technology is bad for society essay

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Technology pros and cons: is technology good or bad for society?

Find out what are the main the pros and cons of technology. We discuss the history, importance and role of technology, as well as its impact on society. Is technological progress good or is it becoming a threat to us? Vote in our poll and debate (see below)

Is technology good for society? A brief history

The impact of technology on society is undeniable. Technology and science have played a central role in human history and help shape entire civilizations. Technological progress was key for the emergence and downfall of empires. The development of hunting and farming tools allowed our ancestors to dominate other hominid species. The invention of the wheel and writing, as well as the introduction of metal tools and weapons were other landmarks in the history of technology . Many successive civilizations have contributed to the world's advancement. Often the development of technology also helped these societies to dominate militarily , politically, and economically their neighbors, as well as increase the welfare of their citizens.

The Egyptians invented many farming, medical and construction technologies. The Mesopotamians are credited for introducing irrigation and drainage systems, as well as sophisticated mud-brick and stone architecture techniques. Greeks were responsible for many inventions, such as the watermill, and the improvement on many existing technologies. Still today Greek mathematicians, engeneers and philosophers are recognised as fundamental to the history of human thought and technology. The Romans brought technology to a new level, and their monumental amphitheatres, aqueducts, bridges, harbours, dams and public baths help them dominate the Western world for centuries. Ancient Indian civilizations are credited for developing good understanding of seafaring, sanitation and hydrological technologies.  Chinese discoveries include paper, matches, the cross-bow, seismological detectors, the wheelbarrow, the suspension bridge and the compass, among others. 

During the Middle Ages architecture, navigation, papermaking and military technologies were developed. The Arab conquest of the Iberian Peninsula helped to introduce Europe to many technological advances developed in the east. The Renaissance and the Age of Explorations also demonstrated how innovation shaped societies. Research and inventions were put into practice. The use of artillery, new cranes and medical techniques marked a beginning of a scientific revolution. The Portuguese and Spanish discoveries, were enabled by technological progress but also help connecting different civilization which accelerated the spread of innovation. The industrial revolution brought the steam engine and developments in mining, metalurgy, manufacturing and transport. Since the 19th century, science and technology have evolved even faster. The 20th century brought the expansion of electrification and communication technologies, mass industrial production, electronic computing, nuclear technology and space exploration among others. It also demonstrated the devastating power of some of the technologies developed by humans. The weapons developed during that century, including the weapons of mass destruction, caused the deaths of millions.

The 21st century seems to have accelerated even faster these processes and intensified the impact of technology on society. Technology colleges such as MIT and Stanford have help accelerate scientific discovery. Genetic engineering, nanotechnology, 3D printing, wireless powered devices, augmented reality, articifical intelligence, drones , quantum computers and superconductivity are among the many new technologies we are witnessing today. But what come next? Can technology continue to help our lives or is it becoming a real threat to us? Can we keep scientific progress under control or will technology control our lives? Let's discuss the advantages and disadvantages or technology.

Pros and cons of technology

Pros of technological progress

• Thanks to technological progress humans live longer and much more comfortable lives. The medical advancements have helped us develop vaccines and treatment for diseases which were previously lethal. Giving birth is not as dangerous as it used to be. Technological progress has allowed develop new techniques for diagnosis and mitigation of diseases and other conditions. Scientific research has improved our understanding of nutrition and contributed to healthier lifestyles. 
• Technology has allowed humans to travel faster and trade goods all over the world. Crossing the Atlantic was historically an adventure that would take weeks. Now in just a few hours you can travel from New York to London or Paris . Thanks to technology we can have holidays in remote locations and capture these moments through pictures. We can now buy and consume goods produced far away. In the same supermarket you can find French cheeses, South African wines, Spanish olive oils, Brazilian coffees, and Japanese fish. 
• Without technology we would still be nomads hunting and gathering fruits and vegetables.  Industrial societies heavily rely on technological progress. We can feed a fast growing world population thanks to the continuous innovation in production techniques. New inventions help foster the production, storage, treatment and transportation of goods. Societies which invest in research and development have a competitive edge and thrive. The people in technologically advanced societies live more comfortable lives. 
• Genetically modified foods  (GMO) may help fight hunger and ensure that world population continues to be fed. Genetic modification techniques contribute to produce more food and to maintain agricultural production at affordable prices. 
• The Internet, computers and mobile phones illustrate the role of technology in improving society. Efficiency has skyrocketed thanks to these inventions. Our work and social lives have been transformed. People can now work from home and collaborate with teams located in other towns, countries or even continents. We can keep a fluid communication and relationship with friends and family living abroad. News of events cross the globe in seconds. Social netwoks such as facebook and twitter are extremely useful. Thanks to technology grandparents get to see and chat with their grandchildren much more often. People today get to meet others sharing similar hobbies or interests.
• Thanks to new technologies, alternative forms of entertainment and art have developed during the last century. Photography, radio, movies, television shows, music and video games occupy a central spot in people's lives. There are new forms of entertainment at our doorstep, such as virtual reality . Additionally, IT is facilitating the work of creators and help increase the quality of entertainment.
• The importance of technology in the delopment of renewable energies  is evident. Without technological progress it would be difficult to envisage a green future in which the problem of climate change could be kept under control. Scientific advancements are making electric cars more affordable and enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of solar and eolic energy, as well as that hydropower .

Cons and risks of technology

• Technology is altering our lifestyle and will alter the cognitive and social development of current and future generations. There are many different ways in which the evolution of technology and society are connected. Technological innovation has changed our lives. Computers , smartphones and the internet have strongly affected how we interact with other people. Many claim that they are dehumanizing our lives and making us more solitary people. Technology may be also facilitating cultural colonialism and reducing diversity. Today, children play less with other children and spend much of their time watching videos in their tablets and playing video games. People are doing less physical exercise than their ancestors. We are becoming increasingly detached from nature and attached to technological gadgets. 
• Human cloning technology is a reality and in addition to some obvious advantages, human cloning brings some risks. For instance it could create worrisome divides in society between those genetically divided to be smarter or physically more attractive and the rest. Human cloning will be difficult to regulate and will bring concerns regarding its interference with nature and religious beliefs. 
• Weaponization of viruses . For instance, viruses such as Ebola or AIDS could be transformed into a virus that could be transmitted through the air. This could endanger or even cause the extinction of the the human race . Lifeforms can be created through genetic manipulation. With techonological progress the techniques to create or manipulate lifeforms will be increasingly accessible to us. Potentially even high school children will be able to create life in science experiments. Genomes of infectious diseases will be available to download from the internet. Terrorists, psychopaths and other criminals will have the capacity to use genetic manipulation to harm or threaten others. 
• Similarly, scientific experimentation might create enormous dangers for society. Risky experiments may go wrong . Researchers are currently mutating microorganism in order to find cures to diseases. By accident these diseases could escape the laboratory and spread. Experiments with particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider , entail some serious risks. Some scientists even claimed that humans could create a black hole that could destroy Earth. 
• Enrichment of uranium is becoming an increasingly cheaper process. Traditionally the infrastructure required to produce nuclear power  and build nuclear bombs was extremely expensive. Thanks to technological progress and the use of laser beams to separate U-235 and U-238, in the not so distant future, people might be able to enrich uranium home. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the wrong organizations or individuals could create enormous unrest in the world population and a serious security threat. 
• Technological progress is to be blamed for the negative effects of global warming and climate change . The role of technology fostering economic progress is difficult to deny. However, at the same time the generation of enegy necessary to the increased production and transportation of goods, for instance through combustion engines and thermoelectric generators, has produced an increased in the emission and concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
• Technology can be also used as an undesirable tool of control . For instance, scientists are working to develop brain scanning machines which could allow read a person's thoughts. This would have great benefits as could allow people with disabilities or people having suffered brain damage to communicate. Moreover if through a magnetic resoncance we could enquire criminals and terrorist we could also prevent harm for society. Similarly, thanks to advanced IT, it is possible to analyse the communications of millions of people and identify potential crimes and wrongdoers. Unfortunately, there is a very real possibility that technology will end up used by some governments in a draconian way. A dystopian future where people are constantly inquisitorially surveilled by a Big Brother as in Orwell's science fiction classic 1984.

What do you think, is technology good or bad? Is technological progress out of control? Will the rest of the 21st century see the importance of technology reduced?

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

9 subtle ways technology is making humanity worse

• For many of us fully immersed in the digital age , it's hard to imagine a world before the advent of the internet, cloud storage, and smartphones.  
• Experts have found that in addition to making our lives more convenient, but there's a negative side to technology — it can be addicting and it can hurt our communication skills.
• Extended screen time can result in health ramifications like insomnia, eyestrain, and increased anxiety and depression. 
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Technology has become so ingrained in society — and our daily lives — that it's hard to remember what the world was like before it.  

Can you imagine doing your job without the help of technology of any kind? What about communicating? Or traveling? Or entertaining yourself?

Read more: 5 major differences between the lives of millennials and baby boomers

While we owe a debt of gratitude to the brilliant minds who have gifted us such innovations, it would be shortsighted to consider technology as solely a boon to humanity. Often, it can be a bane, having both seen and unseen effects of innumerable kinds on individuals, groups, and mankind as a whole.

Here are nine ways technology has made humanity worse.

Using mobile devices and computers is bad for our posture

Smartphone slouch. Desk slump. Text neck. Whatever you call it, the way we hold ourselves when we use devices like phones, computers, and tablets isn't healthy.

This poor posture can lead not only to back and neck issues but psychological ones as well, including lower self-esteem and mood, decreased assertiveness and productivity, and an increased tendency to recall negative things, according to a column in The New York Times .

"Your physical posture sculpts your psychological posture, and could be the key to a happier mood and greater self-confidence," Harvard Business School professor Amy Cuddy wrote in the column.

Your eyesight can also suffer from too much device usage

Overusing digital devices can lead to issues with eyesight.

Intense device usage can exhaust your eyes and cause eye strain, according to the Mayo Clinic , and can lead to symptoms such as headaches, difficulty concentrating, and watery, dry, itchy, burning, sore, or tired eyes. Overuse can also cause blurred or double vision and increased sensitivity to light.

"The American Optometric Association calls this computer vision syndrome, or digital eye strain," according to the Mayo Clinic . "People who look at screens two or more hours in a row every day have the greatest risk of this condition."

Insomnia can be another side effect of digital devices

Using your devices too much before bedtime can lead to insomnia.

