Technology Doesn't Replace the Brain in Your Head!

I find myself really interested in most of the essays from Sound Unbound. Particularly of interest, however, is Bruce Sterling's "The Life and Death of Media.” I think I mostly connected with this essay because my “cutting edge” computer is still running on Windows98 and I have no desire to upgrade. Technology certainly is helpful, but it seems overdone sometimes. Medical technology has made huge advancements I really can't argue against, but some other things seem simply a money-maker. Cell phones, for example. Until very recently when my old Nokia battery quit holding a charge, I was still using the very old Nokia that didn't even have a color screen and I was very disappointed when AT&T told me I would have to upgrade because of the SIM card and some other things I didn't quite understand. My new phone, a Sony is pretty in pink and has a ton of features—but I've never played the games, listened to the walkman, or downloaded a cool ringtone. I think this only really bothers me because our society invests so much time and money into creating and selling the newest technology that I'm afraid we may overlook or sidestep some very important advancements in other areas. Imagine how much progress we might have made in alternative energy sources if there wasn't a new cellphone hitting the market every month (or more). Is this the point of the Dead Media Project? Does Sterling want us to investigate what may be missing from what we have, rather than just replacing it with something new and not necessarily better? The quality of the phone conversation between the Nokia and the Sony sound the same to me, why couldn't I keep my old phone?

Also, technology seems to replace our brains. Where would we be without calculators? Granted, they are incredibly helpful, particularly to the mathematically challenged like myself, but maybe I could balance my checkbook without a calculator if I hadn't been handed one in second grade and became dependent on it. Another example, I was recently riding with my mother and sister to La Plata, MD where my sister lives, a trip all of us have made multiple times, and my mother insisted on using her Garmin. When the Garmin didn't say to exit, even though we all knew what exit to take and were being instructed to drive past it, my mother kept driving until we were far into Virginia and the Garmin began rerouting the directions. An argument quickly ensued, and my sister got the last word when she shouted, “The Garmin doesn't replace the brain in your head, Mom!” How true. The Garmin is helpful—unless you're lost in Pittsburgh and it keeps telling you to turn the wrong way on a one way street—but why do we feel the need to constantly replace what already works? This is why I liked the Dead Media Project. Maybe we should slowdown the technological advancements and work on improving what we have, rather than always creating something new. Maybe we are missing something that could help us in the present because we are too busy looking for something newer and faster. It's a tough call. I cannot and do not want to discredit some of the advancements made in technology, like the unbelievably clear 3D ultrasound I recently had, but at the same time, I cannot get completely on board with always upgrading.

I realize the questions are missing here and this is not exactly on point with Sterling's essay, I just really enjoyed this reading and began thinking of these issues as Sterling discussed the need to investigate dead media. So, in a final attempt to ask a question, what can we learn from examining dead media, and why haven't we been doing more of this?

Why are intellectual property and copyright laws so strict in America? It’s hard for me to even make this claim because I certainly have not studied the laws in other countries, but from my few readings and discussions in other classes, it seems like in America we take these laws way too seriously. I like what Miller says about remixing and all throughout reading, I kept thinking of Lawrence Lessig. He certainly has very similar ideas on copyright laws and I agree with them. It seems as though everything new in literature, music, and other art forms is influenced in one way or another by a previous piece. It’s as though music is much easier to notice the sampling because of the actual sounds. Still, I think a new sound is created and that new sampling or remix does not detract from the original inspiration.

That said, I wonder if anything can still be original. Whether authorial intent plays a role or just the criticism of the audience makes something sampled, there seems to always be a comparison or a harkening back to a previous form. I have yet to read a book, or hear a song or album, that is not likened to something before it, either for its similarities or blatant attempts to be different. Of course, originality seems to have varying meanings then. Some work has to be original. Whether influenced or not, any remix or sampling is original in its own form and has to have properties that separates it from the predecessor, otherwise it is an exact copy. Whether is varies only in the handwriting, there is something different about it that makes it unique.