Final Paper

Here it is, the moment you all have been waiting for (ha, I crack myself up), my uploaded final paper to my ISSUU account! 

Click the link to enjoy!

http://issuu.com/shanecullian/docs/rlst_final_draft.docx

Wrap Up: Final Thoughts

It's safe the past 10 weeks of Apple, Google, Facebook have challenged my previous ideas as to how religion is evolving into the 21st century through technological advancements. Some ideas that we have touched upon in class have kind of frightened me (regarding the actual worship of the internet, so to speak) whereas others have given me hope for a harmonious relationship between the two concepts in this world (i. e. understanding the advantages both bring to the table in terms of abstract and concrete human ideals about the world we live in). I intend to make this blog short and sweet, as are the majority of my previous rants, but I'd also like to delve into my opinion of the future of religion and the impact technology has on it's fate.

Whether or not you have a pessimistic view on the fate of popular, traditional, religions as this man does here or as Jason Silva seems to think, or you tend to be optimistic given the fact some of these traditional belief systems have endured numerous critiques for thousands of years, it is safe to assume there is will be a meshing of the two worlds as the 21st century progresses. Organized religions will either adapt to the onset of the internet and it's capabilities, such as mormonism and certain catholic youth group movements, or it will disregard the innovative techniques completely like Amish traditions or certain sects of the hasidic Judaism. I would personally like to believe there can be a peaceful transition between the two cultures of modern society. Religion can utilize technology as a way of bringing people together who have previously rejected certain aspects of their faith, like Catholics Come Home, or they can rebel against technology and claim it cannot represent abstract ideas such as faith, hope, and love in the ways humanistic values are represented in religious settings. I'd like to think there's hope (hence the reason I'm writing about Catholicism and it's adaptations to the internet), and that is where I'll end my final blog: I've reached a better understanding of both sides to this argument and feel comfortable believing in the optimistic future we will all take part in.

What's Wrong with Lock-In? Oh I Don't Know...Everything

The idea of "Lock-in" was discussed at length the other day in class and it took a while not only for the idea to sink into my slow-processing thoughts, but to also form an opinion of what Lanier believes to be true about modern society. Lanier defines Lock-in as a definitive, non-transcendental, idea that fits within a rigid set of confines. Very vague, I know. Lanier believes the idea of Lock-in is taking foothold and ruining certain facets of life, specifically how we interact with the internet and the limiting of options we have once engaged within the world wide web. He views social networking sites like Facebook and musical programs such as MIDI as the simplest, most rigid ideas that humans have conceptualized, and instead of innovating and exploring other options of communication/music programming, humanity has become satisfied with the present technologies. Lanier believes Lock-in drives complacency and the inability to utilize options when it comes to technology, which is where I personally think he's wrong.

Lock-in kind of flew over my head in class, granted many concepts do as my learning curve isn't quite up to par with many students, but after some reflection I want to criticize Lanier and his notion that people become complacent with the most simple, most feasible, and most finite of technologies at their disposal. I'd like to point out a major flaw in his argument: innovation. How does Lock-in succeed on the full-scale level that Lanier refers to when the internet/technology in general is constantly being innovated? My view of social networking began when MySpace and AIM chat were the forefront of my high school social life. People quickly became bored with these sites and then progressed to Facebook and Twitter, two sites that I still use today. Evolving (I hate using this term in this context as a biology major) to fit the needs and wants of society is the definition of innovation. And the notion that people have been "Locked-In" with whatever is most simplistic or accessible is just wrong. Why? Because people change, the world changes, needs change, and thus technology must adapt and evolve (urgh) to fit the bill, so to speak. Lock-in isn't simply just a paranoid theory to how people view and utilize technology, it's also unfounded and completely wrong, in my opinion. Never thought I'd see the day when I would use scientific terminology to describe the history of social networking sites....(side note: completely digging the dreads look Lanier has taken a custom to).

HTML Page Creation

Visit my newly created HTML page regarding Google Nest and some privacy issues with it! Literally making the same points as my previous blog, if you're curious...

Here's the link

Follow Up: To Memory

I thought this was a pretty admirable concept made by Facebook for the maintenance of deceased users profiles. Prior to this update, privacy settings locked down a departed user's account for viewing solely by family and close friends. This update in the profile settings creates a montage of photos, posts, and nostalgic memories when someone has passed away. It's a morbid topic i'll admit, but I do admire what Facebook has done in order to properly commemorate those who have used their website, and thus passed on into another world.

Click the link to read more!!

Identity Crisis

After reading the somewhat-pessimistic review of The Social Network and Facebook usage in general, I found myself agreeing with a few of what Zadie Smith likes to call, "nostalgic" views about society's relationship with technology. There are multiple points in the article where I think Smith might be slightly too obsessive with berating the idea of connections made over the internet, but at the heart of her argument, where she discusses the reduction of people via their Facebook page, I found myself nodding my head in agreement.

To me, the whole idea behind the creation of Facebook was to connect with others and share similar ideas about livelihood and to engage in self expression. I would personally like to think that I share who I am on my homepage by posting pictures of my experiences, music to which I love and listen to, and threads/comments with friends that I know outside of the internet. In all, ideally it shows others who you are and your general interests. According to Smith, however, it is a reduction and slighted representation of who you are as a person. It is what you wish to show with others and what you wish to been seen as when friends, family, and acquaintances view your profile. Smith makes an interesting point when discussing Lanier's point of view on social networking:

"there is no perfect computer analogue for what we call a “person.” In life, we all profess to know this, but when we get online it becomes easy to forget. In Facebook, as it is with other online social networks, life is turned into a database"

I had never thought of myself as a database before reading her opinion of how i represent myself on the internet. Sure I post which movies I've seen, what books I've read, and have around 650 "friends". But to reduce myself to this generalization of a profile is where Smith argues that Facebook isn't the connective site that it claims to be. It's a version of myself, a projection that doesn't truly represent who I am, whether or not the rest of the internet recognizes that fact or not. 

Follow Up Week 7

Just a quick follow up to my feelings towards Google's vision of all-accessible information. The link provided explains a recent deal between Google and a company called Nest that produces thermostats. Google's intention is to know when the person or persons are home and thus kick-start the thermostat automatically in order to heat or cool the house. This may not seem like something to get up-in-arms about, but the idea that Google is connected to your house, and could possibly lead to a snowball effect of other items, is slightly disconcerting. This all relates to the idea of privacy and how Google has the potential to eradicate borders between the private and public spheres of society, if it so chooses. I'll try to elaborate on this topic in the upcoming HTML assignment, but overall the invasion-of-privacy theme is something that I cannot easily erase from my head.

http://gigaom.com/2014/01/13/when-google-closes-the-nest-deal-privacy-issues-for-the-internet-of-things-will-hit-the-big-time/