The Identity Mark- Digital Angel or Digital Devil?

How would you feel about carrying all of the identifying information of your life with you in a tiny chip? In our society today, we are beginning to implant “under-the-skin” ID chips. These chips hold any personal information on them, and can transmit that information to anyone with a “special hand-held scanner” (Swafford). Similar radio frequency tags have been used for many years to track household pets and other animals. Once the hand-held scanner reads the tag number, it is able to extract information about the animal and its owner. The identity chip is seen to have two identities of it’s own, a “Digital Angel” or a “Digital Devil.”

Applied Digital Solutions has now introduced a passive Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) chip that is compatible with human tissue. Given the name “Verichip,” the rice-sized device is injected through a syringe like needle under the skin of a person’s arm or hand; once it’s implanted, it’s unable to be removed. In the article, Bar-coding Humans, Angela Swafford notes how the Verichip is believed to be the first chip designed for human identification and is currently undergoing constant improvement in technology. Swafford also explains how Applied Digital Solutions is advancing the chip so that it can store all kinds of information and serve as a central database with a continual download of information. "The goal is to be able to develop a chip that will track the movement of people all over the world by utilizing global positioning satellites" (Swafford). The current device holds a number, and once it’s scanned, the authorized person must log into an encrypted website to access any information associated with the specific ID chip. Vincent Schodolski discusses how “the Verichip gives each implanted individual a number that, in turn, links to a database of information” (Schodolski). For example, if a person has a medical emergency, the hospital could scan the implanted chip, log into the website with the unique information, and access all personal information. Clearly the use of this chip has a huge impact on society as a whole, and on each individual in the means of privacy.

One of the primary reasons the Verichip has been created is to offer rapid and secure patient identification in emergencies. However, society must question whether this increased access to information can in fact harm the patients. For example, insurance companies would have access to what a patient’s pre-existing conditions are. Therefore, they can decide if it’s a risk to cover the individual, and may in the end determine if coverage will not be provided. A patient does not have the choice to keep some of their medical information private; whoever has access to their chip has access to it all. Another question concerns the access to this personal information and who determines access to it. Is this a decision left to the medical profession? Is this a decision left to the patient? Is this a decision left to the government? Who chooses? What about sensitive diseases such as AIDS/HIV? A patient’s right to keep the reality of such a disease private, as long as they are not harming other, should be kept with the individual rather than with some other authority. Helene Bernardo argues, “surely, a Medic Alert bracelet or necklace should be sufficient identification in a health crises” (Benardo). Why should society need to have easy access to such a level where there are endless questions and need to have a non-removable chip to be able to have access to these records?

Another intended use of the Verichip is to ensure security. Despite the positive factors, many also question whether the additional security is worth the loss of privacy. When individuals choose to embed these chips into their skin, who gets to decide when the information is accessible and under what circumstances? These are moral and ethical considerations. From a religious standpoint many would say this is the equivalent of “taking the mark of the beast.” Taking the mark of the beast in the realm of believers is seem as selling your soul to the devil. This mark is not defined in its appearance, but many believe it will be binary or barcode in nature.

One would see an additional benefit to this identity chip as the easy access factor it holds. Rather than having to carry around all the identification, credit cards, insurance cards, medical information, those wanting this chip would have the luxury of just swiping their arm. People could quickly charge to their credit card accounts, access money from their bank’s automatic teller machines without a card, and provide medical information and insurance coverage information at their physician’s office or at the pharmacy. Is this really necessary or is it merely convenient?

The decision of whether this identity chip is a “Digital Angel” or a “Digital Devil” is truly a moral dilemma. After reading the articles, information and opinions, the identity chip seems to be a real “Digital Devil.” What better security can this device bring to the United States citizens that they don’t already have? Is this advanced technology taking away humanity? Individual freedom is highly valued in our society. Individuals must weigh the pros and cons of this technology and decide for themselves, whether it’s right. Improved technology isn’t always the answer.

1.) Bernardo, Helene "The Specter of Implanted Identity Chips. (Editorial Desk)(Letter to the Editor)." The New York Times. (Oct 18, 2004 pA16 (L) col 04 (2 col): A16 (L). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Mount Mansfield Union High School. Web. 2 Nov. 2010.

