Draft #1

Cote Briggs
ENG-110 (English Composition)
Professor Miller
April 5th, 2024

All Show and No Action— Technology’s Socially-Impoverished Adolescents

In life, we all require necessities to survive. Whether it is food, water, or shelter, these are the things that we have enacted our primal instincts to acquire. However, what if I were to pose the thought that technology has made its way into our words as such? Exactly in the way that we require food, water, or shelter to survive, many of our world’s adolescents require the blanket of technology to sleep at night. I’ve literally seen this—as children refuse to sleep or even function, for that matter—without the presence of their favorite show at hand. In Liv Arvidson’s _____ and Finley Morrison’s _____, they highlight such behaviors, including real-world examples that they have observed throughout the drastic transition from Y2K to the Anthropocene. On the contrary, Sam Anderson’s “In Defense of Distraction,” aims to argue against such claims, affirmatively agreeing that such cognitive plasticity is crucial for the survival of the generations to come. Simply put, it is a benefit to our society to prioritize our technologies as a necessity. While I understand the point of Anderson, I disagree with his demonstrations. While we may be shifting to a technological outlook on life, along with its many benefits for productivity, we are struggling to outweigh our primal necessities.
To put this show of words into action, we are struggling to the point in which some form of LED screen—whether it be that of an iPad or a Television—is required for our newest group of adolescents to fall asleep, or for that matter, to simply function. Morrison deftly touches on this idea, where they put into play “My niece, who just turned four back in January of 2024, is what’s known as an “iPad kid.” She gets cranky when she doesn’t have her tablet to watch mindless videos or play non-educational games no matter what the time of day is. It takes her minutes to return to reality once she’s done playing with her technology. It’s incredibly disheartening for her to finally recognize me after disconnecting from her tablet; this child genuinely appears to be waking up from a coma after watching nothing but brain-rot inducing videos on her iPad” (Morrison).

Draft #2

Cote Briggs
ENG-110 (English Composition)
Professor Miller
April 6th, 2024

All Show and No Action— Technology’s Socially Impoverished Adolescents

In life, we all require necessities to survive. Whether it is food, water, or shelter, these are the things that we have enacted on our primal instincts to acquire. However, what if I were to pose the thought that technology has made its way into our words as such? Exactly in the way that we require food, water, or shelter to survive, many of our world’s adolescents require the blanket of technology to sleep at night: enacting in rebellion when forbidden. I’ve literally seen this—as children refuse to sleep or even function, for that matter—without the presence of their favorite show at hand. My colleagues Liv Arvidson and Finley Morrison at the University of New England write about their concerns in [Insert Title 1] and [Insert Title 2], respectively. They highlight such behaviors of the newer generation of technological natives which have become increasingly concerning. On the contrary, Sam Anderson, a Writer for the New York Times, argues against such claims in his article “In Defense of Distraction,” affirmatively agreeing that such cognitive plasticity is crucial for the survival of the generations to come. Simply put, he claims it is a benefit to our society to prioritize our technologies as a necessity. While I understand the point of Anderson, I disagree with his demonstrations. While our generation may be shifting towards a technological outlook on life, along with its many benefits for productivity, we are struggling to balance our primal necessities.
To put this show of words into action, we are struggling to the point in which some form of LED screen—whether it be that of an iPad or a Television—is required for our newest group of adolescents to fall asleep, or for that matter, to simply function. Morrison deftly touches on this idea, where they put into play “My niece, who just turned four back in January of 2024, is what’s known as an “iPad kid.” She gets cranky when she doesn’t have her tablet to watch mindless videos or play non-educational games no matter what the time of day is. It takes her minutes to return to reality once she’s done playing with her technology. It’s incredibly disheartening for her to finally recognize me after disconnecting from her tablet; this child genuinely appears to be waking up from a coma after watching nothing but brain-rot inducing videos on her iPad” (Morrison). Here, they discuss the effects that their niece’s brain-rotting media introduced through technology has had on their relationship—which presents as a detriment. However, Anderson contemplates whether this is truly a detriment. “Theres been lots of handwringing about all the skills they might lack, mainly the ability to concentrate on a complex task from beginning to end, but surely they can already do things their elders can’t… maybe, in flights of irresponsible responsibility, they’ll even manage to attain the paradoxical, Zenlike stat of focused distraction” (Anderson 11-12). With the techno-cognitive shift towards a world in which technology had become our convention, he advocates a positive attitude toward such changes in hopes of a positive impact. When we reflect on Anderson’s statement, the key word for this previous statement is *maybe*. Yes, *maybe* along the line generations will be able to harness this techno-human essence— but do we really want to gamble our human element on a maybe? With such a large unknown with the techno-human condition of our generation, I find this assumption to be very risky, especially when there is a physically observable negative effect with our modern-day adolescents— a point Morrison clearly recalls. In a world where technology is becoming the glue to our cognitive function, we are crowding our necessities with nonsense.
Moreso, depending on the amount of exposure one experiences, there seems to be a fluctuation in adolescents’ competencies when introduced to technological devices. Arvidson shares in her personal statement on how she feels about technology: “I feel that enough is enough. I grew up in the perfect time when it came to electronics. Kids my age did not grow up with screens shoved in our faces, because they had not come out yet. We did not get phones as 7-year-olds, but often in middle- or high school. However, we also had enough exposure growing up that we know how to work the technology that we need to live in this world today. We are in the neutral zone; we have not had too much exposure like the younger kids, but we had enough that we are not clueless now” (Arvidson). Like Morrison, Arvidson doesn’t fail to include the observation of the younger generation. However, she also makes a distinct remark on the variations of technological exposure, noting that there may be different effects depending on the age and frequency of such introductions. Expectedly, Anderson attempts to counteract this argument with another notion from his article. “As we become more skilled at the 21st-century task Meyer calls flitting, the wiring of the brain will inevitably change to deal more efficiently with more information. The neuroscientist Gary Small speculates that the human brain might be changing faster today than it has since the prehistoric discovery of tools” (Anderson 12)…