That's because of the short-wavelength, artificial blue light that digital devices emit, which delays your body's internal clock and circadian rhythm, and suppress the release of melatonin, the sleep-inducing hormone, according to the National Sleep Foundation .

"The more electronic devices that a person uses in the evening, the harder it is to fall asleep or stay asleep," according to the foundation. "Besides increasing your alertness at a time when you should be getting sleepy, which in turn delays your bedtime, using these devices before turning in delays the onset of REM sleep, reduces the total amount of REM sleep, and compromises alertness the next morning. Over time, these effects can add up to a significant, chronic deficiency in sleep."

Technology is addictive

Using tech devices is addictive, and it's becoming more and more difficult to disengage with their technology.

In fact, the average US adult spends more than 11 hours daily in the digital world, psychologist Doreen Dodgen-Magee wrote in a column for The Washington Post . She argued that tech addiction should be classified as a diagnosable addiction.

"If Americans were interacting with anything else for 11-plus hours a day, I feel confident we'd be talking more about how that interaction shapes us," she wrote.

And technology is leading us to sedentary lifestyles

When we use devices for hours on end, it's often paired with extended periods of sitting, whether at desks, on couches, or in bed.

A sedentary lifestyle leads to an increased risk of many conditions and diseases, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, colon cancer, and obesity, according to the World Health Organization .

"According to WHO, 60% to 85% of people in the world — from both developed and developing countries — lead sedentary lifestyles, making it one of the more serious yet insufficiently addressed public health problems of our time," the organization noted.

Social media and screen time can be bad for mental health

It's not only physical health that suffers from the effects of technology — our mental health does, too.

According to a national survey by the University of Pittsburgh Center for Research on Media, Technology and Health , young adults who use seven to 11 social media platforms had more than three times the risk of depression and anxiety than those who use two or fewer platforms.

"This association is strong enough that clinicians could consider asking their patients with depression and anxiety about multiple platform use and counseling them that this use may be related to their symptoms," said Brian A. Primack, director of the research center.

Relationships can be harmed by too much tech use

Technology can have a negative impact on relationships, particularly when it affects how we communicate.

One of the primary issues is that misunderstandings are much more likely to occur when communicating via text or email, physician Alex Lickerman wrote in an article for Psychology Today .

"Non-verbal communication, after all, (argued by some to represent up to 40% of our in-person communication) is completely absent. Be careful how you word every electronic message you send, in whatever context," he said.

Young people are losing the ability to interact face-to-face

Another social skill that technology is helping to erode is young people's ability to read body language and nuance in face-to-face encounters.

This is due to the fact that so much of their communication is done not in-person but online, wrote Mark Bauerlein, a professor of English at Emory University and author of "The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future," in an article for The Wall Street Journal .

"We live in a culture where young people — outfitted with iPhone and laptop and devoting hours every evening from age 10 onward to messaging of one kind and another — are ever less likely to develop the 'silent fluency' that comes from face-to-face interaction," he wrote.

Instant access to information makes us less self-sufficient

These days, we have a world of information at our fingertips via the internet. 

While this is useful, it does have some drawbacks. Entrepreneur Beth Haggerty said she finds that it "limits pure creative thought, at times, because we are developing habits to Google everything to quickly find an answer."

The long-term ramifications of humanity becoming wholly dependent on search bars and web browsers for information remain to be seen, but Matt Wallaert , a former behavioral scientist at Bing, told TechRadar he has reservations about the prospect.

"When you search for 'when was George Harrison born,' does that prevent us from looking into our brain and realizing the answer?" Wallaert said. "When we scratch out that act, does it deprive us of that small burst of pleasure?"

• 9 predictions from old sci-fi movies that actually came true
• 11 of the coolest Easter eggs you can find in cars today
• I'm a social media addict — here's what happened when I quit Instagram and Facebook for a week
• 6 of the most valuable vintage tech products available for purchase today

• Main content

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Listen to the essay, as read by Antero Garcia, associate professor in the Graduate School of Education.

As a professor of education and a former public school teacher, I’ve seen digital tools change lives in schools.

I’ve documented the ways mobile technology like phones can transform student engagement in my own classroom.

I’ve explored how digital tools might network powerful civic learning and dialogue for classrooms across the country – elements of education that are crucial for sustaining our democracy today.

And, like everyone, I’ve witnessed digital technologies make schooling safer in the midst of a global pandemic. Zoom and Google Classroom, for instance, allowed many students to attend classrooms virtually during a period when it was not feasible to meet in person.

So I want to tell you that I think technologies are changing education for the better and that we need to invest more in them – but I just can’t.

Given the substantial amount of scholarly time I’ve invested in documenting the life-changing possibilities of digital technologies, it gives me no pleasure to suggest that these tools might be slowly poisoning us. Despite their purported and transformational value, I’ve been wondering if our investment in educational technology might in fact be making our schools worse.

Let me explain.

When I was a classroom teacher, I loved relying on the latest tools to create impressive and immersive experiences for my students. We would utilize technology to create class films, produce social media profiles for the Janie Crawfords, the Holden Caulfields, and other literary characters we studied, and find playful ways to digitally share our understanding of the ideas we studied in our classrooms.

As a teacher, technology was a way to build on students’ interests in pop culture and the world around them. This was exciting to me.

But I’ve continued to understand that the aspects of technology I loved weren’t actually about technology at all – they were about creating authentic learning experiences with young people. At the heart of these digital explorations were my relationships with students and the trust we built together.

“Part of why I’ve grown so skeptical about this current digital revolution is because of how these tools reshape students’ bodies and their relation to the world around them.”

I do see promise in the suite of digital tools that are available in classrooms today. But my research focus on platforms – digital spaces like Amazon, Netflix, and Google that reshape how users interact in online environments – suggests that when we focus on the trees of individual tools, we ignore the larger forest of social and cognitive challenges.

Most people encounter platforms every day in their online social lives. From the few online retail stores where we buy groceries to the small handful of sites that stream our favorite shows and media content, platforms have narrowed how we use the internet today to a small collection of Silicon Valley behemoths. Our social media activities, too, are limited to one or two sites where we check on the updates, photos, and looped videos of friends and loved ones.

These platforms restrict our online and offline lives to a relatively small number of companies and spaces – we communicate with a finite set of tools and consume a set of media that is often algorithmically suggested. This centralization of internet – a trend decades in the making – makes me very uneasy.

From willfully hiding the negative effects of social media use for vulnerable populations to creating tools that reinforce racial bias, today’s platforms are causing harm and sowing disinformation for young people and adults alike. The deluge of difficult ethical and pedagogical questions around these tools are not being broached in any meaningful way in schools – even adults aren’t sure how to manage their online lives.

You might ask, “What does this have to do with education?” Platforms are also a large part of how modern schools operate. From classroom management software to attendance tracking to the online tools that allowed students to meet safely during the pandemic, platforms guide nearly every student interaction in schools today. But districts are utilizing these tools without considering the wider spectrum of changes that they have incurred alongside them.

Antero Garcia, associate professor of education (Image credit: Courtesy Antero Garcia)

For example, it might seem helpful for a school to use a management tool like Classroom Dojo (a digital platform that can offer parents ways to interact with and receive updates from their family’s teacher) or software that tracks student reading and development like Accelerated Reader for day-to-day needs. However, these tools limit what assessment looks like and penalize students based on flawed interpretations of learning.

Another problem with platforms is that they, by necessity, amass large swaths of data. Myriad forms of educational technology exist – from virtual reality headsets to e-readers to the small sensors on student ID cards that can track when students enter schools. And all of this student data is being funneled out of schools and into the virtual black boxes of company databases.

Part of why I’ve grown so skeptical about this current digital revolution is because of how these tools reshape students’ bodies and their relation to the world around them. Young people are not viewed as complete human beings but as boxes checked for attendance, for meeting academic progress metrics, or for confirming their location within a school building. Nearly every action that students perform in schools – whether it’s logging onto devices, accessing buildings, or sharing content through their private online lives – is noticed and recorded. Children in schools have become disembodied from their minds and their hearts. Thus, one of the greatest and implicit lessons that kids learn in schools today is that they must sacrifice their privacy in order to participate in conventional, civic society.

The pandemic has only made the situation worse. At its beginnings, some schools relied on software to track students’ eye movements, ostensibly ensuring that kids were paying attention to the tasks at hand. Similarly, many schools required students to keep their cameras on during class time for similar purposes. These might be seen as in the best interests of students and their academic growth, but such practices are part of a larger (and usually more invisible) process of normalizing surveillance in the lives of youth today.

I am not suggesting that we completely reject all of the tools at our disposal – but I am urging for more caution. Even the seemingly benign resources we might use in our classrooms today come with tradeoffs. Every Wi-Fi-connected, “smart” device utilized in schools is an investment in time, money, and expertise in technology over teachers and the teaching profession.

Our focus on fixing or saving schools via digital tools assumes that the benefits and convenience that these invisible platforms offer are worth it.

But my ongoing exploration of how platforms reduce students to quantifiable data suggests that we are removing the innovation and imagination of students and teachers in the process.

Antero Garcia is associate professor of education in the Graduate School of Education .

In Their Own Words is a collaboration between the Stanford Public Humanities Initiative  and Stanford University Communications.

If you’re a Stanford faculty member (in any discipline or school) who is interested in writing an essay for this series, please reach out to Natalie Jabbar at [email protected] .

4 Arguments Against Technology

by Kevin Kelly

I believe we have a moral obligation to increase the power and presence of technology in the world, but not everyone believes that — to put it mildly. Many believe the opposite: that we have a moral obligation to reduce the power and presence of technology. I want to fully understand those arguments so I am collecting them in order to confront them as well as I can. I am interested in valid reasons to diminish technology, but also in mythical reasons as well. Things people believe about the technium which may not be true, but motivate them. Here is my first cut. Please comment on alternative reasons I missed.

Partner Center

• Essay Samples
• College Essay
• Writing Tools
• Writing guide

↑ Return to College Essay

Essay about technology advantages and disadvantages – Analytical Essay

Introduction

Technology is now a big part of our society and our foreseeable future. There is little room for people that wish to live without technology, and luckily, it is still advancing at a rate that has helped stave off stagnation. Here I analyze the advantages and disadvantages of technology

Thesis statement

I believe that for every advantage that technology brings us, it also brings us a disadvantage at the same time.

Analysis of cars on our roads

Cars and other vehicles are now readily available and are technologically advanced enough to be safe for use every day and to work as a reliable tool for getting people and goods from one place to another in a relatively short space of time.

