Affluenza; Inherent Obsolescence
As part of my English class, I am posting in regards to my initial thoughts on the book “Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic”.
Upon reading the first few chapters of the aforementioned work, I found the topic of “Inherent Obsoloscence” quite interesting; the notion that a product is virtually obsolete by the time it enters the market in order to ascertain the profitability of the said product’s successor. Now, at least in my opinion, I don’t see it as being scientifically nor mathematically possible to create the “best” or the ”most advanced” of anything particularly when the rate of technological advancement and trends in consumer demands are considered. Technology relies directly upon scientific research, necessity and an infrastructure unto which to implement it; these three factors have evolved parallel to modern civilization, thus becoming symbiotic and synergistic factors amongst themselves. Taking advantage of this mutual dependence between technology, necessity, science and infrastructure are not the people for whom technology was implemented to begin with, but to the very companies that created the technology- along comes inherent obsolescence. It makes no business sense for a company to create technologically advanced products that are not only advanced relative to their time but also built sensibly, sustainably and with extended, long-term usage in mind. To remain competitive, technology companies intentionally release products that are heralded as being “cutting edge” or the ”most advanced” when in fact they’re virtually obsolete and a newer, more “cutting edge” and more “advanced” successor is already preparing for release. The market has corrupted and effectively hindered technological advancement, making nothing more than an puppet the scientific method(s) implemented for the further advancement of technology.
The technology industry is an inherent facet of our society as modern human beings but the market system- money, and the greed for it engendered by these companies, has transformed our necessity into an insatiable appetite for the best, the newest and highest-performing gadget; our need for superiority by virtue of our posessions. Science has become nothing more than a marketing tool for technology companies; creating convoluted product lines spanning many generations intended not for the highest possible performance and long-term reliability and usage, but for long-term profitability at the expense of the consumer, who wants the newest and the best and is willing to both wait and pay for it.
Apple and their various product lines are adequate examples of this. By the time a Apple product is released and a new sales record is achieved, consumers are already aching to get their hands on their newly-purchased gadget’s successor, affording Apple the ability to mass-produce a new gadget (on average, at the painfully slow rate of two or three per year) with a few, realitvely minor updates. Consumers blindly oblige; they eat it up like nutella. Nothing says ”next generation” like a few more pixels on your screen and a nominal increase in procerssing speed.
The shift from the objective to the subjective and extraordinary claims lacking extraordinary evidence.
As part of an assignment for one of my college classes, I am reading a book and documenting my reactions, thoughts and critiques on my tumblr based on topics written by the author.
The Book is called “Don’t Believe What You Think” by Thomas Kida. And, might I add, the book has proven to be quite entertaining and provides more than just the typical, stale views on logic and skepticism and the lack of factual data rampant in today’s almost unintelligible and logorrheic sea of claims and accounts fed to us by the mainstream media (news, television programs, social networking sites, etc.). This is the first entry regarding the aforementioned work.
Upon reading Kida’s introduction to “Don’t Believe Everything You Think”, I knew within the first paragraph or two that my relative apathy and speculation on the subject was dissolving with each read word; a writing style Kida introduces that breaths new life unto a subject usually written in a way which is at best stale and sterile, albeit factual and pragmatic, is to be credited. Kida effectively dispels my apprehensiveness to read material on man’s ever-increasing appeal towards the subjective, the extraordinary, the mystical and the anecdotal; I’ve become jaded to the lack-luster things I’ve read thus far on the subject… Besides, I need a convincing argument and a stimulating read that will not put me to sleep if it is going to convince me to be a more logical human being reliant more upon an objective and fact-based form of thinking.
Mind you, I am no Thomas Kida nor am I Bertrand Russel or Friedrich Nietzsche. The mystical and the fantastical fascinate me. I am not obsessed with that realm, but I am quite entertained at the thought of the metaphysical, of what Kida describes as pseudo-scientific; notions and claims supported only by “anecdotal” data (evidence) and “empirical” knowledge (personal experiences/accounts) that are believed by some to be scientific facts. I know full well my star sign and quite a bit about it, have a generally good, although elementary, knowledge of Feng Shui and, admittedly, foster a small belief in the extraterrestrial influence on mankind and his progress in time and space. By no means, however, will I boast these claims as scientific truth unless there is factual data and scientific evidence to prove it completely; they are simply ideas that I entertain, not ingrained beliefs that I profess.
