Rhetoric 3371 Questions

In the article Technology and Happiness, I really liked how the author used analogies throughout the passage to compare the ideologies of technology amongst different cultural or religious groups. The Amish seem to get by pretty content in life, while the rest of America and the world are trying to live up to the “American Dream”. We are never content with what we have, there is always something bigger, better, and newer out there that we are anxiously waiting. I look at this contagious ideology as a mental illness pushing some people beyond their ropes, while holding others back. Do you feel pressured to be “successful in your life”? Most Americans think of success as having a secure, high paying job that will make them millions. Others consider success as straightforward as to being happy in life. What is your definition of success regarding technology? Is it successful to create a machine that will take you to the moon, yet at the same time destroy with ozone with the pollutants it gives off?

The technology and happiness article where the levels of happiness were described was real interesting to me. Lately i have been thinking about our society compared to the ancient mediteranean societies. We seem to feel that we are are more "advanced" and therefore happier than any society before us. members of ancient societies had concepts of the atom, had succesfully measured the earths size among other things that we seem to think "we" dsicovered. BUt more interesting to me is that we seem to grapple with the exact same moral, spiritual, and existential question. These are questions that seem to affect people a lot. Do you think that we have made advancements in those areas? Out of that age came philosophies and great religious figures (like jesus, aristolte, etc.)that tried to answer these problems. Perhaps this is real advancement? while scince and technology can be a tool to these questions and other important things (helping people live past the age of twenty NOT profiteers past the age of 80) but like the "inventions new mother article" implys we seem to be moving towards anti wheel technology, technology with questions to answer or goal. Can this help us? It seems to me we have the technology to make life better for every human being on the earth already. perhaps now is the time towards developing some soul and philosophy on what to do with it. Any ideas?

In Surowiecki’s article when asked to think about how a person in 1870 would feel about the technological advances we experience today and would it make them happier, it made me realize, what will make us content? Will anything? I don’t think so. As mentioned in Mumford’s article when he quoted Jon Von Neumann “Technological possibilities are irresistible to man. If man can go to the moon he will. “This is true in my opinion and it is because as humans we have evolved over so many years from using clubs to kill the wooly mammoth, to creating ship’s that go into space. If we were meant to be primitive creatures, using rudimentary tools, we would have stayed at that point in evolution. However, we have the capabilities as a species to go above and beyond just needing to find shelter and eat, instead our minds travel to other concepts involving the curiosity about what else is out there. As one of my classmates mentioned, “We are curious beings”, and that reigns true in our desire to evolve with technology. Above, when I mentioned that I don’t think we will ever be content with what level of technology we are at, I don’t mean that in a bad way. The Amish may be happier in surveys, but that to me is only because they are living so simply they don’t know what they are missing out on. Have you ever looked at your dog and thought, wow he has got the life, sits around, eats, no bills, no stress and gets pet all the time. Sure on a very basic level he is possibly happier or more content then me, but that can be attributed to ignorance being bliss. Your dog doesn’t have an ego, nor does he know what it’s missing so sure, his simple existence works for him. Personally, I wouldn’t trade what I know about the world and have experienced from the use of technology to drive a buggy and churn my own butter, but that’s just me.

Today’s reading made me laugh. They fell so in line with what I feel about technology today. We are no longer inventing, but more and more developing technology we have to be “more useful”. Like a universal remote ten years ago… the blackberry and palm devices combine multiple objects into one conveinent device. My second generation I-pod (which just broke after 3 years) only had a backlit display, which was fine by me, I prefer to watch hi-def on the bi screen at my finace’s house anyway, but I can no longer get the simple i-pod I would like to replace my old one with. Oh well.
In “The Technoloical Imperative, the idea that western culture has “concentrated its hopes for salvation on the machine” is a little frightening. We used to earch the rainforests in hope for a cure to cancer, now we look to technology for ways to create out of things we have a cure. Have we really exhausted nature to the point of giving up the search?
One very general question I had was about defining happiness. It seemed to me, (in “Technology and Happiness”) that happiness was viewed as something only achievable through at least being in a middle class country, and that possibly in the surveys of happiness the opinions of those in less advanced countries we not asked what would, or if technological advancements would make them happier.

I liked the thrust of Mumford's article because it argued against a 'human' imperative to accept and use new technology without questioning its consistency with our own lives. He further shows how scary such an imperative might be. For if it's true then we will exterminate the human race whether we like it or not, because of nuclear weapons. Mumford is exhorting us to disprove this hypothesis about human nature. Mumford is most probably right here, unless humanity is evil. In that case I was born on the wrong side of the tracks.