2.) Schodolski, Vincent J. "Identity chips could protect health, but hurt privacy, some say." Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. (Dec 27, 2004): K1522. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Mt Mansfield Union High School. Web. 2 Nov. 2010.

3.) Swafford, Angela. "Barcoding Humans." Boston Globe (2004): Web. 2 Nov. 2010

4.) Youtube.com

The Complex Relationship of Economic and Technological Advances

Technology has allowed us to change the Earth, take the many things that it has given us and use them to our own means. Economies of civilizations new and old, alive and dead, have shaped not only the way we interact with the world around us, but with each other. Both are key aspects in defining who we are as a whole, defining what humanity is. But how do these two concepts interact, where do they meet, and where do they part?

How do changes in an economy affect technology? Industry, and through it, the economy, is often a driving force behind technological development. Technology is often developed to fulfill a need or a want. This concept can be tied directly into the economic foundation of supply and demand. A good example would be the internet, which is a technology developed for the exchange of a huge variety of things. The internet was developed out of several wants from several different communities. DARPA designed the ARPAnet in America because there was a huge desire for faster knowledge transfer. The Rand Corporation of America created the concept of a military information network. The National Physics Library in England developed a commercial network, the NPL network. In France, the Institut de Recherche d’ Informatique et d’ Automatique developed the scientific network, Cyclades. These various approaches, from around the world, were the building blocks of the internet as we know it ("History of the Internet"). The idea for these things all came from desire, all of them at least partially economic. What is interesting in this particular example is that from economic needs, technology developed a whole new economy. Economy is defined as “a system of interaction and exchange,” and that is exactly what the internet has become, which leads me to the opposite question(Merriam-Webster).

How do changes and advances in technology affect economies? The complexity of this subject is astronomical. In an attempt to simplify, technology changes what economic historian Joel Mokyr termed “production potential.”(Mokyr) By this I think he means that newer technology doesn’t change the economy of a society, but changes what it can be. Advancing technology can change the boundaries and constraints, and therefore the potential, of their economic prosperity. For instance, farming technology like tractors and harvesters allow the farmer to potentially increase his production, though if he chooses to not use them or chooses to use them less then he could, he might not reach that potential. The other way new technology can affect an economy is by being what is being exchanged. Many societies have made use of their technological advantages. For a long time, only China knew the secrets to creating silk, and thus became the sole producer of silk, gaining a lot of wealth from Europe. At other times, newer technology has negatively affected different communities. Take for instance the Luddites, a group of skilled workers in the textile industry in 1811 Britain. They were threatened with being replaced with machines operated by unskilled workers and women, which produced cheaper, though inferior, goods. These new machines droves down their wages, and in anger, they began a six year war against the machines, destroying their frames or their inner workings (Binfield). Another, more modern example of this would be in the automotive industry. Years ago, new technologies like the assembly line and replaceable parts gave many factory workers good jobs. In the present, those same workers are unemployed because of, again, new technology, being laid off and replaced with machines.

By no means do I intend to infer that technology is the only factor in economic growth, or vice versa. Both of these subjects have layers of complexity far beyond my comprehension. They depend on each other, but it is impossible to explain all the near infinite way they do so. The relationships between technology and economies are as hard to define as they are to deny, and the complex web that they weave when looking at the bigger picture is simultaneously awe-inspiring and horrifying. In some ways they act as their very own economy, economy demanding from technology, and technology supplying the potential for the economy to grow. The two have never or will ever be separated completely; they are fundamentally part of humanity, and we will always be both the pawns of, and drivers of, this complex relationship.

Works Cited
((Sorry for the ugliness, blogger had some trouble with the links....'<'s and '>'s freaked it out))

Binfield, Kevin. "Murray State Faculty Pages." Luddites and Luddism: History. John Hopkins
University Press, 2004. Web. 30 Mar 2010.
http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/kevin.binfield/luddites/LudditeHistory.htm

"economy." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010.

Merriam-Webster Online. 30 Mar 2010
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economy

"History of the Internet." Web. 2 Apr 2010.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hIQjrMHTv4

Mokyr, Joel. The Lever of Riches. Oxford University Press, USA, 1990. Print.

Rogers, J. D. "Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information." The Impact of Technology on the Economy. Department of Energy, n.d. Web. 18 Mar 2010.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=1CD67FAFCDD31C5EE762C5FA7527A0CD?purl=/39688-bUVrBN/webviewable/

Will technology end the world?