The advantages of cars are that they are safe and that people can get to very specific places as per their own timeline. People do not have to rely on trains or planes in order to get to where they want to go, and they can set off at their own time and arrive when they wish without having to work around a train or plane schedule.

The disadvantage is that all forms of vehicle on our roads are polluting the atmosphere and are slowly killing the earth by adding to greenhouse gasses that do not allow the sun’s heat to escape. Even electric cars are powered by electricity generated by fossil fuels. Car accidents are also a very big killer worldwide and many lives have been lost because of car accidents/incidents.

Analysis of Smartphones

They allow people to stay in touch, even over long distances, and they are relatively safe and reliable to use. There are devices that can communicate with plus at the other end of the planet and getting and keeping in touch with other people is very easy.

The disadvantages to this is that it means people no longer need to meet in person as much, and interpersonal relationships are suffering worldwide because people are communicating through a small handheld device. Lots of people have Smartphones and they use them almost semi-continuously, including in public settings when they could be making new friends, finding new lovers, and talking/interacting with their current friends. Analysis – Fast and efficient Internet access

The advantages are that people can communicate over vast distances and can gain access to information and answers to their questions very quickly. The disadvantage is that the Internet isn’t moderated in the way that people think and a lot of it is filled with misinformation and outright lies.

Even brand-named websites that have a lot of trust are not accountable for what appears on their own websites. Even respected and branded news sites have stories that have passed through many people’s hands and originally started as lies with zero accountability throughout the dissemination process. For example, that is why so many celebrities have been reported as dead on news sites when they were actually alive. Conclusion

My analysis proves that technology is a good thing, and that is has its advantages, but that with each technological element we gain disadvantages as well as advantages, and many times those disadvantages are overlooked by technology users.

Follow Us on Social Media

Get more free essays

Send via email

Most useful resources for students:.

• Free Essays Download
• Writing Tools List
• Proofreading Services
• Universities Rating

Contributors Bio

Find more useful services for students

Free plagiarism check, professional editing, online tutoring, free grammar check.

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

How Smartphones Are Killing Conversation

What happens when we become too dependent on our mobile phones? According to MIT sociologist Sherry Turkle, author of the new book Reclaiming Conversation , we lose our ability to have deeper, more spontaneous conversations with others, changing the nature of our social interactions in alarming ways.

Turkle has spent the last 20 years studying the impacts of technology on how we behave alone and in groups. Though initially excited by technology’s potential to transform society for the better, she has become increasingly worried about how new technologies, cell phones in particular, are eroding the social fabric of our communities.

In her previous book, the bestselling Alone Together , she articulated her fears that technology was making us feel more and more isolated, even as it promised to make us more connected. Since that book came out in 2012, technology has become even more ubiquitous and entwined with our modern existence. Reclaiming Conversation is Turkle’s call to take a closer look at the social effects of cell phones and to re-sanctify the role of conversation in our everyday lives in order to preserve our capacity for empathy , introspection, creativity, and intimacy.

I interviewed Turkle by phone to talk about her book and some of the questions it raises. Here is an edited version of our conversation.

Jill Suttie: Your new book warns that cell phones and other portable communication technology are killing the art of conversation. Why did you want to focus on conversation, specifically?

Sherry Turkle: Because conversation is the most human and humanizing thing that we do. It’s where empathy is born, where intimacy is born—because of eye contact, because we can hear the tones of another person’s voice, sense their body movements, sense their presence. It’s where we learn about other people. But, without meaning to, without having made a plan, we’ve actually moved away from conversation in a way that my research was showing is hurting us.

JS: How are cell phones and other technologies hurting us?

ST: Eighty-nine percent of Americans say that during their last social interaction, they took out a phone, and 82 percent said that it deteriorated the conversation they were in. Basically, we’re doing something that we know is hurting our interactions.

I’ll point to a study. If you put a cell phone into a social interaction, it does two things: First, it decreases the quality of what you talk about, because you talk about things where you wouldn’t mind being interrupted, which makes sense, and, secondly, it decreases the empathic connection that people feel toward each other.

So, even something as simple as going to lunch and putting a cell phone on the table decreases the emotional importance of what people are willing to talk about, and it decreases the connection that the two people feel toward one another. If you multiply that by all of the times you have a cell phone on the table when you have coffee with someone or are at breakfast with your child or are talking with your partner about how you’re feeling, we’re doing this to each other 10, 20, 30 times a day.

JS: So, why are humans so vulnerable to the allure of the cell phone, if it’s actually hurting our interactions?

ST: Cell phones make us promises that are like gifts from a benevolent genie—that we will never have to be alone, that we will never be bored, that we can put our attention wherever we want it to be, and that we can multitask, which is perhaps the most seductive of all. That ability to put your attention wherever you want it to be has become the thing people want most in their social interactions—that feeling that you don’t have to commit yourself 100 percent and you can avoid the terror that there will be a moment in an interaction when you’ll be bored.

Actually allowing yourself a moment of boredom is crucial to human interaction and it’s crucial to your brain as well. When you’re bored, your brain isn’t bored at all—it’s replenishing itself, and it needs that down time.

We’re very susceptible to cell phones, and we even get a neurochemical high from the constant stimulation that our phones give us.

I’ve spent the last 20 years studying how compelling technology is, but you know what? We can still change. We can use our phones in ways that are better for our kids, our families, our work, and ourselves. It’s the wrong analogy to say we’re addicted to our technology. It’s not heroin.

JS: One thing that struck me in your book was that many people who you interviewed talked about the benefits of handling conflict or difficult emotional issues online. They said they could be more careful with their responses and help decrease interpersonal tensions. That seems like a good thing. What’s the problem with that idea?

ST: It was a big surprise when I did the research for my book to learn how many people want to dial down fighting or dealing with difficult emotional issues with a partner or with their children by doing it online.

But let’s take the child example. If you do that with your child, if you only deal with them in this controlled way, you are basically playing into your child’s worst fear—that their truth, their rage, their unedited feelings, are something that you can’t handle. And that’s exactly what a parent shouldn’t be saying to a child. Your child doesn’t need to hear that you can’t take and accept and honor the intensity of their feelings.

People need to share their emotions—I feel very strongly about this. I understand why people avoid conflict, but people who use this method end up with children who think that the things they feel aren’t OK. There’s a variant of this, which is interesting, where parents give their children robots to talk to or want their children to talk to Siri, because somehow that will be a safer place to get out their feelings. Again, that’s exactly what your child doesn’t need.

JS: Some studies seem to show that increased social media use actually increases social interaction offline. I wonder how this squares with your thesis?

ST: How I interpret that data is that if you’re a social person, a socially active person, your use of social media becomes part of your social profile. And I think that’s great. My book is not anti-technology; it’s pro-conversation. So, if you find that your use of social media increases your number of face-to-face conversations, then I’m 100 percent for it.

Another person who might be helped by social media is someone who uses it for taking baby steps toward meeting people for face-to-face conversations. If you’re that kind of person, I’m totally supportive. 

I’m more concerned about people for whom social media becomes a kind of substitute, who literally post something on Facebook and just sit there and watch whether they get 100 likes on their picture, whose self-worth and focus becomes dictated by how they are accepted, wanted, and desired by social media.

And I’m concerned about the many other situations in which you and I are talking at a dinner party with six other people, and everyone is texting at the meal and applying the “three-person rule”—that three people have to have their heads up before anyone feels it’s safe to put their head down to text. In this situation, where everyone is both paying attention and not paying attention, you end up with nobody talking about what’s really on their minds in any serious, significant way, and we end up with trivial conversations, not feeling connected to one another.

JS: You also write about how conversation affects the workplace environment. Aren’t conversations just distractions to getting work done? Why support conversation at work?

More on Technology

Read Jill Suttie's review of Reclaiming Conversation .

How healthy are your online and offline social networks? Take the quiz !

five ways to build caring community on social media .

Take Christine Carter's advice to use technology intentionally and stop checking your freaking phone .

Learn how technology is shaping romance .

ST: In the workplace, you need to create sacred spaces for conversation because, number one, conversation actually increases the bottom line. All the studies show that when people are allowed to talk to each other, they do better—they’re more collaborative, they’re more creative, they get more done.

It’s very important for companies to make space for conversation in the workplace. But if a manager doesn’t model to employees that it’s OK to be off of their email in order to have conversation, nothing is going to get accomplished. I went to one workplace that had cappuccino machines every 10 feet and tables the right size for conversation, where everything was built for conversation. But people were feeling that the most important way to show devotion to the company was answering their email immediately. You can’t have conversation if you have to be constantly on your email. Some of the people I interviewed were terrified to be away from their phones. That translates into bringing your cell phone to breakfast and not having breakfast with your kids.

JS: If technology is so ubiquitous yet problematic, what recommendations do you make for keeping it at a manageable level without getting so hooked?

ST: The path ahead is not a path where we do without technology, but of living in greater harmony with it. Among the first steps I see is to create sacred spaces—the kitchen, the dining room, the car—that are device-free and set aside for conversation. When you have lunch with a friend or colleague or family member, don’t put a phone on the table between you. Make meals a time when you are there to listen and be heard.

When we move in and out of conversations with our friends in the room and all the people we can reach on our phones, we miss out on the kinds of conversations where empathy is born and intimacy thrives. I met a wise college junior who spoke about the “seven-minute rule”: It takes seven minutes to know if a conversation is going to be interesting. And she admitted that she rarely was willing to put in her seven minutes. At the first “lull,” she went to her phone. But it’s when we stumble, hesitate, and have those “lulls” that we reveal ourselves most to each other.

So allow for those human moments, accept that life is not a steady “feed,” and learn to savor the pace of conversation—for empathy, for community, for creativity.

About the Author

Jill Suttie

Jill Suttie, Psy.D. , is Greater Good ’s former book review editor and now serves as a staff writer and contributing editor for the magazine. She received her doctorate of psychology from the University of San Francisco in 1998 and was a psychologist in private practice before coming to Greater Good .

You May Also Enjoy

Nine Tips for Talking With Kids About Trauma

Talking to strangers, and other things that bring good luck.

Should We Talk to Young Children about Race?

Why Won’t Your Teen Talk To You?

How to Get Your Kid to Talk about What Happened at School

The Place of Talk in a Digital Age

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

For Better or Worse, Technology Is Taking Over the Health World

For many people over the past year and a half, the world has existed primarily through a screen. With social distancing measures in place to protect individuals from becoming infected with the coronavirus, technology has stepped in to fill the void of physical connections. It’s also become a space for navigating existing and new mental health conditions through virtual therapy sessions, meditation apps, mental health influencers, and beyond.