This attack has a very good style to it. I could, for example say that, "general claims about 'humanity' or the world are usually so encompassing that one is unable to disprove them, and on those grounds one is unable to prove them." But Mumford doesn't want to defeat this imperative technically. He simply says, if we believe and act on this accordingly we'll kill ourselves. He doesn't show that it is an untrue assumption. No, it could very well be true. He says that it's necessary for humanity's future that is untrue. Pretty good I'd say.

James Surowiecki is thoroughly uninteresting. The fact that a person able to eat, move, and communicate might not be happy in proportion to the amount that they can do that is not exactly astounding. It seems like the basic assumption behind any kind of stimulating conversation I've ever had in my life. I knew people in my hometown that drank all the beer they want, drove nice vehicles, and had telephones mobile and immobile, but beat their wives and children, and miserably got drunk beyond their wits. Witnessing this convinced me early on that the correlation between happiness and technology was like the correlation between my appreciation of a painting and the medium used to compose it. Technology is an aspect of my being, and it is an aspect of my civilization. What irked me the most was the amount of dismal economists devoting their lives to scrutinizing this common relationship as if it were something that needed to substantiated by statistics and its ability to modeled.

As new technologies emerge, we initially tend to be shocked by their capabilities and often times we say that the new gadget has gone too far. But then less than a year later, the same person who was mocking this advancement, is sitting next to the open box at home and learning how it operates. Could it really be true that we are running out of unsolved problems? Klosterman’s Antiwheel Technology theory poses a valid argument in that technology seems to be advancing at such a rate that society cannot form certain desires before the product is out on shelves. Why is that? Could it be that marketers and engineers are focusing their innovations on the wrong products? Lewis Mumford stated, “One may without exaggeration now speak of technological compulsiveness: a condition under which society meekly submits every new technological demand and utilizes without question every new product, whether it is an improvement or not.” So what is next? Before you know it we will have cell phones that can print out mini photos.

The reason technology does not make us happier is because it all sucks. Ipods, tivos, dvds, vcrs, cell-phones, facebook, myspace, aim, etc. -- its all boring crap. No one is inventing anything cool. I want jet-packs, spaceships, hover-crafts, 3-d virtual reality machines, and bars/go-kart tracks. If people want technology to make us happier they got to start inventing cooler stuff.

First in regard to the article "The Technological Imperative" I thought it made a good point about the nature of humans to constantly test boundaries. Sometimes those boundaries really don't need to be tested and nothing good comes from pursuing a technology that really isn't going to edify a population. Sure a scientist can say that they've created something, but it might not be beneficial. I disagree with Mumford's slippery slope argument as he cited the cold war as an example that we are/could be on the brink of extinction because of our insatiable thirst to create new technology. It could be optimistic of me, but I believe cooler heads will prevail in terms of nuclear and chemical warfare.

"Technology and Happiness" was probably one of the best reads for any class I have taken. I really enjoyed the author's use of the term "hedonic adaptation." It is so true that people are just obsessed with finding the next new thing to make them happy. Although, it only last momentarily. It is my belief that happiness comes from inner peace and being content with your place in life. People constantly trying to make the extra buck aren't content and so the only happiness they find in life comes from extremes (drugs, alcohol, sky diving). They are just things to pass the time and give them a thrill or rush that they mistake for being happy. It was no surprize to me that the Amish are a happy people. They work outside with their hands. They have clearly defined guidelines in that they live their lives, so they have order. Thereby they are content which leads to being a happy people.

IN the Technological imperative I agree Von Neumanns comments to a degree. I agree that man as a whole if given the opportunity they will conquer/proceed to do something. But in this I mean man as a whole and not every man. There is inevitably someone on earth that if given the power of nuclear weapons will destroy the entire earth without thinking about it, but then there is the majority of man who couldn't even fathom the possibility of doing so. I agree with his statement to some extent, but there is a difference between man as a whole and the majority of man.
After reading Technology and happiness I believe that technology gives us the opportunity to be happier but at the same time it can lead us to be unhappy. An example being that now-a-days we can get information in an instant with the use of the internet, and this definitly faciliates writing a report or learning something quicker. This being said it should make us happier that we can write a dreaded report in less time. But with this new technology comes the realization that we can infact write these reports faster, so then to counter act this we are required to write more reports. This then counteracts the good that this technology gave to us and brings us back to where we started. This report writing was just one analogy about this topic, whereas there are many more.

