Edward Googins
Sociology 022 – In the Facebook Age – Spring 2010 – Dhiraj Murthy

“The time has come where the distinction between online and offline is not one between ‘fantasy’ and ‘real’ lives.  Rather, one can have just as meaningful relationships through online communities as offline based communities.  Cyberspace can not only provide solid, trusting communities, but ones which are not constrained by geography.”

I will be arguing against this proposition.

Four arguments against the proposition:

1.) Cyber-communities are hard to trust, if trust can be placed in them at all.  People on the internet are not who they are in real life.  Some one who is typically shy could be DragonBlade875 on youtube who gets in a heated fight over who is at fault in the video “AC TRANSIT BUS FIGHT I AM A MOTHERFUCKER.”  The even worse scenario is that some one you meet online is some sort of predator.  The bottom line is that know matter what you think, you just don’t know who it is you’re talking to when your online unless you have met them in person.

2.)Cyber-communities lack regulation and in that way are also dangerous.  For example, Second Life is some peoples major source of income.  If one was so inclined it would be easy to break buildings, vandalize, etc.  Someone  that owns a virtual store in Second Life could lose a significant amount of their income if something happened to their store.  However, unlike the real world where someone would be subject to punishment due to the law, the lack of regulations could mean that such a crime could go unpunished.

3.)”One study at UCLA indicated that up to 93 percent of communication effectiveness is determined by nonverbal cues. Another study indicated that the impact of a performance was determined 7 percent by the words used, 38 percent by voice quality, and 55 percent by the nonverbal communication”(about.com).  The thought that when we communicate over the internet we are losing 93% of the message that would have been sent if we were talking is astonishing.  If online communities become more prevalent then we are actually accomplishing the opposite of our goal of “solid, trusting communities.”   In actuality, the community could be growing apart as this supposedly open community is actually suffering problems with communication.

4.)I do not mean to imply that online communities can not be rewarding.  As I said in an earlier blog posts, I feel that the more you put into a virtual community, the more you get out of it.  However, be fore fully immersing yourself in this virtual reality, it is important to note number one, what you are putting your time into, and number two, where this time is coming from.  As I have said above cyber-communities can be filled with dangers due to their lack of regulation and how difficult it is really know who you are talking too and what their motives are.  Also, it is important to remember the opportunity cost of virtual communities. The more time and effort you put into knowing people online, the less time you have to meet people in real life.

Potential Counter-Argument

Online people are not judged on their looks and are able to make meaningful connections without the risk of being judged based on their appearance.  I would respond that for people who are paranoid or extremely self conscious they may find this to be a better alternative than risk being judged, but it is important to remember the cost of such a choice.  Online relationships lack any kind of physical connection and it is this physical connection that cyber-communities greatly underestimate.  There is a reason that people shake hands when they meet each other and hug when they say goodbye.  That reason is the physical connection we all experience but underestimate.  Its like your health.  You truly don’t appreciate it until you are sick.  No matter what people say, we all want to hold hands, hug, or shake hands.  Physical contact is a way we remind ourselves that we are not alone.

The Proposition is as follows…

“The central event of the 20th century is the overthrow of matter. In technology, economics, and the politics of nations, wealth–in the form of physical resources–has been losing value and significance. The powers of mind are everywhere ascendant over the brute force of things.”

—Dyson, Gilder, Keyworth, and Toeffler—

My Opinion:  I will debating that that proposition is FALSE… Here’s why

Number 1

That key phrase that sticks out to me in the above proposition is “technology… in the form of physical resources–has been losing value and significance.”  My response is that technology itself is a physical resource.  Sure, software is becoming better everyday, but software must run on hardware or it is useful to nobody, and hardware I would argue is a physical resource.  It doesn’t matter that you own Windows 7 if you have no computer to run it on.  A virtual world must be created by something.  Technology will always be dependent on physical resources

Number 2

Just as software is dependent on hardware, hardware is dependent on us.  Without people to fix machines, there are no machines

Number 3

The statement “The powers of mind are everywhere ascendant over the brute force of things” is also incorrect.  This statement implies that it is more important to know “things” than have “things.”  This is false.  If we are truly a post-industrial society, then we have become a society focused on service.  But we are only allowed that privilege because we can count on other countries to manufacture our goods.  If we were to no longer trade and continue as a service focused industry then we would all die.  No matter how sophisticated our society becomes, we will always be dependent on the three basic human needs.  Clothing, food, and shelter.

Number 4

As my teammate David so elegantly said, knowing how to play baseball is one thing.  You still need a glove, ball, and bat to play.

Potential Counter-Argument

The age of technology is taking over the world.  Notes can be written, books can be read, and television can be watched all on our computer.  What would have previously taken three or four “things” now only takes “one.”  It is not that the technology age is independent of objects, its that the technology age is more efficient, and in that way more powerful.

Response

I agree. Knowledge makes objects more powerful.  But that is not the question.  The proposition says that “the powers of mind are everywhere ascendant over… things.”  False.  The powers of mind can do no more than enhance.