Is Technology Healthy For Society? (Final Post)

Human history is a recollection of events and memories that build the present we live in today. A major driving force of human history is technological advancements. Of course over time humans became smarter, and as such the rate of technological advancements have sped up so much that new inventions and ideas are being discovered and created every day. Being part of a generation who grew up with technology makes the question of if technology is healthy for society resonate with me? The problem with this question is that there is a lot of back and forth, without any bias though I can say that technology is healthy for society but the rate at which it is being advanced may not be. It seems like every day there is something new to try which is good, but everyone takes things differently. For example, in my post about Diffusion Theory I referenced headphones. A technological advancement that I personally enjoy, there are were and are still people to this day that do not like or need headphones. Now in a literal sense, headphones have indeed harmed people's eardrums and caused irreversible damage to some, but in a more grand sense headphones were an invention that had a healthy public regard. Now when we move to advancements that specifically involve the internet and mass communication people start to turn their heads. I believe that technology itself only amplifies the thoughts, desires, and intentions that people have. Technology is a tool for people to use, not a substitute for your brain. 

When talking about news sources it is so easy to gain misinformation or information catered to what you already believe. This is you creating your own echo chamber, reinforcing your previous thoughts and ideas. Some people take these ideas, and issues that are being shown to them and take matters into their own hands. Posting misinformation online, warped logic, or even breaking out of the technological space and bringing harm to people in real life. This is a big reason people say technology is not healthy for society. There is a theory that I came across called The Agenda-Setting Theory, which is the theory that when a specific news report gains attention it rises in the list of priorities for the audience, which in turn raises the priority of the issue for the government. This theory makes it seem like the news is what runs American society. Using this theory though and linking it back to my claim, a news report is only as important as we the people make it out to be. Just like technology is only as harmful as we the people make it out to be. It's the same with the issue of which is more dangerous, the man or the gun? Yes the gun kills you but ultimately a person makes the decision to pull the trigger, as previously stated technology is a tool.

Let's take a step back and imagine a world without technology. Without mass communication, would the world be a better place? Technology doesn't change human nature, and agendas would be set without mass communication. Take the early colonization's, they set the agenda that native Americans were just an obstacle to be cleared for their ideal society. People believe what they want to believe, and technology is a tool used to spread information and reinforce beliefs. Technology itself is healthy for society, but it is society that is poisoning itself any way it can.

Diffusion of Innovations: Headphones!

The Diffusion Theory is a theory that shows the popularity and usage of new innovations. The innovation that interests me though is the innovation of headphones. For me they are something I cannot function without, the ability to hear what I want to hear when I want to hear it is important to my way of life. This can be used for stress relief, improving focus and for simple entertainment. When applying the Diffusion Theory to this innovation I would like to imagine that early adopters would be rich children, or office workers. Some people like complete silence when working and others don't, so instead of a radio in an office I'd imagine them adopting headphones. Of course though before every invention is available to the public, the government gets their hands on it first. This is how I know for a fact that headphones were originally and primarily used for military communication, being able to send messages that only one person can safely hear. This was the start of a genius innovation that simplified the lives of many people.

I'd imagine late adopters were people who didn't like the design of headphones for some reason. It could be the size, the uncomfortably, the ability to lose the sound of your surroundings, things like that. The laggards had to be people who were comfortable with their radio or with hearing sensitivity issues. They may have lived alone so they don't require the function of headphones. It is a valid cost benefit analysis, if you have a radio and don't need to worry about other people complaining about your listening then you don't need headphones. In terms of negative effects of headphones I would worry about ear health, back then I can imagine that without the audio safety settings we are comfortable with they could have caused some serious hearing loss if used improperly. The use of headphones now has become so normalized in our society that it's hard to imagine life without them, and I've gained a new interest in the Diffusion Theory.

Why Do We Never Hear About War?

One thing that always struck me as odd was the fact that America loves to talk about peace, but continues to engage in conflict. Plenty of people who speak out against this violence are silenced or their voices are rarely heard unless actively sought out. I think this is because war is what keeps America rich and powerful. For example the killing and murder of the people in Iraq just to steal oil, or a more recent case being the Ukraine proxy war so Russian resources can be taken. The reason that the voices talking about antiwar are silenced is because of the awareness they spread. The American government does a good job at making you hear and see what they want you to. 

The point of the antiwar voices is to oppose the United States government and military. This means all their viewpoints, statements, beliefs, and actions. Having these critiques and negative views on them would make them look bad or wrong in the eyes of the average American. Instead, what they do is tell you they are handling everything, protecting you, and doing everything to protect American freedom. Most of these antiwar voices are also non-profit organizations, this means that they definitely are not getting the front page of the news, or talked about on your local news channel. In fact I believe that some Americans prefer to hear about conflict with other countries because they take pride in the fact that America is a world power. Perhaps the main reason these antiwar voices are not widespread is because it shares a lot of foreign news that happens as a result of American conflict. All Americans see is their side of the story and the conflict, if the foreign news was able to be easily accessible I bet plenty of other Americans would want to stop the continuous conflict.