By virtue of my consciousness, my reasoning and manner of thinking, I choose to think of these things as possibilities and can discern independently that they are not facts. What Kida points out in what I’ve read thus far in his work is that the general populace, despite whatever level of income, education, affluence or access to information they may enjoy, often fall victim to flawed reasoning and to showy, extraordinary claims made by people claiming to be “experts” or “eyewitnesses” featured in an innumerable amount of TV shows, documentaries, films and news interviews. The almost intimidating amount of this pseudo-scientific, highly anecdotal and subjective “static” hides very well the truth behind most of what is being broadcasted, projected, downloaded, blared and said to us to a point where we lose any and all interest to actually look for the facts behind any of it; chances are, we’re likely too lazy and too entertained by the showmanship and glitter the media so expertly uses to hide the real reasoning and evidence that we seldom do so, regardless.
Today’s society, mainstream or otherwise, is heavily reliant on evermore extraordinary claims that pass of as news and the instantaneous ease of information retrieval; unfortunately, scientific data and actual research and verifiable published sources are, for lack of better words, too dull, too hidden and 2-D. Our attention spans are increasingly limited; everything we need (want) is at the tap of a screen and searches that yield millions of results can be performed in a matter of seconds… Yet, ironically so, the very information we should be seeking to base our beliefs on such claims and ideals is not as easy to ascertain; it is rarely on the first few pages of a Google search.
“The word ‘mundane’ has come to mean boring and dull, and it really shouldn’t. It should mean the opposite because it comes from the Latin word ‘mundus’, meaning the world, and the world is anything but dull; the world is wonderful. There’s real poetry in the real world. Science is the poetry of reality.” -Richard Dawkins “The Enemy of Reason” (2007)
The media, and thus modern society, has demonized and deemed esoteric all which is factual and scientifically verifiable. It has used our susceptibility to cognitive dissidence and atrophic attention spans and patience against us. Logic is what has built our civilization and erected with quantum-like precision the very pillars of our thought yet we almost willingly do a disservice to this powerful yet increasingly fragile entity quintessential to the multifaceted nature of human thought by succumbing to the acceptance of the pseudo-scientific and purely anecdotal as paramount truths. We have attached factual meaning and logical relevance to claims that have none of the above while eroticizing and making paramount the subjective, personal and metaphysical; all that which has no logical, scientific or even practical implication when properly examined.
An example that I found interesting that proves this notion is the following:
The Bermuda Triangle
It goes without any further explanation what is meant by the above; a large, triangular area marked by the Straits of Florida, Puerto Rico and the island of Bermuda. It is a maritime area that sees heavy international traffic, both by air and by sea. It is, however, immensely more famous for the “paranormal” and “mysterious” events that have supposedly transpired there; many a sea vessel and airplane have reportedly vanished in thin air after claims of magnetic storms, UFO’s and other inexplicable events. Claims from that region vary from strange to down-right creepy; convincing and even more so when you have the multitudes of “experts” claiming they have scientific evidence to show for those claims. How is one to argue with this? The Bermuda Triangle has effectively been glamorized by the media and has been branded in modern society as real-life proof of the paranormal. Yet, upon further investigation, geological surveys and satellite imaging and vast amounts of data from around the world, it was shown that that particular area, this triangle of the unknown and the otherworldly, experienced no more incidents than the average area of international waters of comparable size. In fact, when compared and contrasted to certain data-sets gathered over time and from locations across the world, it would in some cases have experienced less incidents. But don’t tell the public this, unless you intend to do so with a prime spot on the TV lineup and a veritable wonder-team of professors and well-dressed British hosts or Hollywood actors turned scientists to eloquently persuade your viewers.
The word skeptic has come to mean, in the minds of many, that guy who comes on for about three or four minutes on some special on the History Channel who’s always against, or not believing in anything being featured on the program; the skeptic is demonized and cast an unflattering light. He’s at an automatic disadvantage in a society that bases subject relevance on ratings and television showmanship rather that the scientific framework (or lack thereof) of what is being presented.
It is a notion I’ve been familiar with but have not acknowledged in it’s entirety. I thus far enjoy Kida’s perspective on the matter and the energy it has imparted this notion of mine since opening his book.
Until the next post on “Don’t Believe Everything You Think”, I shall entertain this blog with other semi-related or non-related rants.