With the way technology has been advancing it seems as if anything is possible. For many people this is a frightening situation, especially when dealing with any kind of weaponry. Just recently an article was put out about a heat-beam ray gun which uses a heat-beam to help control unruly inmates at an LA jail (Watkins). Just one generation ago no one would have thought that a ray gun was possible to make, just something you may see on Star Trek.

To make it worse with enemies all over the world fighting and striving to develop new technology on how to kill each other more efficiently. If every country is racing to develop the best weapons when we already have nuclear weapons that can destroy entire countries what is next. This video explains it quite simply.



Although the video is a bit comical, and exaggerated it points out a potently possibility that may have to be dealt with at some point in time. Even with our current technology we can already destroy the world, what happens when we improve it even more?



The end of the world [video]. (2006). YouTube. Retrieved 5 Sept 2010. .

Watkins, Thomas. ACJ. LA authorities plan to use heat-beam ray in jail. 27 Aug 2010. 5 Sept 2010. .

A Negative Effect of Technology:

Although technology has countless positive sides, lately i have been aware of the personal disconnect that having everything at our finger tips at all times can sometimes lead to. The biggest thing that comes to mind concerning this issue is the widespread use texting as a means for communication. In recent years the media, scholars, and government authorities have made it quite apparent that cell phone technology has had a drastic affect on the World as we know it. While many argue that the effect is quite beneficial, there is much evidence which would lead one to believe that negatives of cell phone use (specifically texting) significantly outweigh the positives. Nevertheless, as with any argument, it is best in this case to equally consider both sides.
Surely, there is plenty of evidence in support of texting, such as being a way to stay connected to friends and family, and as a way to stay in the loop while making plans and managing a busy schedule, but the thing that concerns me is its impact on social integration.
I feel that texting is becoming not a convenient addition to communication, but is now used as an alternative that is taking the place of verbal, and even face-to-face interaction. While it often seems beneficial as a time saving tool, it is creating a sense of disconnection between persons. Now, instead of having a true conversation with a friend in which you can express a lot through inflection and the like, one might instead just send a few texts and never delve deeper into their thoughts or emotions because the conversation it perpetually stuck on a superficial level. Another negative effect I see it having on people, is how it takes you from being a fully present person participating fully in life and conversation, to being "elsewhere" because mentally you're somewhere else while texting, and thus you're missing out on lifes' full expirience.
Overall, i am certain that people are slowly forgetting how to interact verbally, and be fully present, which is an incredibly detrimental thing to lose.

Cartoon: by Alex Gregory, Published in The New Yorker 8/2/2010, retrieved online from cartoon bank.com 9/5/10

For Your Convenience

Technology has come a long way. A really, really impressive and fascinatingly long way. And it's growing exponentially. The production of bigger (and in some cases, smaller), better things is becoming faster. I mean, how often do you hear someone joking about how often new generations of iPods are coming out? Because they really do come out so often, it's ridiculous.

There is one thing all technology has in common. It all caters to us. It's all for our convenience. Back in the early days, when hunters invented tools and weapons to catch their meal for the day - that was for convenience. In the old-timey days when we used horse and buggies to get around instead of walking - convenience. Pasta strainers - convenient. Toilets, beds, radios, cafeteria trays, winter coats, bulldozers, 2-in-1 cans of primer paint... We're constantly, rapidly, pushing out ideas to make things for the human race more convenient. Why?

Ever heard you or someone else saying that there just isn't enough time in one day (to get everything you wanted to done)? Well, with all of these little improvements, maybe you can. Maybe you can finally get everything you wanted done. I mean, instead of walking to your destination, you can have a car. That could save you a half an hour of trouble. Even little improvements like those laundry sheets with the detergent and a dryer sheet built into the same thing. Saves you a minute or two of pouring the detergent into the washing machine and pulling a dryer sheet out of the box, doesn't it?

But it's not going to stop here. We're never going to stop trying to save ourselves time. And as a result, I think we are sucking some of the flavour out of life. Not literally, because a lot of people are preferring to stop at a fast food restaurant after work, or soccer practice, or school, or just pop chicken nuggets loaded with preservatives into the microwave, in lieu of cooking a meal. And, I'm not saying I don't do these things, nor am I saying you can't ever do these things. It's delicious! But what's easy and fast isn't always better.

