the ideas of internet ethics and accountability. Just as the internet is neither good or bad, videogames are neither good nor bad. They are a thing, and like almost all things, can be used for good or nefarious purposes. Loving parents play the same games as psychopaths. In our discussion, Dr Knutson discussed that we have a responsibility to make good choices with regards to our use of the internet, and I believe that charge extends to all facets of life. I find it revolting that technology is blamed or used as a scapegoat for human behavior. A person is in charge of how they act, with very few and rare exceptions. For recreation, we are given a near limitless array of options. If we notice that something affects us negatively, it's our responsibility as people to either 1) change our response or 2) change the situation. Frankly, Abby Miller from Dance Moms makes me more angry than any violent game.