Technology seems to progress in leaps and bounds, as discoveries and breakthroughs are made all over the world on an everyday day basis. Some of these are true boons to the world: they cure diseases, create new forms of communication, and speed up transportation to name a few. While some inventions were completely functional after the first production attempt, some breakthroughs build on previous work, making older product models more efficient, effective, durable, or perhaps more compatible with a modern, technologically evolving world. The problem with rapid development lies in the fact that products are often being generated so fast that a certain machine, medicine, or gadget is already a widespread household item before society figures out that it might not really be a good thing after all. We must be able to discern between invention that leads to improvement and invention simply for the sake of invention.
The last category consists of a few, rare products really haven’t undergone or ever required modifications ever since the first batch made the ever-important transition from workbench to store shelves.
A good example of an invention that was designed properly from the very beginning is the aerosol spray can. Developed in 1926 by the Norwegian engineer, Erik Rotheim, the aerosol spray can has remained unchanged since. The concept was fully thought out and engineered before it ever made it to your local supermarket. Admittedly, the contents are now regulated in such a way as to protect the environment, but the container itself is original and, however simple, truly needs no modifications. The can we use today for anything from deodorant, to air freshener, to whipped cream, to insecticides is the same as it has been for over 80 years.
Most inventions, however, have been improved time and time again. A very common, somewhat cliché example is the light bulb. The first practical, long-lasting light bulb was an incandescent bulb invented by Thomas Edison and his team of scientists in 1880. Since then, many improvements have been made. Even Edison himself found ways to make his bulb shine brighter and longer. The 20th century’s contributions to the world of lighting came in the form of fluorescent lamps and LEDs (Light-Emitting Diode). All the technology to create practical fluorescent lamps was in existence by the 1920s, but it was not until 1938 that the “fluorescent lumiline lamps” were produced and marketed. LEDs have numerous advantages. They are highly energy efficient, sometimes using up to 82% to 93% percent less energy. They also come in a variety of colors, and are often used to spice up outdoor architectural lighting. They have a very long life, lasting up to 100,000 hours and are hard to damage, as they have no filament. It can most definitely be said that the world of lighting has evolved very well, raising the bar with each new concept.
The jet airliner is another great result of years of mechanical improvement. Since the years of Orville and Wilbur Wright, airplanes have undeniably come a long way; they are in fact barely recognizable as the evolution of the Wrights’ first biplane in 1903. Compared to that momentous 12-second flight, today's airliners appear unimaginable. One of the newest jet airliners, the Airbus A380, can seat 850 people. It can travel 8000 nautical miles with one 81,890-gallon fuel-up, which works out to 95 miles-per-gallon per person. In the end, it is more fuel-efficient than almost any car, including the Toyota Prius (if it is only occupied by the driver).
It is refreshing to hear about such mechanical accomplishments, but what about those inventions that we could very well do without? Some products have what one might call “side effects.” The product will fulfill its purpose, but it also has some drawbacks. Two examples come quickly to mind: television and cell phones.
Televisions are wonderful pieces of technology. Who would imagine that one day a person could do be in one part of the world and be seen in real time on millions of screens all across the world? The potential for spreading news and offering entertainment in a compelling, visual format is unimaginably vast. Sadly, smut now saturates the airwaves, with shows like “The Jerry Springer Show” or “The Howard Stern Show” polluting the minds of viewers. Mind-numbingly dull and repetitive shows like “Grey’s Anatomy” and “90210” fill dead space, luring unsuspecting viewers onto a couch where they will stay sprawled for hours, accumulating body fat by the minute. If there was a single factor in the American lifestyle that were to be chosen as the most significant cause of being overweight, there is virtually no doubt that it would be television. TV will be the final coup de grâce for American fitness, intellect, and morality; the evils of television cannot be counted.
Cell phones, like television, are a great concept. People can talk to anyone from (almost) anywhere; they can even send text, picture, or video messages. If someone is in an emergency and he or she has a cell phone, help is just a call away. The problem lies not in the devices themselves, but in the manner in which people use them. Cell phones are a social curse: people interrupt conversations with people standing right next to them to answer a text message. They might be surrounded by a crowd of friends, but it’s always the one person that isn’t present with whom they wish to speak. It is impolite and quite frankly demeaning to have a leisurely, social conversation on a cell phone when you have someone waiting right beside you that you could be speaking with instead.