The article “Invention’s New Mother” questions what will happen when all problems are solved and necessity no longer exists. This will never happen because as technology progresses, it creates new problems which require new solutions. For example, the increased need for energy has spawned research into new sources for that energy. Another example is the automobile which has created traffic congestion and pollution creating a need for mass transit solutions and alternative automotive options. It is a self perpetuating process.

In regards to happiness, I do not believe it is based on technology or the lack of it. As stated in the article, people adapt fairly quickly to changing situations. I think this applies to both positive and negative changes. The statement is also made that “nothing … makes people more unhappy than unemployment.” I believe that happiness comes from leading a purposeful life. We need to feel needed, productive and successful and many people find this satisfaction and the validation of it from their place of employment. It can, however, come from any job done well whether it’s cleaning the kitchen or helping someone who really needs your assistance. Technology is just something that enables us to do things a different way, it’s not the source of our purpose in life.

I really liked today's readings! They were very funny as well as so true. I myself have been on the market of looking for a new cell phone and Klosterman pretty much sums up my frustrations with newer technology today. It seems like with everything nowadays you have to be one leg up on the competition. Advertising, Science, Sales, etc. it seems like inventions are not based on how practical they are, but rather how they have differenciated themselves from the previous new inventions. Will we ever reach the point where technology can't get any better? It's is funny also how advertising plays a huge part in new technology. Advertising and society, not the scientists, have created the so-called "needs" for these new technologies. Scientists create and discover things everyday; however the only way the discoveries survive is if society creates a "need" for the product.

The article "Invention's New Mother" was very insightful. New inventions like 'Text Messaging' are useless, but completely expected. As new technologies like the internet and cell phones develop simultaneously, its only natural for companies to try and mix these inventions together to create something as useless as text messaging. In the future I believe this phenomenon will become more common as our ipods, cellphones, and labtops will eventually converge into one small technology box.

In the article by Mumford, he uses the phrase “if man has the power to exterminate all life on earth, he will.” This phrase, to me, seems like he wants everyone to think that man is always forward-moving. As humans, we will not stop moving forward with technology because we are aimed to make our lives easier. This idea ties into the article by Klosterman, where he describes the invention of the wheel, since the invention of the wheel we have elevated newer and better things to simplify our lives.

I particularly enjoyed the section where Klosterman talks about text messaging. I constantly text message, not because it severs my communication verbally with others, but because it makes it easier to communicate with others while I am busy or I know they are occupied.

Surowiecki’s article was rather bland to me because he spends four “pages” talking about how technology could have potentially made us happier. Do I really need an article that states a somewhat obvious? We would not be happy if our computers were not working, or if we lost our cell phones. While it is true, the technology may make some unhappy, particularly the elderly or those who are not willing to confine to the current trends of every growing technology. It is one’s choice to determine what makes them happy.

Technology and Happiness:

This article brought up several interesting ideas; however, I disagreed with many of them. Mainly, I did not agree with the paragraph on the Amish. Apparently, when this group was asked how satisfied they were with their lives they scored as high as members of Forbes 400. I believe that technology, while having some impact, is not the main reason of happiness or lack thereof. I believe the Amish were merely raised in a simpler culture. A scripture often quoted in Amish services depicts their simple way of life: "Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove that what is good and acceptable and perfect will of God." What is good and acceptable? Most likely, it is your parents who guide you on those lessons or morals. Being raised in a world free from many temptations along with limited opposing views and opinions makes life very simple. Ignorance is bliss, I could only imagine, sums up their way of life. They often grow or raise their own food, construct their own structures, and educate their own children. They, often, do not have to concern themselves with many of the issues the rest of the nation does; such things as the cost of food, the rising cost of college, heating/AC bills, or how to acquire funds to finance these things. Imagine being born on a remote-tropical island with your only daily concerns being to find food, clean water, and shelter. No errands to run, kids to drop off at practice, or work to attend. Sounds like a vacation to me.