Going along with this food theme, check out these infomercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wRYd5H3koA

I like 1:16, when the woman says she is enjoying cooking. I think she means she enjoys putting food into a machine that does most of the work for her so she can go do other things. I also like 1:44, because it's a perfect example of how infomercials use really weird tricks to try and get you to buy things, like enhancing the voice for "SERVE, SEAL, & STORE".

I love cooking... I'm not very good at it, but I find it fun. It's relaxing for me. It's something I like to learn about, and read about, and I'm excited to make dinner and dessert at the end of the day. Let's say, years and years from now, machines do all of the work for you. They chop your ingredients, put some in a skillet, your marinated steak in the oven, and you're free to sit on the couch and play Final Fantasy's eighty-second installment. You've never cooked your whole life. No one in your generation has. That's one less hobby you could have. Worse, that's one less hobby anyone could have. WORSE, that's one less career choice.

What if everything becomes like that? How many jobs is the world going to lose? This sounds like it's turning into a robots-are-taking-over-the-world-ohemgee blog post. In a way it is, I guess. I'm worried we're going to lose our individuality to convenience. I mean, what's one of the first questions people tend to ask you these days? "What major are you in?" The adult version of this is, "What do you do for a living?" It's a big definition of who you are as a person. I told my orthodontist a couple weeks ago, "Game Art and Animation." He laughed, beaming, and exclaimed, "Oh, you're a computer geek!" I proudly smiled back. "Yeah, I am!"

A good summary of what I am trying to say here, would be the movie Idiocracy. Here's the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0

The main character ends up in the far future, a time during which technology has come such a far way that machines do everything for humans. So humans are able to be... not very smart.

Another example of convenience having a negative effect, in movie form, would be Wall-E. I can't find a clip of Wall-E walking around the spaceship, Axiom, but there is a scene in which Wall-E is among the citizens of the Axiom, all in their electric hover armchairs, with holographic screens in front of them, talking to their friends, or watching TV. And they are all enormous, gelatinous blobs, due to never having to walk in their lifetimes. The scenery is also made up of huge screens with commercials about a mock WalMart company called Buy n Large, which owns the ship and everything on it. Hopefully most of you have seen Wall-E, because I'm not an expert with film summary. But I did find a blog written by Josh Golin about the statement against commercialism in Wall-E, which you can read here: http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/articles/featured/trashingwalle.htm A bit unrelated, but there is a bridge between convenience and commercialism.

Anyway, wrapping this up, I'm not saying convenience is terrible. It's good to have some extra time in the day. But it's when we begin to ignore parts of our lives that we shouldn't ignore for the sake of convenience, that I worry about. We tend to take the easy way out. If any of you have "read" a book on sparknotes.com, instead of reading the actual book, for school, there's your example. We're sacrificing quality for convenience. Hanging out with friends and family for texting; hiking and exploring for video games; hobbies for time. And I guess that's what I mean by convenience making life a little less flavourful.

Citations:

1. "Ninja Master Prep Blender and Food Processor @ Bed Bath & Beyond" 13 November 2009.

YouTube. 5 September 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wRYd5H3koA

2. "Idiocracy - Trailer" Dir. Mike Judge. Perf. Luke Wilson. 12 December 2007. YouTube. 5 September 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0

3. Golin, Josh. "Trashing Wall-E". Commercialfreechildhood.org. n.d. Web. 5 September 2010.

Fears

The possibilities are endless to what technology and science can bring to our future. I guess one question we should ask ourselves is, what happens if it goes to far? I believe that science can be dangerous in the way it continues to grow as technology becomes more advanced and available. Take for example, the "invisibility cloak," though it's only at a stage where things can be invisible to microwaves, in theory science could potentially create a cloak invisible to light waves. Now understandably this could be great, but what happens when people start abusing this technology?

I am just afraid that as science and technology continue to grow, new inventions will be created that may eventually make humans useless in the workforce. As i see new technology coming out, i think about what everyone from the 40's and 50's think about this technology revolution. Sometimes i wish that our world could go back and just live in the world that they experienced. I hate how much we rely on technology these days and can only see this getting worse in time.




1.)NBC News."NBC news of Invisibility Cloak." News. 26 Dec 2007. YouTube. 4 Sept. 2010.