stop porn & porn culture

On University Day,  Dani, David and I interviewed six random people to hear multiple perspectives on the issue of pornography in public spaces. This conversation stems from an incident that occurred at the University of New Hampshire's library during the summer where a man was found viewing child pornography. This public library is a resource for students attending UNH and residents in surrounding towns. The questions we asked pertained to how they would respond if they saw someone in the library viewing pornography and if they feel restrictions should be applied to what websites can be accessed at the library. Here's what we found from the interviews:
The first individual we interviewed was a female graduate student in education. She had not heard about the event that occurred during the library this summer. She felt that viewing porn in a public space (like the library) was not appropriate and that restrictions should be enforced. She compared this to how public schools often block their students from visiting particular sites such as Myspace or Facebook. If she encountered someone viewing pornography in the library she told us that she would not hesitate to notify the library staff or confront the individual viewing pornography.
The second individual we interviewed was a male senior forestry major. He said that he had not heard of the event that took place in the library this summer. He believes that there should be no policy in place to restrict viewing pornography in public spaces. The only censorship he believes is necessary is for child pornography because it is illegal. He also commented that if he witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library he wouldn't take action and most likely just laugh at such an event.
The third individual we spoke with was a male professor in the philosophy department. He had not heard about the event in the library. He seemed hesitant when answering our questions but overall he did not favor a policy restricting viewing pornography because he believes in freedom of speech. He feels that policies that restrict don't work well and often they are overprotective. He also was hesitant in saying how he would respond to witnessing someone watching pornography in the library. He said he may report to the library staff if what he saw was child pornography or very offensive.
The fourth individual we spoke with was a female senator up for re-election. She stated that policies restricting pornography viewing in public spaces are a "slippery slope." She felt that a policy may be necessary for cases of viewing child pornography.
The fifth individual we spoke with is a female women's studies and social work double major who is a sophomore. She stated that she would favor a policy restricting viewing of pornography in public spaces. If she witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library she said that she would seek assistance from the library staff immediately. She also stated that she did not hear about the incident from over the summer.
The sixth individual we spoke with is a male fifth year senior in math and philosophy. He had not heard of the incident which occurred in the library over the summer. He said that he would not support a policy restricting watching pornography in a public space. The only exception to this in his opinion would be child pornography because it is illegal. He also commented that he would not take action if he witnessed someone viewing pornography unless it was child pornography.
I've found from these interviews that most individuals had not heard about the incident from the summer, nor did they seem particularly concerned with it. Pornography is a touchy subject to bring up and I've found it usually stirs up a lot of feelings. What I find most interesting is the lack of concern or wish to provide UNH's library with a policy. This is a public library with a section for children which in my opinion, is not a place to view pornography. Typically, when issues involving children are brought up it seems that people become overprotective but this was not the case for most of these interviews. I can't say that I'm shocked by any of the opinions I heard at University Day to essentially defend and promote pornography viewing no matter what type of establishment it is being consumed in. The truth is that we live in a porn culture where pornography is so integrated into our everyday lives that many individuals are simply desensitized to it. Also, protecting "freedom" is always the top concern of porn defenders/viewers, even if that person's freedom also requires the constraint of others. Why were UNH students not informed by the police or administration about the man viewing pornography in the library? How much violence/injustice/oppression equate to the value we place freedom at?

Technology and Nature

In chapter one of Gender Circuits, Shapiro argues that technology and science have influenced humans ability to manipulate their natural environment. Consistent advancements in the fields of technology and science are being made which eventually could (and may already have) lead to a complete disconnect between human kind and nature. Shapiro states that "the rise of science afforded people the idea that we can-even should- understand the natural world through the use of observation and analytical reasoning. This encouraged and facilitated the development of new technologies to shape and manipulate the natural environment" (Shapiro 48). This logic has also produced the idea that humans should control the natural environment and are entitled to do so. The concept of humans disconnect from nature is where we begin to see what the advertisement of Sun Mad Raisins portrays: technology being integrated in almost every aspect of our lives. An example of this is shown in how food production has changed over time. At one point people in communities had a relationship with the farmers who were producing the food that they purchased and ate. Today, food production has expanded tremendously from technology and consumers walk into grocery stores generally unaware of where their food is coming from and how it has been prepared. There are positive and negative consequences to the advances that technology offers to our lives. In the example of food production, one could argue that technology is beneficial because it allows companies to mass produce food and get their product to more consumers for generally a cheaper price. One could also argue that having technology assist in food production takes away from the quality of the food we consume today. After all, we are trusting many companies and corporations to produce food responsibly. This is quite the challenge since corporations and companies are out to make money. Overall, we should question to what extent technology is beneficial in these areas that so deeply influence our lives and well being.