In James Surowiecki’s “Technology and Happiness” the argument articulated in books by Neil Postman that “technology is central to the increasing privatization of experience, which in turn is creating a fragmented, chaotic society, in which traditional relationships are harder to sustain, community is increasingly an illusion, and people's relationships to each other, mediated as they often are by machines, grow increasingly tenuous” poses a an interesting question, why isn’t society refusing to accept this technoculture? Many technologies provoke society to change or adapt. The technology contradicts society’s solution of happiness. The happiness of the new technology is limited; in a sense that reality is distinct and the value of the new technology is constantly changing. If society’s obsession with new technology is an illusion of human happiness, why isn’t the new technology seen as a threat rather then useful. This is not to say that all new technology is bad. I believe that most technology can be useful to a point. Unfortunately technology is changing and as society continues to adapt to the global network, society will find themselves immersed in a new reality; a reality of machines and interconnectedness.

Reading “Technology and Happiness” really made me reconsider how I think about technology. I believe that the reason that we are having trouble linking technology to happiness is the plain fact as the article stated that we as people take technology for granted. We forget and adapt to all the great luxuries that we have and only bring them up when them when they create frustration for us. I think it is also interesting to think about how far we have come in the past 100 years, but at the same time it is amazing to imagine how far technology could advance in the next 100 years to come.

I also find it interesting that there was no correlation between a nation’s income level and its citizen’s happiness. Money brought happiness to a certain point… what is that point? Where is the cut off?

When talking about technology I suppose that the amish were inevitably going to come up. Their "simple life" is what many people try so hard to get away from or they envy. The amish are given a chance to experience the world during "rumspring"(sp?) and see what we experience in everyday life. Most of the amish teens return home, and with what they saw.... I can see why they would! It is so confusing, busy and intimidating.

However, I could not live without my music. I love classic rock, especially drumming. My iPod is my rock and I can't even walk down the street without it. Technology has given me the ease to do things that many amish women have not been allowed to do or experience. My life however is supposedly "enriched" or "better" if I have the newest washing machine, make-up or car. I don't know if it is better but it does make me happy!

After reading these three articles I would say suspected happiness is the new mother of invention. We basically have run out of things we really need, I mean really need. However, there are the standard exceptions of and end to poverty, hunger, crime, violence, and rape. Could there be technology to end these things? But other than the need to end these things, I can’t think of any “need” I have right now that is not being fulfilled. Obviously there are things I want or desire, but I should be able to get through another day without them. However, my wants or desires if deemed possible, as Mumford states, will become reality. Once these wants of mine become reality I will pay for them because I suspect they will bring me happiness even if only for a short period of time. My new toy will bring me happiness and the money spent on it will provide the provider with the ability to buy something that he/she suspects will also give him/her some temporal happiness. It seems as though technology makes us happier for a period of time then that happiness fades into dissatisfaction or it simply makes us sad. Why then do we continue progressing with technology? To answer my own question I think that the rest of the world, or at least a part of it, would not share in our actions to stop progressing with technology. As a result, when we hear of their new invention that we suspect would give us unprecedented happiness would we not be unsatisfied, or maybe even regret our decision? New technology may not directly make us happier, but would we be happier if after having a certain technology it was taken away from us (even if it was something we were not satisfied with)?

The line from “The Technological Imperative” that undeniably struck my attention was, “society meekly submits to every new technological demand and utilized without question every new product, whether it is an actual improvement or not”. I had only faintly ever thought about this idea before, but as soon as I read that statement I realized how true and ridiculous it was. Society will most definitely make use of new technology, just because it’s new regardless of it is really better, such as the new cell phone that is also an ipod. Is that really necessary? We already have both technologies so it isn’t really advanced, they are just combined, but the public will of course use it, just because they can. Then further in the passage was the quote “If man has the power to exterminate all life on earth, he will.” When put into perspective, it is undoubtedly frightening to think how true it may be. The temptation is just too great to be restrained forever, especially since the technology to do so has already been provided. It is really quite a disturbing thought when one thinks about this theory.

I've always thought that happiness stemmed from setting and achieving goals. To this effect, technology can help us achieve happiness by showing us that (as a society) we are able to achieve common technological goals. For example, I couldn't name the statistics, but I would imagine that there was an immense sense of pride in the United States when we put the first men on the moon.

I really thought that Surowiecki's article was dodging the main point. He had plenty to say about the relationship between "wealth" and happiness. He seemed to be tagging technology too much with a person's assets or wealth. I would look at the relationship of technology and happiness differently. How does technological advancement effect happiness?

Tech & Happiness) I loved the fact that the Amish are much happier than many of us. I strongly believe that simplicity can bring happiness. Working towards and achieving your goals can be very satisfying. If someone else provides you with a service, it may be faster and more convenient, but I know that a job well done by ones self is more rewarding. I agree with the comment regarding the partial sadness that comes with some purchases. I feel the same way, when I know a better, faster, and cheaper model of what I just bought will be available to the market in a few months.

