As people rely more and more on technology to
solve problems, the ability of humans to think for
themselves will surely deteriorate.
The statement linking technology negatively with
free thinking plays on recent human experience
over the past century. Surely there has been no
time in history where the lived lives of people have
changed more dramatically. A quick reflection on
a typical day reveals how technology has
revolutionized the world. Most people commute
to work in an automobile that runs on an internal
combustion engine. During the workday, chances
are high that the employee will interact with
a computer that processes information on silicon
bridges that are .09 microns wide. Upon leaving
home, family members will be reached through
wireless networks that utilize satellites orbiting
the earth. Each of these common occurences
would have been inconceivable at the turn of
the 19th century.
The statement attempts to bridge these dramatic
changes to a reduction in the ability for humans
to think for themselves. The assumption is that
an increased reliance on technology negates
the need for people to think creatively to solve
previous quandaries. Looking back at the
introduction, one could argue that without a car,
computer, or mobile phone, the hypothetical
worker would need to find alternate methods
of transport, information processing, and
communication. Technology short circuits this
thinking by making the problems obsolete.
However, this reliance on technology does not
necessarily preclude the creativity that marks
the human species. The prior examples reveal
that technology allows for convenience. The car,
computer, and phone all release additional time
for people to live more efficiently. This efficiency
does not preclude the need for humans to think
for themselves. In fact, technology frees humanity
to not only tackle new problems, but may itself
create new issues that did not exist without
technology. For example, the proliferation of
automobiles has introduced a need for fuel
conservation on a global scale. With increasing
energy demands from emerging markets, global
warming becomes a concern inconceivable to
the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise
dependence on oil has created nation-states that
are not dependent on taxation, allowing ruling
parties to oppress minority groups such as women.
Solutions to these complex problems require the
unfettered imaginations of maverick scientists and
politicians.
In contrast to the statement, we can even see
how technology frees the human imagination.
Consider how the digital revolution and the advent
of the internet has allowed for an unprecedented
exchange of ideas. WebMD, a popular internet
portal for medical information, permits patients
to self research symptoms for a more informed
doctor visit. This exercise opens pathways of
thinking that were previously closed off to the
medical layman. With increased interdisciplinary
interactions, inspiration can arrive from the most
surprising corners. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the
architects of the UN Millenium Development
Goals, based his ideas on emergency care triage
techniques. The unlikely marriage of economics
and medicine has healed tense, hyperinflation
environments from South America to Eastern
Europe.
This last example provides the most hope in how
technology actually provides hope to the future
of humanity. By increasing our reliance on
technology, impossible goals can now be achieved.
Consider how the late 20th century witnessed the
complete elimination of smallpox. This disease had
ravaged the human race since prehistorical days,
and yet with the technology of vaccines, free
thinking humans dared to imagine a world free
of smallpox. Using technology, battle plans were
drawn out, and smallpox was systematically
targeted and eradicated.
Technology will always mark the human
experience, from the discovery of fire to the
implementation of nanotechnology. Given the
history of the human race, there will be no limit
to the number of problems, both new and old,
for us to tackle. There is no need to retreat to
a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather
embrace a hopeful posture to the possibilities
that technology provides for new avenues of
human imagination.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2017-01-01 | Thanigaivel Raja T | 66 | view |
- “People most respect the powerful not when they exercise their power, but when they refrain from exercising it.” 62
- As people rely more and more on technology tosolve problems, the ability of humans to think forthemselves will surely deteriorate. 66
- The market for the luxury goods industry is on the decline Recent reports show that a higher unemployment rate coupled with consumer fears has decreased the amount of money the average household spends on both essential and nonessential items but especial 53
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes littl 66
- My car broke down yesterday and I need a car to get to work Therefore I should buy a new car 75
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 45, column 33, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Likewise,
...ble to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-s...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, however, if, likewise, look, may, so, for example, in contrast, in fact, such as, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 87.0 58.6224719101 148% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 12.9106741573 240% => Less nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3657.0 2235.4752809 164% => OK
No of words: 627.0 442.535393258 142% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.83253588517 5.05705443957 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.00399520894 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09536221106 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 354.0 215.323595506 164% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564593301435 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 1113.3 704.065955056 158% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 19.0 4.99550561798 380% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 8.0 1.77640449438 450% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 18.0 4.38483146067 411% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 35.0 20.2370786517 173% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.6279459535 60.3974514979 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 104.485714286 118.986275619 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9142857143 23.4991977007 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.17142857143 5.21951772744 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 87.0 4.97078651685 1750% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230432628209 0.243740707755 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0510078530697 0.0831039109588 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0483601690885 0.0758088955206 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0323968401408 0.150359130593 22% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.047881170495 0.0667264976115 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.1392134831 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 48.8420337079 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.24 12.1639044944 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.77 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 210.0 100.480337079 209% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.