“Over the years, mental health and technology have started touching each other more and more, and the pandemic accelerated that in an unprecedented way,” says Naomi Torres-Mackie, PhD , the head of research at The Mental Health Coalition , a clinical psychologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, and an adjunct professor at Columbia University. “This is especially the case because the pandemic has highlighted the importance of mental health for everyone as we struggle to make sense of an overwhelming new world and can find mental health information and services online.” 

This shift is especially critical, with a tremendous spike occurring in mental health conditions. In the period between January and June 2019, 11% of US adults reported experiencing symptoms of an anxiety or depressive disorder. In January 2021, 10 months into the pandemic, in one survey that number increased to 41.1%. Research also points to a potential connection for some between having COVID-19 and developing a mental health condition—whether or not you previously had one.

The pandemic’s bridge between mental health and technology has helped to “meet the needs of many suffering from depression, anxiety, life transition, grief, family conflict, and addiction,” says Miyume McKinley, MSW, LCSW , a psychotherapist and founder of Epiphany Counseling, Consulting & Treatment Services.

Naomi Torres-Mackie, PhD

The risk of greater access is that the floodgates are open for anyone to say anything about mental health, and there’s no vetting process or way to truly check credibility.

This increased reliance on technology to facilitate mental health care and support appears to be a permanent one. Torres-Mackie has witnessed mental health clinicians drop their apprehension around virtual services throughout the pandemic and believes they will continue for good.

“Almost all therapists seem to be at least offering virtual sessions, and a good portion have transitioned their practices to be entirely virtual, giving up their traditional in-person offices,” adds Carrie Torn, MSW, LCSW , a licensed clinical social worker and psychotherapist in private practice in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The general public is also more receptive to technology’s expanded role in mental health care. “The pandemic has created a lasting relationship between technology, and it has helped increase access to mental health services across the world,” says McKinley. “There are lots of people seeking help who would not have done so prior to the pandemic, either due to the discomfort or because they simply didn’t know it was possible to obtain such services via technology.”

Accessibility Is a Tremendous Benefit of Technology

Every expert interviewed agreed: Accessibility is an undeniable and indispensable benefit of mental health’s increasing presence online. Torn points out, “We can access information, including mental health information and treatment like never before, and it’s low cost.”

A 2018 study found that, at the time, 74% of Americans didn’t view mental health as accessible to everyone. Participants cited long wait times, a lack of affordable options, low awareness, and social stigma as barriers to mental health care. The evolution of mental health and technology has alleviated some of these issues—whether it be through influencers creating open discussions around mental health and normalizing it or low-cost therapy apps . In addition, wait times may reduce when people are no longer tied to seeing a therapist in their immediate area.

While some people may still be apprehensive about trying digital therapy, research has shown that it is an effective strategy for managing your mental health. A 2020 review of 17 studies published in EClinicalMedicine found that online cognitive-behavioral therapy sessions were at least as effective at reducing the severity of depression symptoms than in-person sessions. There wasn’t a significant difference in participant satisfaction between the two options.

There Are Limitations to Mental Health and Technology’s Increasing Closeness

One of the most prevalent limitations of technology-fueled mental health care and awareness is the possibility of misleading or inaccurate information.  

If you’re attending digital sessions with a therapist, it’s easy to check their qualifications and reviews. However, for most other online mental health resources, it can be more challenging but remains just as critical to verify their expertise and benefits. “The risk of greater access is that the floodgates are open for anyone to say anything about mental health, and there’s no vetting process or way to truly check credibility,” says Torres-Mackle.

To that point, James Giordano, PhD, MPhil , professor of neurology and ethics at Georgetown University Medical Center and author of the book “Neurotechnology: Premises, Potential, and Problems,” cautions that, while there are guiding institutions, the market still contains “unregulated products, resources, and services, many of which are available via the internet. Thus, it’s very important to engage due diligence when considering the use of any mental health technology .” 

 Verywell / Alison Czinkota 

McKinley raises another valuable point: A person’s home is not always a space they can securely explore their mental health. “For many individuals, home is not a safe place due to abuse, addiction, toxic family, or unhealthy living environments,” she says. “Despite technology offering a means of support, if the home is not a safe place, many people won’t seek the help or mental health treatment that they need. For some, the therapy office is the only safe place they have.” Due to the pandemic and a general limit on private places outside of the home to dive into your personal feelings, someone in this situation may struggle to find opportunities for help.

Miyume McKinley, MSW, LCSW

There are lots of people seeking help that would not have done so prior to the pandemic, either due to the discomfort or because they simply didn’t know it was possible to obtain such services via technology.

Torn explains that therapists who work for tech platforms can also suffer due to burnout and low pay. She claims that some of these platforms prioritize seeing new clients instead of providing time for existing clients to grow their relationship. “I’ve heard about clients having to jump from one therapist to the next, or therapists who can’t even leave stops open for their existing clients, and instead their schedule gets filled with new clients,” she says. “Therapists are burning out in general right now, and especially on these platforms, which leads to a lower quality of care for clients.”

Screen Time Can Also Have a Negative Impact

As mental health care continues to spread into online platforms, clinicians and individuals must contend with society’s growing addiction to tech and extended screen time’s negative aspects.

Social media, in particular, has been shown to impact an individual’s mental health negatively. A 2019 study looked at how social media affected feelings of social isolation in 1,178 students aged 18 to 30. While having a positive experience on social media didn’t improve it, each 10% increase in negative experiences elevated social isolation feelings by 13%.

Verywell / Alison Czinkota

While certain aspects like Zoom therapy and mental health influencers require looking at a screen, you can use other digital options such as meditation apps without constantly staring at your device.

What to Be Mindful of as You Explore Mental Health Within Technology

Nothing is all bad or all good and that stands true for mental health’s increased presence within technology. What’s critical is being aware that “technology is a tool, and just like any tool, its impact depends on how it's used,” says Torres-Mackie.

For example, technology can produce positive results if you use the digital space to access treatment that you may have struggled to otherwise, support your mental well-being, or gather helpful—and credible—information about mental health. In contrast, she explains that diving into social media or other avenues only to compare yourself with others and avoid your responsibilities can have negative repercussions on your mental health and relationships. 

Giordano expresses the importance of staying vigilant about your relationship with and reliance on tech and your power to control it. 

With that in mind, pay attention to how much time you spend online. “We are spending less time outside, and more time glued to our screens. People are constantly comparing their lives to someone else's on social media, making it harder to be present in the moment and actually live our lives,” says Torn. 

Between the increase in necessary services moving online and trying to connect with people through a screen, it’s critical to take time away from your devices. According to a 2018 study, changing your social media habits, in particular, can improve your overall well-being . Participants limited Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat use to 10 minutes a day per platform for three weeks. At the end of the study, they showed significant reductions in depression and loneliness compared to the control group. However, even the increased awareness of their social media use appeared to help the control group lower feelings of anxiety and fear of missing out.

“Remember, it’s okay to turn your phone off. It’s okay to turn notifications off for news, apps, and emails,” says McKinley. Take opportunities to step outside, spend time with loved ones, and explore screen-free self-care activities. She adds, “Most of the things in life that make life worthwhile cannot be found on our devices, apps, or through technology—it’s found within ourselves and each other.”

Kaiser Family Foundation. The implications of COVID-19 for mental health and substance use .

Taquet M, Luciano S, Geddes JR, Harrison PJ. Bidirectional associations between COVID-19 and psychiatric disorder: retrospective cohort studies of 62 354 COVID-19 cases in the USA . Lancet Psychiatry . 2021;8(2):130-140. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30462-4

Luo C, Sanger N, Singhal N, et al. A comparison of electronically-delivered and face to face cognitive behavioural therapies in depressive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis . EClinicalMedicine . 2020;24:100442. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100442

Primack BA, Karim SA, Shensa A, Bowman N, Knight J, Sidani JE. Positive and negative experiences on social media and perceived social isolation . Am J Health Promot . 2019;33(6):859-868. doi:10.1177/0890117118824196

Hunt MG, Marx R, Lipson C, Young J. No more FOMO: Limiting social media decreases loneliness and depression . J Soc Clin Psychol . 2018;37(10):751-768. doi:10.1521/jscp.2018.37.10.751

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Times Insider

Exploring the Invisible Impact of Technology

The Times reporter behind the new On Tech newsletter talks about trade-offs, the power of big companies and cycling in Central Park without leaving her home.

By Sarah Bures

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

For years, technology has influenced every facet of modern life. But the coronavirus pandemic, which has forced many people to work, attend school and socialize through screens, has underscored just how entwined technology has become in our lives. A new daily newsletter, On Tech, examines our changing relationship to technology and the effect it is having on us.

Shira Ovide , who writes the newsletter, sees technology as a topic that encompasses everything from the gadgets we use to what we do on the internet to the decisions big tech companies make. That’s broad, but Ms. Ovide hopes to show the many ways technology relates to readers’ lives and livelihoods.

To help contextualize those issues for readers, Ms. Ovide speaks regularly with other Times journalists who cover technology as it relates to elections, the environment and privacy.

Recently, Ms. Ovide spoke on the phone about her goals for the newsletter and what readers can expect in the weeks ahead. These are edited excerpts.

Most of us Times employees are working remotely right now. Where are you working from these days?

I am working remotely from my one-bedroom apartment in New York. My dining table where I eat meals has now become my workstation. My laptop is right now parked on top of a shoe box because it positions the video camera in my line of sight for video meetings. And I’m sitting on a crappy desk chair that hurts my back. So I have a pillow. It’s all not ideal.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Dialogues Clin Neurosci
• v.22(2); 2020 Jun

Language: English | Spanish | French

Brain health consequences of digital technology use


Consecuencias para la salud del cerebro del empleo de la tecnología digital, conséquences sur la santé cérébrale de l’usage des technologies numériques, gary w. small.

Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences and Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, the UCLA Longevity Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, California, US

Jooyeon Lee

Aaron kaufman, jason jalil, prabha siddarth, himaja gaddipati, teena d. moody, susan y. bookheimer.

Emerging scientific evidence indicates that frequent digital technology use has a significant impact—both negative and positive—on brain function and behavior. Potential harmful effects of extensive screen time and technology use include heightened attention-deficit symptoms, impaired emotional and social intelligence, technology addiction, social isolation, impaired brain development, and disrupted sleep. However, various apps, videogames, and other online tools may benefit brain health. Functional imaging scans show that internet-naive older adults who learn to search online show significant increases in brain neural activity during simulated internet searches. Certain computer programs and videogames may improve memory, multitasking skills, fluid intelligence, and other cognitive abilities. Some apps and digital tools offer mental health interventions providing self-management, monitoring, skills training, and other interventions that may improve mood and behavior. Additional research on the positive and negative brain health effects of technology is needed to elucidate mechanisms and underlying causal relationships.