Technological Imperative) When I read the line about “controlling the weather” I was reminded of the movie The Truman Show. How far will people try to take levels of comfort before life becomes too uniform/ unchanging? The unexpected is an important aspect of life.

Much “uncertainty” about new technologies was mentioned in the first reading. How much do manufacturers’ rely on the fact that people will buy their product simply because it is a new technology?

I thought that the most interesting part of the technology and happiness article was the happiness survey concerning the Amish and their happiness. It really made me reflect on how many things we have as Americans that easily moved from toys to almost necessities. I also thought that the second article “Invention’s New Mother” was extremely funny and informative. The thing that made me reflect the most was the late (compared to human existence) invention of the wheel. As to the article “The Technological Imperative” I was mildly interested. I wonder what the author considers the final stage of technological imperatives.

One issue that I had with the Technology and Happiness article was that it seemed to discuss happiness as one specific feeling that we strive toward at all times. But is happiness ALWAYS the goal? And even if it is, aren't there many different kinds of happiness? I mean, yes, the Amish may be perfectly happy, but is their happiness the same as my own or any other typical American's? I may be mistaken, but I feel as though the technologies I use and the (relative) complexity of my lifestyle make my happiness much more dynamic, more vibrant, than any Amish person's. However, whether or not this is a good thing is certainly debatable.

Also, in response to Chuck Klosterman's comment that "We now have to come up with solutions to problems that don't exist," I have to wonder - what IS it that motivates the creation of these things that aren't necessary? There is still plenty of necessity in the world, but great numbers of people are spending their time and money inventing things that are just, well, cool! Take a look in any Sharper Image store or Skymall magazine and you'll see exactly the kind of technologies that Klosterman is talking about when he utilizes the metaphor of "mousetraps that can kill water buffalo". Obviously there's some kind of market for this stuff. But is that the only reason that it's created? Because somebody will buy it? Or could these products a result of some deep-seated need we have as humans to be creative? Do we invent because we can or do we invent because we enjoy the creative process itself?

After reading "Technology and Happiness," I am sort of put in an awkward position. I don't really know how I feel about technology. I think I am in the minority who feel liberated by getting new technology. I was one of the last of my friends to buy a cell phone, and for the purpose of that I didn't want a landline. The argument that I am now reachable all the time, to me is not a very good one, because I choose not to answer my phone A LOT; but I feel liberated that I have the ability to call anyone anytime. Even if I get their voicemail, I still am able to leave them a message. I think people are choosing to submit to the advances in technology by buying into how they should be using their new technology. This sort of reminds me of the episode of South Park when the new Wall-Mart comes to town. In the episode the town of South Park is protesting the construction of the superstore and then a day later everyone is shopping their because of the "low prices." I think we need to as a society reject more, keeping up with the Jones' is becoming too difficult, and apparantly not making many people happy.

These articles reminded me of the BASF television commercials: "At BASF, we don't make a lot of the things you buy. We make a lot of the things you buy better."

James Surowiecki called technical progress a "treamill" with society along for a ride--seemingly without speed control.

But where does technological progress begin? Commonly in research and education/academics. As a kid, my father took me to the local PBS television studio to see the new "High Definition Television." HDTV--back in the early 1980s. Do you have an HDTV set or receiver yet? The FCC is requiring all broadcasters in the country to broadcast a digital television signal in the next year or two; because the industry resists mandated changes, this deadline to broadcast digitally has been pushed back repeatedly.

New technology exists; this technology is not yet ready for main stream America. Who decides when a new technology can be unvieled? Are there social and political requirements that must be met before a technology can be released into the wild?

Who's to say when "their latest invention" is worthy of global dissemination?

Today technology is advancing in many areas and affects almost all people in some way. Some of the technology that is being brought out today is useless to someone, but someone else can not live without. In the “technology and happiness” article the author explains how we have advanced in many ways since the 1940’s and that some people would say we are better off today compared to that time. But with formal surveys of happiness, the society of the 40’s is just as happy as the society today. It also talked about how we have high speed internet today which is a step up from the slower dial up connection that some people still have. People most likely enjoy the high speed if they just switched from dial up. But once the person comes accustomed to it they are not any happier than before.