Should Net Neutrality Exist?

When it comes to American society one of the core values that seems to be constantly brought up is equality. It is also one of the values America fails to uphold, and this equality struggle doesn't only affect real life issues but also online issues as well. Net Neutrality is the idea that information on the internet should be available to all regardless of internet provider, source, and/or content. The purpose of the internet was to be able to connect, communicate and have information readily available to us. The principle of Net Neutrality reinforces this purpose and keeps the internet and it's information open and available. Recently though, as in January of 2025 the push to make Net Neutrality a power for the federal government was brought to an end because the U.S Court of Appeals denied the Federal Communication Commission the right to treat Internet Service Providers like a public utility. This means that the states continue to have the power over their internet service providers, and have the ability to control what you can and cannot access on the internet as well as prices and regulations. This of course has brought plenty of mixed opinions, some people want it to be government regulated so internet access remains open and equal, while others do not want it to become a public utility because it will slow down the innovations and increase the cost of ISP's. Not to mention the potential of government overreach limiting ruining ISP's universally. 

I believe that net neutrality is absolutely important for the function of our society and government. The fact that people can get different information based on location, wealth, and state agenda doesn't seem fair, and it promotes the idea that the internet isn't for everyone and that information is reserved for only specific people. The current biggest fear is ISP's locking services behind unfair pay walls and information being kept from people who are not able to afford these services. It doesn't make sense to have a society that is centered around the internet and technological advancement, and not have the internet be readily accessible for everyone. Just because someone doesn't pay enough money doesn't mean they don't deserve to access that information. This could be used more radically to promote certain political viewpoints over a certain pay threshold, which means that the impoverished are forced to see information about only one political party. I shouldn't need to explain how scary and corrupt that possibility is, and yet people are more focused on their exclusive perks because they paid more.

The role of the internet over time has been becoming too important to not make it a public utility. Just like water and electricity it is becoming a necessity for America's prosperity and daily function. While paying more money for a faster internet service is how we live today, is it really something that we want to keep enduring? Schools are transitioning to online assignments, jobs are transitioning to online onboarding processes, even restaurants are adopting online menus. Having a slower internet service can interfere with the accessibility of small things like this. It is not just some grand issue that makes little to no difference, this is an issue that could solve quite a few issues in the lives of the majority of the public. 

What are Petroglyphs

Petroglyphs are images and designs that are carved into rocks that were used to before any language was popularized. They portrayed a variety to different things like stories, events, plans, and beliefs. They are also extremely hard to make as you has to scratch and engrave lines into the darker outer layer of rock to reveal the light lower layer. Petroglyphs are not the same as pictographs and it's actually because of this destructive creation process that we can still find and discover old petroglyphs, but cant find any old pictographs. The depth and longevity of the petroglyph varies based on the method used. You can either scratch the rock by using a smaller sharper rock to make shallow designs, pecking which uses a hammer and chisel like tool which allows for extremely detailed designs, and carving which uses a larger tool to create large and jagged designs into the rock. Of course the deeper the Petroglyph means that it will last longer. The use of petroglyphs varied greatly, but of course to us all the way in the future their main use was to allow us to experience the culture of the people who created the specific petroglyphs.

Petroglyphs were made by many different people all across the world but most known to Americans would be the Native Americans. For example, at the Petroglyph National Monument in New Mexico there is 17 miles of territory with 25,000 still standing petroglyph designs all made by the ancestors of todays Pueblo people. The petroglyph from this culture show us stories on hunting and gathering but more importantly we see depictions of practices, traditions, and even gods. More often then not a petroglyph will have a symbol that was believed to have religious meaning to their culture. In a more historical sense the petroglyphs in the Rio Grande Valley also explained and depicted the arrival of Spanish settlers in 1540.

Petroglyphs changed communications because it was a way to capture something for a long time for many other people to see and understand. Being able to leave a message or design on the rocks allowed them to remember stories, teach each other about lessons and events, as well as communicate to neighbors or other tribes. Petroglyphs was also used in more aggressive ways to mark territories like threatening and insulting other people. It had so many different and creative uses, it was like a big piece of paper that for their lifetime never get rid of their contents obviously useful for maps, schedules, reminders, and things they constantly needed to be aware of. After petroglyphs the sociability of humans took a big step forward and allowed for more expression. As humans we are beings who function off of social connections especially today with our technology. In history petroglyphs was their ancestors way of to create, strengthen, and manage social connections for survival and prosperity.