La evidencia científica que está surgiendo muestra que el empleo frecuente de la tecnología digital tiene un impacto significativo, tanto negativo como positivo, en la función cerebral y en el comportamiento. Los posibles efectos nocivos del tiempo prolongado frente a la pantalla y del empleo de la tecnología incluyen síntomas como marcado déficit de atención, deterioro de la inteligencia emocional y social, adicción a la tecnología, aislamiento social, deterioro del desarrollo cerebral y alteraciones del sueño. Sin embargo, hay varias aplicaciones, videojuegos y otras herramientas en línea que pueden beneficiar la salud del cerebro. En las imágenes cerebrales funcionales se ha observado que los adultos mayores vírgenes a internet que aprenden a buscar en línea, muestran aumentos significativos en la actividad neuronal cerebral durante las búsquedas simuladas en internet. Ciertos programas computacionales y videojuegos pueden mejorar la memoria, las destrezas en tareas múltiples, la fluidez de la inteligencia y otras habilidades cognitivas. Hay varias aplicaciones y herramientas digitales que ofrecen intervenciones en salud mental y que proporcionan automanejo, monitoreo, capacitación junto a otras intervenciones que pueden mejorar el estado de ánimo y el comportamiento. Se require de investigación adicional acerca de los efectos positivos y negativos de la tecnología sobre la salud del cerebro para dilucidar los mecanismos y las relaciones causales subyacentes.

D’après de nouvelles données scientifiques, l’usage fréquent des technologies numériques influe significativement sur le comportement et le fonctionnement cérébral, de façon aussi bien négative que positive. Une pratique excessive des écrans et des technologies numériques peut avoir des effets néfastes comme des symptômes de déficit d'attention, une intelligence émotionnelle et sociale altérée, une dépendance à la technologie, un isolement social, un développement cérébral dégradé et des troubles du sommeil. Cependant, certaines applications, jeux vidéo et autres outils en ligne peuvent avoir des effets bénéfiques sur le cerveau. L'imagerie fonctionnelle montre une activité neuronale significativement augmentée chez des personnes âgées jamais exposées à Internet et qui apprennent à faire des recherches en ligne. Certains programmes informatiques et jeux vidéo peuvent améliorer la mémoire, les compétences multitâches, l'agilité de l’intelligence et d'autres capacités cognitives. Dans le domaine de la santé mentale, différents outils et applications numériques permettant l'autogestion, le suivi, l'acquisition de compétences et d'autres techniques sont susceptibles d'améliorer l'humeur et le comportement du patient. Les effets positifs et négatifs de la technologie sur la santé cérébrale nécessitent d’être encore étudiés afin d’en mieux comprendre les mécanismes et les relations de cause à effet.

Introduction


During the past three decades, digital technology has transformed our daily lives. People at every age are now taking advantage of the vast amounts of available online information and communication platforms that connect them with others. This technology helps us to generate, store, and process enormous amounts of information and interact with each other rapidly and efficiently.


Most adults use the internet daily, and nearly one out of four report being online most of the time. 1 Because of this transformation to an online world, neuroscientists have begun focusing their attention on how digital technology may be changing our brains and behavior. The emerging data suggest that constant technology use impacts brain function and behavior in both positive and negative ways. For example, older individuals suffering from cognitive decline could use the internet to access information to help them remain independent longer; however, many seniors with cognitive complaints are reluctant or unable to adopt new technologies. 2 Our group’s functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) research tracking neural activity during simulated internet searches suggests that simply searching online may represent a form of mental exercise that can strengthen neural circuits. 3 By contrast, the persistent multitasking that is characteristic of most technology users impairs cognitive performance. 4 In this review, we highlight some of the research suggesting potential benefits and possible risks of using digital technology.


Potential harmful effects of digital technology use


Reduced attention
.

Multiple studies have drawn a link between computer use or extensive screen time (eg, watching television, playing videogames) and symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A 2014 meta-analysis indicated a correlation between media use and attention problems. 5 A recent survey of adolescents without symptoms of ADHD at the start of the study indicated a significant association between more frequent use of digital media and symptoms of ADHD after 24 months of follow-up. 6 Although most of the research linking technology use and ADHD symptoms has involved children and adolescents, this association has been identified in people at any age. 7 


The reason for the link between technology use and attention problems is uncertain, but might be attributed to repetitive attentional shifts and multitasking, which can impair executive functioning. 8 Moreover, when people are constantly using their technology, they have fewer opportunities to interact offline and allow their brain to rest in its default mode. 9 


Impaired emotional and social intelligence


Because of concern that a young, developing brain may be particularly sensitive to chronic exposure to computers, smartphones, tablets, or televisions, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that parents limit screen time for children aged 2 years or younger, when the brain is particularly malleable. 10 Spending extensive periods of time with digital media translates to spending less time communicating face to face. 11 


Kirsh and Mounts 12 explored the hypothesis that playing videogames would interfere with the ability to recognize emotions conveyed through facial expressions. They examined the effects of playing videogames on recognition of facial expressions of emotions in 197 students (ages 17 to 23 years). Participants played violent videogames before watching a series of calm faces morph into either angry or happy faces. Participants were asked to quickly identify the emotion while the facial expression changed. The authors found that happy faces were identified faster than angry faces, and that playing violent videogames delayed happy-face recognition time. 


Our team at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) 13 hypothesized that preteens restricted from screen-based media would have more opportunities for face-to-face interactions, which would improve their ability to recognize nonverbal emotional and social cues. We studied 51 schoolchildren who spent five days at an overnight nature camp where television, computers, and smartphones were forbidden, and compared them with 54 school-based matched controls who continued their usual media practices (4 hours of screen time per day). At baseline and after 5 days, participants were assessed for their ability to recognize emotions from photographs of facial expressions and videotaped scenes of social interactions (without verbal cues). After 5 days, the nature camp participants restricted from screen time demonstrated significantly better recognition of nonverbal emotional and social cues than participants who continued their usual daily screen time. These findings suggest that time away from screen-based media and digital communication tools improves both emotional and social intelligence.


Technology addiction


Although not formally included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , 14 excessive and pathological internet use has been recognized as an internet addiction, which shares features with substance-use disorders or pathological gambling. Common features include preoccupations, mood changes, development of tolerance, withdrawal, and functional impairment. 15 , 16 The global prevalence of internet addiction is estimated at 6%, but in some regions such as the Middle East the prevalence is as high as 11%. 17 Students with internet addiction are more likely to suffer from ADHD symptoms than from other psychiatric disorders. 18 You and colleagues 16 reported that schoolchildren with internet addiction experienced significantly greater symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity than non–internet-addicted students. Panagiotidi and Overton 19 reported greater ADHD symptoms in adults aged 18 to 70 years with internet addiction: predictors of addiction included younger age, playing massively multiplayer online role-playing games, and spending more time online. Despite consistent associations between ADHD symptoms and internet addiction, a causal relationship has not been confirmed. It is possible that people with ADHD symptoms have a greater risk for developing technology addiction, but an alternative explanation is that extensive technology use from addictive behavior causes ADHD symptoms.


Social isolation


Ninety percent of young adults in the United States use social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram, and most visit these sites at least daily. 20 Paradoxically, social media use is linked to social isolation (ie, a lack of social connections and quality relationships with others), 21 which is associated with poor health outcomes and increased mortality. 1 


Primack and colleagues 20 studied 1787 young adults (ages 19 to 32 years) and found that using social media 2 or more hours each day dou- bled the odds for perceived social isolation compared with use less than 30 minutes each day. Similar associations between perceived social isolation and social media use were observed in 213 middle-aged and older adults. 22 Possible explanations for such findings include reduced offline social experiences and the tendency to make upward social comparisons based on highly curated social media feeds that produce unrealistic expectations of oneself. 1 Future research should explore casual explanations for such relationships and seek ways to address the needs of people who may benefit from social media–based interventions, such as geographically isolated individuals.


Adverse impact on cognitive and brain development


Screen time may also adversely impact cognitive and brain development. In a recent review, children under age 2 were reported to spend over 1 hour each day in front of a screen; by age 3, that number exceeded 3 hours. 23 Increased screen time (and less reading time) has been associated with poorer language development and executive functioning, particularly in very young children, 24 as well as poorer language development in a large cohort of minority children. 25 In infants, increased screen time was one of several factors that predicted behavioral problems. 26 For infants 6 to 12 months, increased screen time was linked to poorer early language development. 27 In children of preschool age and older, digital media directed toward active learning can be educational, but only when accompanied by parental interaction. 23 


Recent research has examined the effects of media exposure on brain development. In a study of children aged 8 to 12 years, more screen and less reading time were associated with decreased brain connectivity between regions controlling word recognition and both language and cognitive control. 24 Such connections are considered important for reading comprehension and suggest a negative impact of screen time on the developing brain. Structurally, increased screen time relates to decreased integrity of white-matter pathways necessary for reading and language. 28 Given the growing prominence of screen use among even very young children at stages when brain plasticity is greatest, there is significant concern about the cognitive and brain development of the current generation of screen-exposed children that requires greater understanding


Sleep


Recent studies indicate that screen exposure disrupts sleep, which can have a negative effect on cognition and behavior. Daily touch-screen use among infants and toddlers was shown to negatively impact sleep onset, sleep duration, and nighttime awakenings. 29 In adolescents, more time using smartphones and touch screens was associated with greater sleep disturbances, and tablet time was associated with poor sleep quality and increased awakenings after sleep onset. 30 In adults, increased smartphone use was associated with shorter sleep duration and less efficient sleep. 31 Poor sleep quality is associated with brain changes, such as reduced functional connectivity and decreased gray-matter volume, as well as an increased risk for age-associated cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease. 32 , 33 


It is unclear whether the act of looking at screens or media content disrupts sleep; however, it is well-known that the wavelength of light exposure affects the circadian rhythms that govern sleep. Computer and phone light-emitting diode (LED) screens emit slow wave, blue light that interferes with circadian rhythms. Exposure to LED versus non-LED screens has been shown to produce changes in melatonin levels and sleep quality, and such exposure decreases cognitive performance. 34 Thus, it is important to recognize the effects of screen time on sleep as a moderator of various negative effects on cognition and brain function.


