Revised Fahrenheit 451

Ray Bradbury’s satirical novel Fahrenheit 451 suggests that technology will abolish critical thinking. This is a skill that Americans use less and less. We have an endless supply of information at hand with 24 hour news: online newspapers, blogs, online magazines, radio and TV. And what to we watch?



  Here we are in the depths of the information age, and we have become complacent with the information we are fed.

                Americans primarily watch news and commentary that they agree with (very little, if any news is unbiased). http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php News commentary shows have become so popular precisely because they allow us to avoid thinking critically about these ideas. They interpret facts and tell us what to think about them. We have come to trust these shows, their news agencies, and our information system. This trust keeps us from feeling the need to re-interpret the information we get. Compare this with the behavior of news consumers in the middle-east where they know they cannot trust the news they get.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/110506/middle-eastnorth-africa-relies-many-news-sources.aspx People in these countries are more likely to consume opinions that they disagree with. Knowing that the information that they get requires them to sift through what they do get in order to extract what truth there is. This requires critical thinking. It isn’t that our technology and relative personal and political stability has made us stupid, it has made us lazy. If we don’t need to use these skills, then we won’t. It’s sort of Darwinian.

                Ray Bradbury’s book is satire and satire usually pulls a situation beyond its own reality in order to prove the point. But could this happen? Could our government decide that censorship is in our best interest and burn or ban books? Would we support such an action? Some would argue that the First Amendment prevents that from happening, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t happen. We have once given up our rights in a significant way for a personal sense of safety and security. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf So why then would we not be willing to do that again? There will always be a portion of the population that is manipulated through their emotions. It is important not to fall in that category. If we are to be a free society, then we must be able to deal with situations calmly and logically. We must be able to see through the tricks played on our emotions. And to do this, we must be able to think critically.

Fahrenheit 451

Ray Bradbury’s satirical novel Fahrenheit 451 suggests that technology will abolish critical thinking. This is a skill that Americans use less and less. We have an endless supply of information at hand with 24 hour news: online newspapers, blogs, online magazines, radio and TV. And what to we watch? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR3fkgFfrFo&feature=related  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvz9jyf4gUk&feature=related Here we are in the depths of the information age, and we have become complacent with the information we are fed.

                Americans primarily watch news and commentary that they agree with (very little, if any news is unbiased). http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php News commentary shows have become so popular precisely because they allow us to avoid thinking critically about these ideas. They interpret facts and tell us what to think about them. We have come to trust these shows, their news agencies, and our information system. This trust keeps us from feeling the need to re-interpret the information we get. Compare this with the behavior of news consumers in the middle-east where they know they cannot trust the news they get.  http://www.muslimwestfacts.com/mwf/110512/Middle-EastNorth-Africa-Relies-Many-News-Sources.aspx People in these countries are more likely to consume opinions that they disagree with. Knowing that the information that they get requires them to sift through what they do get in order to extract what truth there is. This requires critical thinking. It isn’t that our technology and relative personal and political stability has made us stupid, it has made us lazy. If we don’t need to use these skills, then we won’t. It’s sort of Darwinian.

                Ray Bradbury’s book is satire and satire usually pulls a situation beyond its own reality in order to prove the point. But could this happen? Could our government decide that censorship is in our best interest and burn or ban books? Would we support such an action? Some would argue that the First Amendment prevents that from happening, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t happen. We have once given up our rights for a personal sense of safety and security. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf It could happen again.

Health Insurance

For many years now, health care has relied heavily on private insurance. Most people get health care through their job or their spouse’s job as a benefit-in lieu of payment. As health care costs rose, so did health insurance costs. The result of this is that more and more companies dropped the benefit or at least no longer offered it to new employees. This has created a growing group of people who are uninsured (because they cannot afford to pay for it on their own) and do not qualify for public assistance. This becomes a social problem when the uninsured get medical services and do not pay for it because then tax payers end up paying for it. The government came up with a solution: require everybody to have health insurance.

                Private insurance companies exist to make a profit. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/09/zirkelbach-profits/ That means that they only profit if most of their customers pay more than they get out of it…a lot more. Health insurance only works because it is a bad deal for most people who buy it. http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/001247 When you buy car insurance, you aren’t covered for basic maintenance such as oil changes, or replacing brake pads. You are covered if you are in an accident. This is essentially what high deductible health insurance is for. You pay for the check-ups and colds but if you break your leg or have a heart attack then the insurance pays for it. It is cheaper for those who are young and healthy to pay for medical treatments as they need them.

                But why health insurance? Yes, it is great to have-it covers everything! However, it is expensive and few people can afford it on their own. There are alternatives to health insurance. The benefit of medical savings plans are grossly underestimated, especially for those who go to a doctor a few times a year or less. You choose how much to spend and your employer puts your untaxed money into that account for you. Why doesn’t every employer do this? Another alternative to insurance is medical reimbursement. You go to the doctor and front the total bill. You then submit your receipt to your employer and they send you a check for half of the cost of the bill. This is far cheaper than insurance and requires far less red tape. If we were to be more creative about paying for medical care, we would find much cheaper ways of providing care.

                Medical care is a very personal thing and it makes sense that paying for it should be personalized. There is no one good solution for everybody. Requiring everybody to purchase health insurance is not a solution to the problem. It works for some but not for all. For some, expanding government assistance is the solution, for others, high deductible health care and sliding scales. To say that everybody needs to buy health insurance is to ignore most of the problem.

As the Word Turns...

It is easy to say that cell phones are bad. They are expensive to begin with. Not just the phone, but the service too. Cell phone sales men are today’s version of the used car sales man. No matter what, when you leave you think you got a great deal, but by the time you get home you know you are up a creek! Cell phones are also known to be notorious time wasters: video games, apps, you-tube, texting. Many consider texting to be the downfall of society. It is often used in ways that are dangerous, rude, or just plain disrespectful. There was even a recent informal study that showed if you used an electronic device (tv, computer, or cell phone) shortly before going to bed, your sleep was negatively affected. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-13/tech/sleep.gadgets.ipad_1_ipad-sleep-disorders-e-book?_s=PM:TECH Does all this mean that cell phones are bad for us?

                Cell phones are tools. How they are used can be positive or negative. Cell phones can make us safer. If you find yourself in an emergency situation, all you need to do is call for help. If your car breaks down, call for help. Need a ride, call for one. Cell phones are convenient. You don’t need to have cash to make a call. If you need to leave your house, you can still get important calls. Cell phones are really helpful for coordinating with your friends at large events (concerts, New Years, bars, Super Walmarts). They make our lives easier and that is the ultimate reason for technology. Undoubtedly, constant connection is not always convenient. I can’t count the number of times that I’ve been enjoying a perfectly nice day out and gotten a call from work. Or how about when you’re out on a date and your Mom calls.

                One thing that has happened in recent years is cell phones have become more complex. They now incorporate multiple devices into a single unit. Cell phones are not just phones but very small, very portable computers. This adds to convenience but it is more. These devices are more useful than a phone or computer ever was. Even my paranoid husband who hates carrying a GPS transmitter around with him has to admit that smart phones are pretty cool. They make suggestions, give you directions, and will even help you place orders before you get there.

                In the end, the way we use these devices is more important than the devices themselves. If I choose to be rude while using these tools, then I am the one being rude. Cell phones don’t make us inconsiderate. If I choose to keep myself up texting on my phone it isn’t the fault of my phone. I am the one who can’t control my use. These tools are useful and they make our lives easier, which is a good thing.