Final Edition:

Cote Briggs
ENG-110 (English Composition)
Professor Miller
April 19^th, 2024

Our Necessities: Food, Water, Shelter— and Technology?

In life, we all require necessities to survive. Whether it is food, water, or shelter, these are the things that we have enacted upon our primal instincts to acquire. However, what if I were to pose the idea that technology has made its way into our world as such? Exactly in the way that we require food, water, or shelter to survive, many of our world’s youth require the baby blanket of technology and enact rebellion when forbidden. I’ve seen this quite often—as children refuse to sleep or even function, for that matter—without the presence of their favorite show or game at hand. My colleagues, Liv Arvidson and Finley Morrison at the University of New England, write about their concerns in “Technology & I” and “Digital Worlds: Teleportation at your Fingertips”, respectively. They highlight such behaviors of the newer generation of technological natives which have become increasingly concerning. On the contrary, published author and writer for the New York Times Sam Anderson argues against such claims in his article “In Defense of Distraction,” affirmatively agreeing that such cognitive plasticity for technology is crucial for the survival of the generations to come. Simply put, he states technology is a benefit to our society, and that we should prioritize these tools as a necessity to move forward in life. Although Anderson stresses how we should embrace shifting towards a world where technology becomes our cognitive glue– explaining its many benefits for productivity, my peers eagerly argue the opposite. With the overwhelming grasp technology has over our generation’s children, I strongly believe alongside my colleagues that our youth are struggling to recognize the primitive nous required to persevere in the present day.

To put this show of words into action, we are struggling to the point in which some form of LED screen– whether it be that of an iPad or a Television– is required for our youth to eat, sleep, or simply exist. Morrison deftly touches on this idea, where they recall how his “…niece, who just turned four back in January of 2024, is what’s known as an “iPad kid.” She gets cranky when she doesn’t have her tablet to watch mindless videos or play non-educational games no matter what the time of day is. It takes her minutes to return to reality once she’s done playing with her technology. It’s incredibly disheartening for her to finally recognize me after disconnecting from her tablet; this child genuinely appears to be waking up from a coma after watching nothing but brain-rot inducing videos on her iPad.” Here, Morrison discusses him and his niece’s relationship, which has been disrupted by the mindless inseparability of her technology use. He stresses how this constant attachment has had a detrimental effect on her well-being. However, Anderson contemplates whether this attachment to our tech is truly a detriment. “There’s been lots of handwringing about all the skills they might lack, mainly the ability to concentrate on a complex task from beginning to end, but surely they can already do things their elders can’t… maybe, in flights of irresponsible responsibility, they’ll even manage to attain the paradoxical, Zenlike state of focused distraction” (11-12). With a techno-cognitive shift towards a world where technology has become our convention, he advocates a positive attitude toward such changes in hopes of a positive impact. When we reflect on Anderson’s statement, however, the keyword we should focus our attention on is “maybe”. Yes, “maybe” along the line generations will be able to harness this techno-human essence— but do we want to gamble our human element on a maybe? I find that this ideology is very risky with such a large unknown with the techno-human condition of our generation. This is especially true when there is a physically observable negative effect on our modern-day adolescents— a point Morrison vividly recalls. Who’s to say how these negative effects may heighten twenty to thirty years from now? Alongside Morrison’s point, I have also readily observed this type of behavior in my own family. Although minuscule in comparison to their example, it is hard for me to connect with the younger additions to my family at large gatherings without some form of technology at hand. I oftentimes find myself playing my nephew’s favorite game to bond with him, as he is not interested in general conversation. In a world where technology is becoming the glue to our cognitive functions, we are crowding our necessities with nonsense. 