Brain-health benefits of digital technology


Despite these potential harmful brain-health effects of digital technology, emerging evidence points to several benefits for the aging brain in particular, including opportunities for brain-strengthening neural exercise, cognitive training, and the online delivery of mental-health interventions and support ( Table I

Neural exercise


Internet-savvy versus internet-naive adults
.

Functional neuroimaging allows scientists to observe regional neural activity during various mental tasks. Our group was the first to explore neural activity using functional MRI while research volunteers performed simulated internet searching. 3 Previous studies suggested that mentally challenging tasks, such as searching online, may benefit brain health and even delay cognitive decline. 35 , 36 We focused on internet searching because it is so common among people of all ages. 37 


We assessed patterns of brain neural activation in 24 cognitively normal middle-aged and older adults (ages 55 to 76 years): 12 of them had minimal internet search experience (net-naive group), and 12 had extensive experience (net-savvy group). In addition to the internet-search task, we used a control task of reading text on a computer screen formatted to simulate a printed book layout.


We found that text reading activated brain regions controlling language, reading, memory, and visual abilities (left inferior frontal, temporal, posterior cingulate, parietal, and occipital regions), and the magnitude and extent of activation were similar in the net-naive and net-savvy groups. During internet searching, net-naive subjects displayed activation patterns similar to those observed while reading text. However, net-savvy subjects demonstrated significant activity in neural signal intensity in additional regions controlling decision-making, complex reasoning, and vision (frontal pole, anterior temporal region, anterior and posterior cingulate, and hippocampus). During the internet-search task, the net-savvy group displayed a more than twofold increase in the extent of activation in the major regional clusters compared with the net-naive group (21 782 versus 8646 total activated voxels).


These findings suggest that searching online may be a form of brain neural exercise. Other research indicates that after several months, daily computer-game playing leads to reduced cortical neural activity. 38 Our other research indicates that memory training, along with healthy lifestyle behaviors (eg, physical exercise, healthy diet), leads to reduced dorsal prefrontal cortical metabolism after 2 weeks. 36 Such findings suggest that task repetition over time leads to lower neural activity during the task, which could reflect greater cognitive efficiency after mental training.


One model that could explain such findings is that novel and stimulating mental experiences, such as searching on the internet, initially lead to minimal activation before the internet user discovers strategies for solving the unfamiliar mental challenge. After such insights, a broader neural network is engaged. After repeated sessions, the initially novel mental task becomes routine and repetitive, no longer posing a mental challenge. The lower activity observed may thus reflect a more efficient neural response. These results also suggest that previous internet-search experience may alter the brain’s responsiveness in neural circuits controlling decision-making and complex reasoning. The net-savvy volunteers showed increased activation during the internet-search task, which suggests that internet searching may remain a novel and mentally stimulating process even after continued practice.


Internet training and brain function


We also used functional MRI to record brain neural activity during simulated internet-search tasks in 12 net-naive and 12 net-savvy subjects before and after internet training. 39 Based on our previous findings, we hypothesized that net-naive volunteers would recruit a larger frontal lobe network after internet training and that net-savvy volunteers would show either no increase or a decrease in activation after training because of greater cognitive efficiency due to training.


The training consisted of brief instructions on how to search online along with practice sessions (1 hour per day for a week). To increase motivation, participants were told that they would be quizzed on their knowledge of assigned search topics after the experiment.


During their first session, net-naive subjects recruited a neural network that included the superior, middle, and inferior frontal gyri, as well as the lateral occipital cortex and occipital pole. During the second session (after internet training), additional regions in the middle and inferior frontal gyri were recruited only in the net-naive group. By contrast, during their first scan session, the net-savvy subjects recruited a cortical network that, though overlapping with that of the net-naive subjects, showed more extensive regions of activation ( Figures 1 and 2 ). This cortical network included regions that control mental activities supporting tasks required for internet searches, including decision-making, working memory, and the ability to suppress nonrelevant information. Moreover, net-savvy participants showed a pattern of activation that was reduced after the training. This reduction is consistent with our hypothesis that the brain becomes more efficient and possibly habituates to the internet task over time. Overall, these findings suggest that internet searching for relatively short periods of time can change brain-activity patterns in middle-aged and older adults.


Other groups have explored the effects of internet-search training on brain structure and function. Dong and associates 40 studied the influence of short-term internet-search training on white-matter microstructure via diffusion tensor imaging. After 6 training days, they found that the 59 participants (mean age 21 years) showed increased fractional anisotropy (diffusion tensor imaging scans) in the right superior longitudinal fasciculus and within that region, decreased radial diffusivity. These findings suggest that short-term internet-search training may increase white-matter integrity in the right superior longitudinal fasciculus, which could result from increased myelination. 


Shapira and colleagues 41 assessed the psychological effects of learning computer and internet-search methods. They offered a course to 22 older adults (mean age 80 years), who were compared with 26 participants engaged in other activities. The investigators reported significant improvements in the intervention group in measures of life satisfaction, depression, loneliness, and self-control after 4 months, whereas the control group showed declines in each of these measures. These findings suggest that computer and internet training contribute to older adults’ well-being and sense of empowerment.


White and associates 42 performed a randomized controlled trial assessing the psychosocial impact of internet access to older adults during a 5-month period. The intervention group (n=29) received 9 hours of training (6 sessions over 2 weeks) and experienced less loneliness, less depression, and more positive attitudes toward computers than controls (n=19) who were not regular internet users.


Cognitive training


Memory ability
.

Findings showing that mental stimulation and cognitive training improve memory in older adults 43 , 44 have led to the development of several memory apps and computer games. Miller and associates 45 explored whether computerized brain-training exercises (Dakim Brain Fitness) improved cognitive performance in older adults without dementia (mean age of 82 years). Subjects were randomized into an intervention group (n=36) that used a computer program 5 days a week for 20 to 25 minutes each day, or a wait-list control group (n=33). Neuropsychological testing at baseline, 2 months, and 6 months showed that the intervention group improved significantly in delayed memory, and the control group did not. Moreover, participants who played the computer program for at least 40 sessions over 6 months improved in immediate memory, delayed memory, and language. These findings point to the potential benefit of cognitive training using a computerized, self-paced program. 


In a meta-analysis of computerized cognitive training, investigators found an overall moderate effect on cognition in mild cognitive impairment across 17 trials. 46 Small to moderate effects were reported for global cognition, attention, working memory, and learning abilities.


Multitasking skills


Multitasking has been defined as performing two simultaneous tasks, which is only possible when the tasks are automatic, but it can also refer to rapid switching between tasks. Research has shown that such task switching increases error rates. 47 Multitasking is common thanks to widespread technology use, and multiple studies point to its negative impact on cognitive performance. 48 However, certain computer games may enhance multitasking, one of the cognitive domains that declines in a linear fashion across the lifespan. 48 


Anguera and colleagues 49 trained volunteers (ages 60 to 85 years) over 4 weeks using a videogame called NeuroRacer, in which players control a car on a winding road while responding to signs that randomly appear. Out of 46 participants, 16 were trained in multitasking (both driving and sign reading), 15 in single-tasking mode (active controls; either sign reading or driving), and 15 received no training (no-contact controls). Only the multitasking training group showed significant improvements in performance scores, which not only exceeded that of untrained individuals in their twenties but was maintained for 6 months without additional training. Moreover, the multitasking training improved other cognitive skills, including working memory and divided and sustained attention.


Working memory and fluid intelligence


Fluid intelligence refers to the capacity to reason and think flexibly and requires working memory, the ability to retain information over a brief period of time. Investigators have found that training in working memory may improve fluid intelligence. 50 , 51 Jaeggi and associates 52 used a training program (n-back task) to investigate the effects of working-memory training on fluid intelligence. Healthy subjects (n=70) were randomized into working-memory training groups that were further randomized according to number of training sessions (8, 12, 17, or 19 days), or a control group that received no training. All subjects received pre- and post-testing on a measure of fluid intelligence at the same time intervals. The four groups not only showed significant improvements in working memory, but also on tests of fluid intelligence. Moreover, results demonstrated that the longer the training period, the greater the improvement in fluid intelligence. These results indicated successful transfer of improved working memory to improved fluid intelligence measures with a dose-dependent training effect. 


Visual attention and reaction time


Videogames have been popular for decades, and many gamers who began playing in the 1980s have continued to play through adulthood. Despite potential negative health effects of excessive playing (eg, attention deficits, social withdrawal, increased risk of obesity), recent research suggests potential benefits, such as improved visual attention processing, spatial visualization, reaction time, and mental rotation. Green and Bavelier 53 have shown that playing action videogames more than 4 days per week (at least 1 hour each day) for 6 months enhances visual attention (ie, the ability to recognize and process visual information), spatial attention over the visual field, and task-switching abilities.


Rosser and colleagues 54 examined a potential link between action videogaming and laparoscopic surgical skills and suturing. Surgeons who played videogames more than 3 hours each week made 37% fewer surgical errors, were 27% faster in response times, and scored 42% better in measures of laparoscopic and suturing skills than surgeons who do not play videogames. Moreover, the most experienced players in specific videogames (Super Monkey Ball 2, Star Wars Racer Revenge, and Silent Scope) made 47% fewer errors and performed 39% faster. These findings suggest that playing action videogames can improve cognitive and motor skills that improve surgical skills and lower error rates in the operating room.


Other mental health interventions


Technological advances have brought about novel approaches for delivering mental health support and interventions in the form of apps for smartphones or tablets, as well as through telepsychiatry. Internet-based mental health interventions offer the advantages of accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and anonymity. Between 2009 and 2015, the National Institute of Mental Health awarded more than 400 grants totaling $445 million for technology-enhanced mental-health interventions to further investigate roles for technology in preventing and treating mental disorders. 55 


Investigators have studied the efficacy of various online mental health interventions. For example, Peter and colleagues 56 found that an online, 4-week intervention using cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia reduced depression and insomnia ratings at levels comparable to traditional face-to-face interventions. Segal and associates 57 evaluated the effectiveness of treating residual depressive symptoms with a web-based program that delivers mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. They found that use of this program in addition to usual depression care significantly improved depression and functional outcomes compared with usual depression care alone.


Several digital mental health applications have been developed or are in development, such as self-management apps that provide user feedback (eg, medication reminders, stress management tips, heart rate, and breathing patterns). Other programs provide skills training using educational videos on anxiety management or the importance of social support. Some applications have the capacity to collect data using smartphone sensors that record movement patterns, social interactions (eg, number of texts and phone calls), and other behaviors throughout the day.