These articles are interesting to me since they all have the same general idea about technology behind them: there are a lot of new technologies out there that have very little value. This is very true of today’s world as the article about text messaging makes painfully clear. But even in 1970, Mumford had these same ideas, though his outlook on humanity is much grimmer—this is of course playing off of his fears of the Cold War. That was indeed a time when many thought humanity was going to blow itself right off the face of the earth. Taking a jump to modern time, I agree with the other two authors that many of the new technologies now do nothing to improve our lives. These products are created and heavily marketed for profit. If 4 television ads every hour didn’t tell you that you needed the “hippest” new ringtones, you probably wouldn’t feel so compelled to buy them.

The Surowiecki article summed up what we've all been told for years: Money can't buy happiness. He raises an interesting question though when he asks if a certain level of happiness can be achieved by the use of technology and the means to buy it. I believe there is, but beyond that level we need to make our own happiness. An expensive membership at the gym doesn't make us happy in and of itself; we need to take the initiave to use it.

I enjoyed the humor of the Klosterman article, althoug I'd have liked to have read his thoughts about technologies other than communication and entertainment. Medical technology is still in some ways barbaric, and there's plenty of room for new transportation technologies as well. There's more to technology than freezing live TV or texting your dinner menu to friends.

I enjoyed reading the article Technology and Happiness by James Surowiecki. The reason I enjoyed it so much is because it discusses in depth a question I have asked myself many times. Am I any happier now than I was 10 years ago? The answer is no technology does not improve my life really it just allows me to accomplish more in one day with the same amount of time spent. Don’t get me wrong there are some technologies that do have the ability to make me happier than I would have been without them but they are all medical technologies. It would be awful hard to be happy when you are dead. That’s of course talking about if I ever had a need for them they would make me happy otherwise they really have no effect on my aggregate happiness. I think that happiness is all about your attitude toward life and what you are doing. A person with a great life and a terrible attitude will never be happy no matter how much technology improves portions of their lives. A person with a terrible life but a great attitude about it will be happy no matter what. I agree with the author of the article in that the food is maybe a little better but mostly it just comes in bigger portions now.

I have to say Laura Potter took the words completely out of my mouth, only they sound a lot better than the way I would’ve said it. The one thing I was going to ad is that we are so reliant on materials, maybe not for happiness, but to feel included. Everyone has a cell phone, and if you don’t, you’re either too poor or out of date (a hippy). This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; you might be free from this prison of a culture (as the Amish apparently are). But as Surowiecki states in his article, “One of the key insights of happiness studies is that people have a very hard time being content with what they have, at least when they know that others have more.” This is why the iPod became so successful, especially with young people. Then again, it was also a lot more efficient to carry around a little rectangle than it was to carry your 200 CDs and a CD player.

When it comes to Klosterman’s article, I’m reminded of a revolutionary advertising movement. The internet, which even Bill Gates (when referring to e-mail) didn’t think would last, has given people the opportunity to predict the future. Many companies use technologies that compile data on their customers which will eventually be able to show them products or services before they even know they need them. This same idea applies to new inventions. As Klosterman states, no one thought we’d need a TiVo because we didn’t even know it was possible. Technology is advancing at such a speed that new products are released before the average consumer even thinks about needing (or wanting) it. I completely disagree with the Antiwheel technology. The wheel was invented to make life more efficient and convenient. I haven’t heard of one invention that undermines this theory.

I liked "The Technological Imperative.” It was a sweet little rant done by someone who is pissed off at humans. One thing I noticed, however, was that it was written in 1970. If Mumford is still alive I would guess that he would be even more astounded at our “duty to surrender to technological novelties.” We seem to only want to consume, as is our nature, for some reason, and consume only the newest and best things (then we poop out the old ones and leave them to rust in a closest, storage space, or garbage dump). Or is our acquiescence to these novelties simply a result of marketed persuasion instigated by the companies and people who wish to profit from technology?
Technology and Happiness was also interesting because it discredited itself; it presented paradox’s like “Can we trust people to know what makes them happy?” and told us that there is no known quantitative way to judge happiness, since people are not truthful on surveys. This article does, sadly, seem to reflect the way I feel, and I often wonder how so many are able to cope and unquestionably maintain a life of consumption and an unquenchable thirst in their own self-interests.

lolz..........

this web is so sucks and noob.....no challenge and we cant get information to this web..lolz

Very interesting website! Thanks

For your information,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]

For your information,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]

I think, this is the best!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]