With the expansion of modern tech and screentime, depending on the amount of exposure one experiences when becoming acquainted with their technological devices, there seems to be a fluctuation in the competencies of our youth. Arvidson directly shares in her statement about how she feels about technology’s effects on kids: “I feel that enough is enough. I grew up in the perfect time when it came to electronics. Kids my age did not grow up with screens shoved in our faces, because they had not come out yet. We did not get phones as 7-year-olds, but often in middle- or high school. However, we also had enough exposure growing up that we know how to work the technology that we need to live in this world today. We are in the neutral zone; we have not had too much exposure like the younger kids, but we had enough that we are not clueless now.” With much expression, Arvidson doesn’t fail to include the observations she sees of the younger generation. She makes a distinct remark on the variations of technological exposure, noting that there have been different effects on our younger counterparts depending on the age and frequency of such introductions. Expectedly, Anderson attempts to counteract this argument with another notion from his article. “As we become more skilled at the 21st-century task Meyer calls flitting, the wiring of the brain will inevitably change to deal more efficiently with more information. The neuroscientist Gary Small speculates that the human brain might be changing faster today than it has since the prehistoric discovery of tools” (12). Anderson brings into play the idea that the human brain is constantly shifting. With where we are in the present, our brains are expanding even more than ever before. He later attributes such shifts toward technology, explaining the positives in such changes as we may be able to filter more and more information. With great reflection, I agree much more with Arvidson’s point than with Anderson’s. Being amongst the same cohort as Arvidson, I can strongly attest to the feeling of having just the right amount of technological exposure. We still had our fun out in the sun, so to speak, and were taught to be courteous about our technological tools. Regarding my own upbringing, it was heavily stressed by my parents to be autonomous from such devices and to use them for leisurely activities sparingly. I strongly believe that these regulations have contributed to my balance of drive and geniality—which is something that Anderson fails to acknowledge. Although it is very possible for our neuroplasticity to involve that of a heightened information processor, we are also experiencing live instances of anti-social behaviors from our technological natives. While we have very easy exposure to these brain-heightening tools, we must regulate how heightened we allow ourselves to get from our own realm.

Like food, water, and shelter, we require specific necessities to survive and thrive in the world we live in. As we have explored through both Arvidson and Morrison’s claims with Anderson’s, they heavily refute the idea that we should prioritize the integration of technology, stating that without the proper regulation, technology can override the fullness of our lives. Anderson, acknowledging the ever-so-rapid increase in technological use, is ready to accept such fates without an insight as to what a technological future might hold. Although I understand the optimism and his line of thinking, we cannot put in all our faith solely in hope for what humanity has to offer. We cannot justify the risk we may or may not push our future generations into. This is especially true after considering the shift towards antisocialism and insensibility we have observed throughout these examples and in our everyday lives. Such fates, according to this active trend, have the capacity to leave us with an unvirtuous and irreverent future. While technology holds all the capacity to heighten our lives, we should not clump such benefactors with what we prioritize for our survival. 

Works Cited:

Anderson, Sam. “The Benefits of Distraction and Overstimulation — New York Magazine – Nymag.” New York Magazine, 2009, nymag.com/news/features/56793/.

Arvidson Liv. “Technology & I.” UNEportfolio, https://miller-eng110-1.uneportfolio.org/2024/03/31/journal-20/. Accessed 5 April 2024.

Morrison, Finley. “Digital Worlds: Teleportation at your Fingertips.” UNEportfolio, https://miller-eng110-1.uneportfolio.org/2024/03/31/journal-20/. Accessed 5 April 2024.