I thought this was a very interesting issue to approach with feedback/commentary, because none of our class members know what it's like to be blind. Therefore, it is very difficult to give any definitive or conclusive feedback.
I'm not sure any of our authors would really object to this technology, despite the fact that it does replace a human body part, because it replaces a non-functioning human body part. If the eye were originally functioning, then I think that Turkle might have a problem with this technology. However, that doesn't apply here.
As far as whether or not this technology is cool, I think that it is, though I think this because it is a step in the right direction. For those who are blind, it might be difficult to be patient and wait for future development of this technology, but as of right now, it is rather easy for me to say that I would not make use of the technology immediately, due to its weak functioning.
That is to say that I would not use this iteration of the bionic eye, but I do think it is a very cool technology and a step in the right direction for helping blind people see again.
Like Hayley mentioned on the post about the Rewalk, there are definitely a lot of parallels between Argus II and the Rewalk. I feel like this is mainly because both give people the ability to do something that is usually taken for granted. If a person used this device to the point where they were completely dependent on it, there life would not be so different from the average person. I feel like when authors like Rosen were writing about the negative aspects of dependence on technology, it was directed towards different situations, like people obsessively checking their Facebook or someone who couldn’t “survive” without their phone near them all of the time. I don’t think the ability to see really falls into the same category. This is an milestone in technology, and this only the start for advancements like this. It is really hard to think of any negative aspects of it because it does something so great. I know its very expensive and the vision it grants is not perfect. It's like its Christmas and your parents got you a puppy, but they didn't get you the other thing you asked for. That Christmas will always be the one when you got your dog, not the one when you didn't get what you wanted. In other words the positives greatly outweigh the negatives.
Like Amy, I agree that this technology is one that is only to be praised. There are some cons as in the cost and the fact that the Argus II doesn't grant full vision, but they are so minimal compared to the positive aspects of the Argus II. More than anything, the implications of this technology are absolutely amazing. The development of the Argus II is one giant step in the direction of complete visual repair. I understand that Rosen most often finds that technology creates dependence, but if we look at the purpose of the Argus II, it's use creates dependence because of the absence of a use of the brain that should already be present. For this reason, I believe Rosen would argue in favor of this technology. The dependence would not inhibit the user of any skill, but instead enable him or her to experience a sense that most of us use daily without thought or appreciation.
I thought this was a very interesting issue to approach with feedback/commentary, because none of our class members know what it's like to be blind. Therefore, it is very difficult to give any definitive or conclusive feedback.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure any of our authors would really object to this technology, despite the fact that it does replace a human body part, because it replaces a non-functioning human body part. If the eye were originally functioning, then I think that Turkle might have a problem with this technology. However, that doesn't apply here.
As far as whether or not this technology is cool, I think that it is, though I think this because it is a step in the right direction. For those who are blind, it might be difficult to be patient and wait for future development of this technology, but as of right now, it is rather easy for me to say that I would not make use of the technology immediately, due to its weak functioning.
That is to say that I would not use this iteration of the bionic eye, but I do think it is a very cool technology and a step in the right direction for helping blind people see again.
Like Hayley mentioned on the post about the Rewalk, there are definitely a lot of parallels between Argus II and the Rewalk. I feel like this is mainly because both give people the ability to do something that is usually taken for granted. If a person used this device to the point where they were completely dependent on it, there life would not be so different from the average person. I feel like when authors like Rosen were writing about the negative aspects of dependence on technology, it was directed towards different situations, like people obsessively checking their Facebook or someone who couldn’t “survive” without their phone near them all of the time. I don’t think the ability to see really falls into the same category. This is an milestone in technology, and this only the start for advancements like this. It is really hard to think of any negative aspects of it because it does something so great. I know its very expensive and the vision it grants is not perfect. It's like its Christmas and your parents got you a puppy, but they didn't get you the other thing you asked for. That Christmas will always be the one when you got your dog, not the one when you didn't get what you wanted. In other words the positives greatly outweigh the negatives.
ReplyDeleteLike Amy, I agree that this technology is one that is only to be praised. There are some cons as in the cost and the fact that the Argus II doesn't grant full vision, but they are so minimal compared to the positive aspects of the Argus II. More than anything, the implications of this technology are absolutely amazing. The development of the Argus II is one giant step in the direction of complete visual repair. I understand that Rosen most often finds that technology creates dependence, but if we look at the purpose of the Argus II, it's use creates dependence because of the absence of a use of the brain that should already be present. For this reason, I believe Rosen would argue in favor of this technology. The dependence would not inhibit the user of any skill, but instead enable him or her to experience a sense that most of us use daily without thought or appreciation.
ReplyDelete