My own somewhat tepid review reflects the familiarity of many of his arguments to me. Everything that makes religion an historic, profound and sacred human activity is stripped away; there is no ritual, no dogma, no tradition, no theology, and above all, no sense of spiritual transcendence. But never was it uninteresting. Despite this fact, language still has its pitfalls. Maybe one day the doomsday Postman seemed to be anticipating in this book will come to pass.
Machines depend for their functioning upon the reduction of things to uniformity, automated processes, and problems of efficiency. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. If he thought Technopoly was running rampant in '92, I can't imagine well, I can his disgust at technology's further rise to eminence in the past twenty years. And these queries can have a truly disquieting impact, particularly as they expose questions that we should have been asking but which we have neglected. But he is concerned about what is lost.
Birokrasi pula merupakan satu cubaan untuk merasionalisasikan aliran maklumat kepada pengguna supaya perhatian mereka teralih daripada masalah sebenar yang ada pada mereka. The point isn't that we should criticize technology or get rid of it. He raises questions that I find especially relevant as a budding educator, questions that nevertheless pertain to anyone who chooses to think critically. There is an opaque marketplace for buying and selling user data. Same reason as cruise control.
A technopoly also trivialises significant cultural and religious symbols through their endless reproduction. He marvels at the rhetorical skills of both debaters, as well as the listening and comprehension skills of the audiences for these debates that lasted hours. Don't be fooled though, Postman isn't a pure Luddite and this isn't a book that is anti-technology. The evidence presented by Postman for the trivializing of various American institutions by the entertainment requirements of television is overwhelming. This is a far cry from early capitalism, Postman argues, in which both parties in economic exchange were well-informed and rational 126-127. This is a very interesting state of affairs, if you think about it, that no one can speak critically of technology without being dismissed out of hand. What did everyone love in 1992? As a critique of a society that unquestioningly embraces technology and all the reductionist assumptions it entails, this book-- published over twenty years ago-- still seems incredibly relevant.
Some really thought provoking points, like asking how important the invention of the printing press was to the coming of the Lutheran reformation. He gets this idea from. You will also find that in most cases they will completely neglect to mention any of the liabilities of computers. Pengenalan latar sejarah ini sangat fundamental kerana setiap disiplin ilmu pasti punya sejarahnya yang tersendiri dan sejarah merupakan wahana intelektual yang paling ampuh dalam menyuntik kesedaran sesebuah masyarakat. By monopolizing their time and attention, television clearly affects reading habits of the young 141. At the beginning of the book, Postman informs his reader that he recognizes the benefits of technology, and the reader must keep that in mind because the majority of the book is Postman examining and bringing to light the effects of technology that we overlook, the negative effects.
Technology giveth and taketh away. Perhaps the best way of putting it is that Postman harbors a sense of. Still, like with the stethoscope, their positive contribution is too big to ignore. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Sami mediji prenosa informacija nisu neutralni nego idu toliko daleko da redefinisu vec postojece pojmove. Did we build the right medical device? Image replaces reality; and manipulation and showmanship replaces leadership 97. Being critical means to analyze it objectively.
Postman's overarching question the same question he asks in The End of Education is, What narrative can unify a people and give them purpose? Dominant media therefore go a long way toward determining the content of the culture 9. Do we become tools of our tools? He refers to the relationship between information and human response as the Information-action ratio. It is no longer the substance that we value but rather the entertainment value. His first idea about technology is perhaps the most apropos to the current moment: The first idea is that all technological change is a trade-off. Specifically, this book is about how Technology negatively affects our society and culture. In early America, the influence of the printed word was dominant not only because of the sheer quantity of printed matter—pamphlets, newspapers, books—but most especially because of their monopoly.
If bureaucracies implement their rules in computers, it can happen that the computer's output is decisive, the original social objective is treated as irrelevant, and the prior decisions about what the computer system says is not questioned in practice when it should be. He also talks of the need to change the way we teach children — first that they need to become aware of the fact that what is worthwhile requires effort and second that they need to understand subjects have a history. Technology does much the same thing with the human environment. While I don't feel the need to abandon facebook or my goodreads account , I'll need to continue questioning what I gain and lose through the use of those technologies and look upon the gods of efficiency, convenience, and 'progress' with a critical eye. I like your attitude, wanting to dig in like that. Indeed that state-of-art piece of shiny tech that you bought today will be out of date before you even have a chance to fully learn all of its functions.