The Importance Of Technology On Individuality

Susan Greenfield is neuroscientist and does daily research at Oxford University. Greenfield believes technology is changing the way we think and our identities, and it’s not for the best. Three hundred years ago, our notions of human identity were vastly simpler: we were defined by the family we were born into and our position within that family. Social advancement was nigh on impossible and the concept of "individuality" took a back seat (Greenfield, 2008). The Industrial Revolution was the beginning of what shaped people by their own thoughts and actions (Greenfield, 2008). For the first time, individuals had a real sense of self. Now with our brains under such widespread attack from the modern world, there 's a danger that that cherished

If you take a look at peoples behavior today and many years ago when such technology didn’t exist you can clearly see the difference between individuals. For example just take a look at peoples attention spans, which are by far shorter, personal communication skills, are reduced and there are mass reduction in the ability to think abstractly (Greenfield, 2008). There is also a huge amount of personal information now stored on the internet - births, marriages, credit ratings, telephone numbers, and it 's sometimes difficult to know where the boundaries of our individuality actually lie (Greenfield, 2008). Only one thing is certain: those boundaries are weakening (Greenfield, 2008). Technology and pharmaceutical companies are finding ever more ways to have a direct influence on the human brain; pleasure is becoming the sole be-all and end-all of many lives, especially among the young (Greenfield, 2008). This is due can be due to all the violent games on the market as well as

A logical fallacy found in this article is “newer technology could reshape how we interact with each other, alter what makes us happy, and modify our capacity for reaching our full potential as individuals (Greenfield, 2008)”. This can be seen as a slippery slope fallacy because it assumes just because technology will reshape us that it will change what makes us happy and affect us negatively. Another logical fallacy found in this article is a “And nor do I believe that we can somehow be made much happier - not, at least, without somehow anaesthetising ourselves against the sadness and misery that is part and parcel of the human condition” (Greenfield, 2008)”. This is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy because it is making us fear the possibility of less happiness although we don’t know the