As a consumer, consider what you help sponsor before you buy a new item. Does it have potential “side-effects?” Is it truly beneficial to you, your family, or society in general? Could you do without it and not really notice it’s absence? These are all great questions to consider. Invest in things that improve the world around you, not in items that simply keep you entertained. Be smart.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Your essay topic was a great idea. I would have never thought of that topic. I enjoyed all of the examples that you talked about, but maybe some of them are highly overused, like the cell phone example. You could possibly change that to the example the substance they used during WW II, agent orange. They used this to destroy rice crops in Japan, but unfortunately we found out that it caused cancer because of the dioxin in it. I think that would be and interesting invention to talk about that didn't work out for the world. Also, good job on your research on the aerosol can. I never even stopped to think how long that can has been around. Erik Rotheim must have been a genius to have thought of such an invention way back in the year 1926. Sometimes it makes me wonder why it takes us so long to invent new things. I know the people back in bible days didn't have the research materials that we did, but weren't they curious? Why did it take us so long to make the computer or the cell phone? That question bugs me sometimes. You did a lot of research on the jet airliner section and it was really amazing to me how fuel efficient airplanes are. Lastly, I liked your idea about television being invented but now its a bad thing. Why did they invent television in the first place and who had a television set when they first came out. I think it was the rich people who sat in front of the t.v. all day being entertained. My preacher would always tell the story of how his mother would make him turn off the television because those 'showgirls' were on. So in a way I think that television has always been filled with rotten, worthless shows for American's entertainment purposes. I heard somewhere that since the computer came out, people report spending much more of their time on the computer than in front of the television set. Other than that, I loved you're essay, it seems that you did a lot of research and it drew my attention to inventions that I hadn't thought about before.
I too enjoyed your essay. I do tend too agree with Brianna about using the cell phone as an example. the TV and the cell phone are the obvious choices. T.V. is rotting our brains as you have pointed out. you might include that our generation is not nearly as cleveror as knowledgeable about history as the older generations. I believe this is because they were taught how to live by making the right decisions not by seeing others making meaningless decisions on a television set. We are not able to make original decisions. You hit the nail on the head when you spoke of people rejecting physical human contact for cyber talk, although i would pick a different invention to talk abut here because people already know that using cell phones excessively is bad. I am very impressed with the amount of research that went into your essay, although i tend to think that so many statistics and research seem to make the essay slightly dry and very boring. This topic is interesting but i am not sure where you stand on new inventions as Mr. Segars has asked us to take a side and give our essay with some bias.
I think your introduction paragraph does a good job of hooking the reader and making a statement. It goes against the grain of thinking that all inventions are beneficial, when indeed they aren't. So that catches people off guard, and they would probably like to hear your logic and some examples of these inventions. So in an essence, you are hitting people with a brick. As far as the thesis goes, if it was the last line of the first paragraph, it wasn't very clear. If it was the second to last line, it makes sense, and states a purpose. I feel like the last line of the first paragraph was out of place.
Andrew. I'm not sure where your thesis sentence is. It may be ,"While some inventions were completely functional after the fist production attempt some breakthroughs build on previous work, making older product models more efficient, effective, durable, or perhaps more compatible with a modern, technologically evolving world." This is a long sentence. Maybe the thesis could stand out a little more and make more of a boom. Obviously I've read your essay already and I thought it did a really good job of stating the three points you had made in your opening paragraph.
I think all of your body paragraphs have unity and coherence. I do not see a problem with any of them. Your introduction paragraph was a little hard to decipher. It did not really go along with your body paragraphs. You might see if you can make it clearer.
You're concluding paragraph did a wonderful job on ending your essay. You restated all of the main points and you did not make the paragraph too long nor too short, which sometimes happens.
Your last paragraph really didn't conclude your whole essay. To me there wasn't a summary of what you talked about during the essay. Your conclusion was more of you giving advice rather then explaining about how invetions leads to improvement and invention of simply for the sake of invention. I think you have something going for you when you said, "Invest in things that improve the world around you, not in items that simply keep you entertained". Thats where you can come in a say which things you talked about are just for the sake of being entertained... But you do have an interesting topic.
Post a Comment