Despite some promising early research, systematic studies demonstrating the efficacy of these emerging apps are limited. A recent review 58 indicated that only 3% of downloadable apps had research to justify their effectiveness claims, and most of that research was performed by the program developers. Another recent survey 59 of online-technology use to support mental health and well-being indicated that smartphone apps were the most commonly used technology: 78% of respondents used them either alone or in combination with other technologies. The apps that are being used provide guided activities, relaxation, and tracking; social media and discussion forums; and web-based programs to assist in the management of daily stress and anxiety.


Conclusions


Research on the brain-health consequences of digital technology is beginning to elucidate how these novel devices and programs can both help and harm brain function. Their frequent use heightens ADHD symptoms, interferes with emotional and social intelligence, can lead to addictive behaviors, increases social isolation, and interferes with brain development and sleep. However, specific programs, videogames, and other online tools may provide mental exercises that activate neural circuitry, improve cognitive functioning, reduce anxiety, increase restful sleep, and offer other brain-health benefits. Future research needs to elucidate underlying mechanisms and causal relationships between technology use and brain health, with a focus on both the positive and negative impact of digital technology use.


Acknowledgments

The University of California, Los Angeles, owns a US patent (6,274,119) entitled “Methods for Labeling β-Amyloid Plaques and Neurofibrillary Tangles,” which has been licensed to Ceremark Pharma, LLC. Dr Small is among the inventors and is a cofounder of Ceremark Pharma, LLC. Dr Small also reports having served as an advisor to and/or having received lecture fees from AARP, Acadia, Avanir, Genentech, Handok, Herbalife, Medscape, RB Health, Roche, Theravalues, and WebMD, and having received research funds from The Wonderful Company. Supported in part by the Parlow-Solomon Professorship on Aging

Modern Technology’s Impact on Society Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Disadvantages and advantages of technology.

Modern technology has changed the world beyond recognition. Thanks to technology in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, advances have been made that have revolutionized our lives. Modern man can hardly imagine his life without machines. Every day, new devices either appear, or existing ones are improved. Technology has made the world a better place, bringing people additional conveniences and opportunities for healthy living through advances in science. I believe that the changes that technology has brought to our lives are incredibly positive in many areas.

One of the fields where computing and the Web have introduced improvements is education. Machines can keep large volumes of information in a tiny space, reducing entire library shelves of literature to a single CD-ROM of content (Garsten & Wulff, 2020). The Web also acts as a huge learning tool, linking together data sites and enabling inquisitive individuals to seek out just about any subject conceivable. A single personal computer can hold hundreds of instructional programs, visual and audio tutorials, and provide learners with exposure to an immense quantity of content. In the classroom, virtual whiteboards are replacing conventional whiteboards, allowing teachers to provide interactive content for students and play instructional movies without the need for a projector.

Advanced technology has also dramatically and favorably changed the medical care sector. Developments in diagnostic instruments allow doctors to detect hidden diseases, improving the likelihood of successful therapy and saving lives. Advances in drugs and vaccines have been extremely influential, nearly eradicating diseases such as measles, diphtheria, and smallpox, which once caused massive epidemics (Garsten & Wulff, 2020). Modern medicine allows patients to treat chronic diseases that were once debilitating and life-threatening, such as diabetes and hypertension. Technological advances in medicine have helped improve the lives of people around the world. In addition, the latest technology has dramatically increased the productivity of various techniques.

The computers’ capability to resolve complicated mathematical calculations enables them to accelerate any problem that involves metrics or other calculations. Simulating physical processes on a computer can save time and money in any production situation, giving engineers the ability to simulate any design. Modern technology in transportation allows large distances to be traveled quickly. Electric trains, airplanes, cars, and even rockets are used for this purpose (Garsten & Wulff, 2020). In this way, technology brings positive change for people who love to travel.

Despite all the positive changes, there are also disadvantages to the active development of technology. For example, more and more people are becoming dependent on the computer, TV, or cell phone. They ignore their household chores, studies, or work and spend all their time in front of a laptop or TV screen (Garsten & Wulff, 2020). Because of this, people may become inactive and less willing to work, hoping that technology will do everything for them.

In conclusion, I believe that despite some of the disadvantages, the advantages of gadgets are much more significant. Modern technology saves time and allows people to enjoy life. Moreover, new technologies in medicine also contribute to a longer life expectancy of the population and the cure of diseases that were previously beyond the reach of doctors. In addition to medicine, technology has brought significant positive changes to the fields of communication, education, and engineering. Therefore, I believe that the positive impact of technological progress on human lives cannot be denied.

Garsten, C., & Wulff, H. (2020). New technologies at work: People, screens, and social virtuality . Routledge. Web.

• Bringing Technology to Business: The Risk of Job Loss
• Information System: Software Integration
• Quality Improvement Initiative
• Integration of the Modern Technological Solutions Into the Academic Field
• Technology Integration Process in Education: Repton School in Dubai
• The Covid-19 Registry Importance
• Impact of Computer Technology on Economy and Social Life
• Technology Effect on the Disappearance of Specific Jobs
• Modern Communication Impacted by Technology
• Human Existence in Age of Informational Knowledge Work
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, May 30). Modern Technology's Impact on Society. https://ivypanda.com/essays/modern-technologys-impact-on-society/

"Modern Technology's Impact on Society." IvyPanda , 30 May 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/modern-technologys-impact-on-society/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Modern Technology's Impact on Society'. 30 May.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Modern Technology's Impact on Society." May 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/modern-technologys-impact-on-society/.

1. IvyPanda . "Modern Technology's Impact on Society." May 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/modern-technologys-impact-on-society/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Modern Technology's Impact on Society." May 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/modern-technologys-impact-on-society/.

Essay on Technology – A Boon or Bane for Students

500+ words essay on technology for students.

In this essay on technology, we are going to discuss what technology is, what are its uses, and also what technology can do? First of all, technology refers to the use of technical and scientific knowledge to create, monitor, and design machinery. Also, technology helps in making other goods that aid mankind.

Essay on Technology – A Boon or Bane?

Experts are debating on this topic for years. Also, the technology covered a long way to make human life easier but the negative aspect of it can’t be ignored. Over the years technological advancement has caused a severe rise in pollution . Also, pollution has become a major cause of many health issues. Besides, it has cut off people from society rather than connecting them. Above all, it has taken away many jobs from the workers class.

Familiarity between Technology and Science

As they are completely different fields but they are interdependent on each other. Also, it is due to science contribution we can create new innovation and build new technological tools. Apart from that, the research conducted in laboratories contributes a lot to the development of technologies. On the other hand, technology extends the agenda of science.

Vital Part of our Life

Regularly evolving technology has become an important part of our lives. Also, newer technologies are taking the market by storm and the people are getting used to them in no time. Above all, technological advancement has led to the growth and development of nations.

Negative Aspect of Technology

Although technology is a good thing, everything has two sides. Technology also has two sides one is good and the other is bad. Here are some negative aspects of technology that we are going to discuss.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

With new technology the industrialization increases which give birth to many pollutions like air, water, soil, and noise. Also, they cause many health-related issues in animals, birds, and human beings.

Exhaustion of Natural Resources

New technology requires new resources for which the balance is disturbed. Eventually, this will lead to over-exploitation of natural resources which ultimately disturbs the balance of nature.

Unemployment

A single machine can replace many workers. Also, machines can do work at a constant pace for several hours or days without stopping. Due to this, many workers lost their job which ultimately increases unemployment .

Types of Technology

Generally, we judge technology on the same scale but in reality, technology is divided into various types. This includes information technology, industrial technology , architectural technology, creative technology and many more. Let’s discuss these technologies in brief.

Industrial Technology

This technology organizes engineering and manufacturing technology for the manufacturing of machines. Also, this makes the production process easier and convenient.

Creative Technology

This process includes art, advertising, and product design which are made with the help of software. Also, it comprises of 3D printers , virtual reality, computer graphics, and other wearable technologies.

Information Technology

This technology involves the use of telecommunication and computer to send, receive and store information. Internet is the best example of Information technology.

FAQs on Essay on Technology

Q.1 What is Information technology?

A –  It is a form of technology that uses telecommunication and computer systems for study. Also, they send, retrieve, and store data.

Q.2 Is technology harmful to humans?

 A – No, technology is not harmful to human beings until it is used properly. But, misuses of technology can be harmful and deadly.

Download Toppr – Best Learning App for Class 5 to 12

Toppr provides free study materials, last 10 years of question papers, 1000+ hours of video lectures, live 24/7 doubts solving, and much more for FREE! Download Toppr app for Android and iOS or signup for free.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Promises and Pitfalls of Technology

Politics and privacy, private-sector influence and big tech, state competition and conflict, author biography, how is technology changing the world, and how should the world change technology.

[email protected]

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Guest Access
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Josephine Wolff; How Is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology?. Global Perspectives 1 February 2021; 2 (1): 27353. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2021.27353

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Technologies are becoming increasingly complicated and increasingly interconnected. Cars, airplanes, medical devices, financial transactions, and electricity systems all rely on more computer software than they ever have before, making them seem both harder to understand and, in some cases, harder to control. Government and corporate surveillance of individuals and information processing relies largely on digital technologies and artificial intelligence, and therefore involves less human-to-human contact than ever before and more opportunities for biases to be embedded and codified in our technological systems in ways we may not even be able to identify or recognize. Bioengineering advances are opening up new terrain for challenging philosophical, political, and economic questions regarding human-natural relations. Additionally, the management of these large and small devices and systems is increasingly done through the cloud, so that control over them is both very remote and removed from direct human or social control. The study of how to make technologies like artificial intelligence or the Internet of Things “explainable” has become its own area of research because it is so difficult to understand how they work or what is at fault when something goes wrong (Gunning and Aha 2019) .

This growing complexity makes it more difficult than ever—and more imperative than ever—for scholars to probe how technological advancements are altering life around the world in both positive and negative ways and what social, political, and legal tools are needed to help shape the development and design of technology in beneficial directions. This can seem like an impossible task in light of the rapid pace of technological change and the sense that its continued advancement is inevitable, but many countries around the world are only just beginning to take significant steps toward regulating computer technologies and are still in the process of radically rethinking the rules governing global data flows and exchange of technology across borders.

