In one of our readings we were assigned the article by Leo Marx titled, “Technology: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept”. Without even reading the article yet, the reader would automatically assume that Leo Marx is not a huge fan of technology and its advancement in society. Well to give a little background on Leo Marx, he is very knowledgable when it comes to technology and the science of it. Leo Marx’s work examines how technology has affected the world and its relationship with it mainly in the nineteenth and twentieth century America. In this particular essay, Marx focuses on the “history of the term technology and its meanings in contemporary culture and society”. One question asked before reading the article was, “have you ever thought technology was hazardous?” And my answer is yes, not until this year though. I never really cared about technology or knew anything about it until taking this class to be honest with you. After taking this class, I have realized that technology is meant for good, but can end up or sometimes already be extremely bad for society. Technology, whether we like it or not, is practically taking over our world. Someday, technology will be controlling it if we don’t take charge now. Marx focuses a lot on the fact that technology has been running our lives for some time now even when we didn’t realize it. Technology has always had a part in our history because at a certain point, it was beginning. Technology had to start somewhere, and when it did, it took the world by storm. Even today technology is shocking people more and more each day. It makes you wonder if there is ever going to be an end to technological advancement or if it will always get better and better. We wonder that now because what we have in front of us is good enough and we can’t imagine it getting any better, but it can and that is how it could possibly be hazardous to us. Marx continues to point out that we might not realize the impact technology contains or holds on humanity and this is how it can become so detrimental to our lively hood.

Is confronting climate change necessary? Francisco Seijo seems to think so. Francisco Seijo is a professor of political science and a well-known researcher when it comes to climate change and environmental politics. In his essay, “When Worlds Collide”, Seijo focuses on “the current status and potential impact of anthropogenic climate change” and considers the types of changes in “political, social, and technological and if it is “necessary to confront climate change”. To be completely honest, this was not one of my favorite readings so far. I just have no similar thoughts to Francisco Seijo and his views on climate change, and frankly I just do not care at all. Francisco Seijo goes on in his article to examine the “implications of the geologic events for the future of life on earth” because they are seemingly unclear. Many people think climate change or global warming actually have an effect on us, but in my personal opinion I think it is all completely false. I don’t believe in global warming or climate change effecting the way we live or our future. I think we will over populate before the climate kills us. Seijo is pretty much saying he believes that we need to start taking care of our world and what we put in it, or else there will be major consequences. Although I disagree with him on practically everything in this article, I do agree that we do need to start cleaning up our earth. This is our home, and our only home so far, so we need to take care of it and stop treating it like trash. We could actually help our environment and the things we put in the atmosphere like toxic gases, or fumes, but I don’t think it really holds a threat on our lives. Finally, Seijo points out ways people are coming up with ways to detect and help the issues in our environment. Good for them, but for now I am going to stick to believing there is not that much to fix.

I just recently wrote a research paper on a specific technological advancement making way into our lives. Everybody has a phone these days, so everyone has probably noticed the effect “Night Shift” on their phones. Well, it is an effect that takes the blue light out of the brightness on a phone, and transforms it into an amber color. Apparently, this amber color is WAY better for our eyes than the blue light. Studies have shown that the blue light is extraordinarily harsh to our eyes and can actually be very detrimental to our health in the long run. The blue light has the potential to give us different types of cancers, such as breast and prostate. This blue light also has the potential of depriving us of the sleep we so greatly need and making us more prone to depression. It can also make us stay up way later than we actually should and can really hurt our learning experiences the next day. This blue light tricks our bodies into thinking it is still day time, when in reality we are actually laying in our beds trying to fall asleep but can’t get off our phones. So, is it getting healthier for us to be addicted to our phones? That is what the new “Night Shift” effect is trying to tell us. There are many advantages to this new effect and only one disadvantage which is that it will only allow us to be on our phones more than we already are. Instead of being on our phones 24/7, we should at least step outside for SOME fresh air. I got my inspiration for this research paper from one of the readings we read in class by Neil Postman and his article “Five Things We Need To Know About Technological Change”. He expresses five ideas throughout the entirety of the article, but the first idea is the one that really grabbed my attention. In his article his writes, “for every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage. The disadvantage may exceed in importance the advantage, or the advantage may well be worth the cost”. This quote goes along perfectly with my research topic on “Night Shift” because it offers so many benefits to our society, but everything always comes with some disadvantages whether we like it or not.