I'm currently taking  a course on environment in sociology and we had to read this article... it's very interesting and I hope it makes others consider where their technology will end up.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/carroll-text.html

A life example...

I just realized that I never provided an example from my own life to strengthen my argument that technology is beneficial to my generation. I am currently employed at the UNH survey center. This means that I get paid to dial numbers and attempt to interview people randomly. If it wasn't for technology my job wouldn't even exist. I know this is a simple example but technology is involved in many occupations today and I can't see this fact changing as we advance. I believe that as time goes on we will see more jobs that involve technology. It is essential for future generations to have these skills in order to have a range of job opportunities. I do not believe that technology makes us dumber but is continuously changing the way in which we get things accomplished.

Edit: It dawned on me that this does not technically explain how my job uses technology. While I interview individuals over the phone I am running through a series of screens on a computer which tell me exactly how to word the questions I ask. I also code the answers each individual gives on these screens. Without the computer it would be much more difficult for me to complete this job because the computer provides so much space to store numbers, interviews, and coded dispositions which allow each interviewer to know what occurred during past calls.

Does technology make us the dumbest generation?

It has been claimed that the current generation potentially is the dumbest due to the amount of technology used in essentially everything. Now more than ever people are using computers to find information, social networking, or entertainment. Computers and the internet are thought to make everyday tasks "simpler" to enable a person to complete a great number of tasks at any given time. The problem which arises from this belief concerns the quality of all those tasks being completed. For example, are we truly completing a paper to the best of our ability if we pause every fifteen minutes to check on popular social networking websites? The extent that our attention spans can hold information which we are learning or attempting to communicate is greatly influenced by the example just given. That being said, is all this technology making us dumber? Do we only believe that we are advancing because it feels as if we are completing a great amount of tasks in the shortest amount of time?

 The advantage to technology today is the amount of access it allows people to have. This access is seemingly unlimited from journal articles to finding out what a classmate's major is. The vast amount of information is beneficial if this information is located from a credible source, of course. This eliminates issues that may have arisen in education from the past in relation to what a library is able to provide. I believe that access to a great amount of information that technology can provide strengthens one's intelligence. Once again, this is if the information is from a credible source which can certainly get internet users thinking and responding to what is being expressed to them. Technology is also an almost unavoidable aspect of the job market in present times. Many individuals search for employment opportunities online which expands the amount of jobs they are able to consider. These are all positive aspects of technology which have provided more opportunity and information. When considering if technology makes us dumber we must always keep in mind how vital technology skills have become in employment and career opportunities today. Possessing skills in technology is being reinforced through the job market.

Negative aspects of technology include trouble focusing, lack of social experience, and information that is not accurate. As I previously mentioned, the internet is a vast space of information that does not always come from credible sources. There has been a great struggle in education with the issue of plagiarism from the internet. Students have stolen ideas and entire papers from the internet. This is also an issue with work ethic in the current generation. Technology poses a threat to work ethic because most answers and actions come so quickly. If an individual wants to search for a specific topic they can instantly have a great deal of information before them. Of course, this becomes a question of how work ethic is changing throughout generations. If an individual is so used to having access and answers right in front of them, how will they ever learn the value of hard work?

Overall, I do not agree with the idea that technology is making us (as a generation) dumber. As we advance as a society there are gains and losses that come with any change being made. In the case of technology, this current generation may have poor social skills or issues with attention, but they may be advanced in locating information. I believe that these thoughts of the current generation being "dumb" are due to the changes that have been taking place. Older generations may begin to view what was essential to them as an individual, a student, or a worker and become concerned that such skills aren't used to the same degree. In turn, the current generation is developing a different set of skills and some of these include areas that past generations were not as advanced in. It truly is a trade off as times change. This is not to say that the current generation does not have the same skills that older generations did. For example, technology may pose a serious issue when it comes to attention span. In the past, individuals may have had little to no trouble writing a research paper and not feeling distracted. Individuals belonging to the generation today still have the ability to do the same but they have not had as much experience truly focusing their attention. In conclusion, I do not believe that technology makes us dumber but it does provide a new set of skills that are positive and negative to a certain degree.