We live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating. And yet we have sacrificed conversation for mere connection.
Sherry TurkleRead
If people start to buy the idea that machines are great companions for the elderly or for children, as they increasingly seem to do, we are really playing with fire.
Interpretation
The quote warns against the increasing reliance on machines as companions for vulnerable populations, like the elderly and children.
Sherry Turkle's quote highlights the potential dangers of viewing machines as companions for those who may be emotionally and socially vulnerable, such as the elderly and children. It suggests that while technology may offer convenience and connection, it also raises ethical concerns about the implications of replacing human interaction with artificial companionship, potentially leading to emotional neglect and diminishing the value of genuine relationships.
In practice
In a discussion on the role of technology in caregiving at a conference.
We live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating. And yet we have sacrificed conversation for mere connection.
The most used program in computers and education is PowerPoint. What are you learning about the nature of the medium by knowing how do to a great PowerPoint presentation? Nothing. It certainly doesn't teach you how to think critically about living in a culture of simulation.
Technology is seductive when what it offers meets our human vulnerabilities. And as it turns out, we are very vulnerable indeed. We are lonely but fearful of intimacy. Digital connections and the sociable robot may offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship. Our networked life allows us to hide from each other, even as we are tethered to each other. Weβd rather text than talk.
Human relationships are rich and they're messy and they're demanding. And we clean them up with technology. Texting, email, posting, all of these things let us present the self as we want to be. We get to edit, and that means we get to delete, and that means we get to retouch, the face, the voice, the flesh, the body -- not too little, not too much, just right.
The feeling that 'no one is listening to me' make us want to spend time with machines that seem to care about us.
We are inhibited from aggression by the presence of another face, another person. We're aware that we're with a human being. On the Internet, we are disinhibited from taking into full account that we are in the presence of another human being.
There has never been an unexpectedly short debugging period in the history of computers.
I think a lot of great software has been written by people who are scratching a short-term itch, something which has been niggling them for ages, but in the back of their mind theyβve got a wonderful long-term plan.
To be a programmer is to develop a carefully managed relationship with error. There's no getting around it. You either make your accommodations with failure, or the work will become intolerable.
Sooner or later the Internet will become profitable. It's an old story played before by canals, railroads and automobiles.
When you talk to a human in 2035, you'll be talking to someone that's a combination of biological and non-biological intelligence.
Digital warfare, in the Clausewitz definition as 'the continuation of policy by other means,' reached Western public consciousness via my own country, Estonia, in 2007 when our governmental, banking, and news media servers were hit with 'distributed denial-of-service attacks,' which is when hackers overload servers until they shut down.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.