These are exciting times not just for technological development but also for technology policy—our technologies may be more advanced and complicated than ever but so, too, are our understandings of how they can best be leveraged, protected, and even constrained. The structures of technological systems as determined largely by government and institutional policies and those structures have tremendous implications for social organization and agency, ranging from open source, open systems that are highly distributed and decentralized, to those that are tightly controlled and closed, structured according to stricter and more hierarchical models. And just as our understanding of the governance of technology is developing in new and interesting ways, so, too, is our understanding of the social, cultural, environmental, and political dimensions of emerging technologies. We are realizing both the challenges and the importance of mapping out the full range of ways that technology is changing our society, what we want those changes to look like, and what tools we have to try to influence and guide those shifts.

Technology can be a source of tremendous optimism. It can help overcome some of the greatest challenges our society faces, including climate change, famine, and disease. For those who believe in the power of innovation and the promise of creative destruction to advance economic development and lead to better quality of life, technology is a vital economic driver (Schumpeter 1942) . But it can also be a tool of tremendous fear and oppression, embedding biases in automated decision-making processes and information-processing algorithms, exacerbating economic and social inequalities within and between countries to a staggering degree, or creating new weapons and avenues for attack unlike any we have had to face in the past. Scholars have even contended that the emergence of the term technology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries marked a shift from viewing individual pieces of machinery as a means to achieving political and social progress to the more dangerous, or hazardous, view that larger-scale, more complex technological systems were a semiautonomous form of progress in and of themselves (Marx 2010) . More recently, technologists have sharply criticized what they view as a wave of new Luddites, people intent on slowing the development of technology and turning back the clock on innovation as a means of mitigating the societal impacts of technological change (Marlowe 1970) .

At the heart of fights over new technologies and their resulting global changes are often two conflicting visions of technology: a fundamentally optimistic one that believes humans use it as a tool to achieve greater goals, and a fundamentally pessimistic one that holds that technological systems have reached a point beyond our control. Technology philosophers have argued that neither of these views is wholly accurate and that a purely optimistic or pessimistic view of technology is insufficient to capture the nuances and complexity of our relationship to technology (Oberdiek and Tiles 1995) . Understanding technology and how we can make better decisions about designing, deploying, and refining it requires capturing that nuance and complexity through in-depth analysis of the impacts of different technological advancements and the ways they have played out in all their complicated and controversial messiness across the world.

These impacts are often unpredictable as technologies are adopted in new contexts and come to be used in ways that sometimes diverge significantly from the use cases envisioned by their designers. The internet, designed to help transmit information between computer networks, became a crucial vehicle for commerce, introducing unexpected avenues for crime and financial fraud. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, designed to connect friends and families through sharing photographs and life updates, became focal points of election controversies and political influence. Cryptocurrencies, originally intended as a means of decentralized digital cash, have become a significant environmental hazard as more and more computing resources are devoted to mining these forms of virtual money. One of the crucial challenges in this area is therefore recognizing, documenting, and even anticipating some of these unexpected consequences and providing mechanisms to technologists for how to think through the impacts of their work, as well as possible other paths to different outcomes (Verbeek 2006) . And just as technological innovations can cause unexpected harm, they can also bring about extraordinary benefits—new vaccines and medicines to address global pandemics and save thousands of lives, new sources of energy that can drastically reduce emissions and help combat climate change, new modes of education that can reach people who would otherwise have no access to schooling. Regulating technology therefore requires a careful balance of mitigating risks without overly restricting potentially beneficial innovations.

Nations around the world have taken very different approaches to governing emerging technologies and have adopted a range of different technologies themselves in pursuit of more modern governance structures and processes (Braman 2009) . In Europe, the precautionary principle has guided much more anticipatory regulation aimed at addressing the risks presented by technologies even before they are fully realized. For instance, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation focuses on the responsibilities of data controllers and processors to provide individuals with access to their data and information about how that data is being used not just as a means of addressing existing security and privacy threats, such as data breaches, but also to protect against future developments and uses of that data for artificial intelligence and automated decision-making purposes. In Germany, Technische Überwachungsvereine, or TÜVs, perform regular tests and inspections of technological systems to assess and minimize risks over time, as the tech landscape evolves. In the United States, by contrast, there is much greater reliance on litigation and liability regimes to address safety and security failings after-the-fact. These different approaches reflect not just the different legal and regulatory mechanisms and philosophies of different nations but also the different ways those nations prioritize rapid development of the technology industry versus safety, security, and individual control. Typically, governance innovations move much more slowly than technological innovations, and regulations can lag years, or even decades, behind the technologies they aim to govern.

In addition to this varied set of national regulatory approaches, a variety of international and nongovernmental organizations also contribute to the process of developing standards, rules, and norms for new technologies, including the International Organization for Standardization­ and the International Telecommunication Union. These multilateral and NGO actors play an especially important role in trying to define appropriate boundaries for the use of new technologies by governments as instruments of control for the state.

At the same time that policymakers are under scrutiny both for their decisions about how to regulate technology as well as their decisions about how and when to adopt technologies like facial recognition themselves, technology firms and designers have also come under increasing criticism. Growing recognition that the design of technologies can have far-reaching social and political implications means that there is more pressure on technologists to take into consideration the consequences of their decisions early on in the design process (Vincenti 1993; Winner 1980) . The question of how technologists should incorporate these social dimensions into their design and development processes is an old one, and debate on these issues dates back to the 1970s, but it remains an urgent and often overlooked part of the puzzle because so many of the supposedly systematic mechanisms for assessing the impacts of new technologies in both the private and public sectors are primarily bureaucratic, symbolic processes rather than carrying any real weight or influence.

Technologists are often ill-equipped or unwilling to respond to the sorts of social problems that their creations have—often unwittingly—exacerbated, and instead point to governments and lawmakers to address those problems (Zuckerberg 2019) . But governments often have few incentives to engage in this area. This is because setting clear standards and rules for an ever-evolving technological landscape can be extremely challenging, because enforcement of those rules can be a significant undertaking requiring considerable expertise, and because the tech sector is a major source of jobs and revenue for many countries that may fear losing those benefits if they constrain companies too much. This indicates not just a need for clearer incentives and better policies for both private- and public-sector entities but also a need for new mechanisms whereby the technology development and design process can be influenced and assessed by people with a wider range of experiences and expertise. If we want technologies to be designed with an eye to their impacts, who is responsible for predicting, measuring, and mitigating those impacts throughout the design process? Involving policymakers in that process in a more meaningful way will also require training them to have the analytic and technical capacity to more fully engage with technologists and understand more fully the implications of their decisions.

At the same time that tech companies seem unwilling or unable to rein in their creations, many also fear they wield too much power, in some cases all but replacing governments and international organizations in their ability to make decisions that affect millions of people worldwide and control access to information, platforms, and audiences (Kilovaty 2020) . Regulators around the world have begun considering whether some of these companies have become so powerful that they violate the tenets of antitrust laws, but it can be difficult for governments to identify exactly what those violations are, especially in the context of an industry where the largest players often provide their customers with free services. And the platforms and services developed by tech companies are often wielded most powerfully and dangerously not directly by their private-sector creators and operators but instead by states themselves for widespread misinformation campaigns that serve political purposes (Nye 2018) .

Since the largest private entities in the tech sector operate in many countries, they are often better poised to implement global changes to the technological ecosystem than individual states or regulatory bodies, creating new challenges to existing governance structures and hierarchies. Just as it can be challenging to provide oversight for government use of technologies, so, too, oversight of the biggest tech companies, which have more resources, reach, and power than many nations, can prove to be a daunting task. The rise of network forms of organization and the growing gig economy have added to these challenges, making it even harder for regulators to fully address the breadth of these companies’ operations (Powell 1990) . The private-public partnerships that have emerged around energy, transportation, medical, and cyber technologies further complicate this picture, blurring the line between the public and private sectors and raising critical questions about the role of each in providing critical infrastructure, health care, and security. How can and should private tech companies operating in these different sectors be governed, and what types of influence do they exert over regulators? How feasible are different policy proposals aimed at technological innovation, and what potential unintended consequences might they have?

Conflict between countries has also spilled over significantly into the private sector in recent years, most notably in the case of tensions between the United States and China over which technologies developed in each country will be permitted by the other and which will be purchased by other customers, outside those two countries. Countries competing to develop the best technology is not a new phenomenon, but the current conflicts have major international ramifications and will influence the infrastructure that is installed and used around the world for years to come. Untangling the different factors that feed into these tussles as well as whom they benefit and whom they leave at a disadvantage is crucial for understanding how governments can most effectively foster technological innovation and invention domestically as well as the global consequences of those efforts. As much of the world is forced to choose between buying technology from the United States or from China, how should we understand the long-term impacts of those choices and the options available to people in countries without robust domestic tech industries? Does the global spread of technologies help fuel further innovation in countries with smaller tech markets, or does it reinforce the dominance of the states that are already most prominent in this sector? How can research universities maintain global collaborations and research communities in light of these national competitions, and what role does government research and development spending play in fostering innovation within its own borders and worldwide? How should intellectual property protections evolve to meet the demands of the technology industry, and how can those protections be enforced globally?

These conflicts between countries sometimes appear to challenge the feasibility of truly global technologies and networks that operate across all countries through standardized protocols and design features. Organizations like the International Organization for Standardization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, and many others have tried to harmonize these policies and protocols across different countries for years, but have met with limited success when it comes to resolving the issues of greatest tension and disagreement among nations. For technology to operate in a global environment, there is a need for a much greater degree of coordination among countries and the development of common standards and norms, but governments continue to struggle to agree not just on those norms themselves but even the appropriate venue and processes for developing them. Without greater global cooperation, is it possible to maintain a global network like the internet or to promote the spread of new technologies around the world to address challenges of sustainability? What might help incentivize that cooperation moving forward, and what could new structures and process for governance of global technologies look like? Why has the tech industry’s self-regulation culture persisted? Do the same traditional drivers for public policy, such as politics of harmonization and path dependency in policy-making, still sufficiently explain policy outcomes in this space? As new technologies and their applications spread across the globe in uneven ways, how and when do they create forces of change from unexpected places?

These are some of the questions that we hope to address in the Technology and Global Change section through articles that tackle new dimensions of the global landscape of designing, developing, deploying, and assessing new technologies to address major challenges the world faces. Understanding these processes requires synthesizing knowledge from a range of different fields, including sociology, political science, economics, and history, as well as technical fields such as engineering, climate science, and computer science. A crucial part of understanding how technology has created global change and, in turn, how global changes have influenced the development of new technologies is understanding the technologies themselves in all their richness and complexity—how they work, the limits of what they can do, what they were designed to do, how they are actually used. Just as technologies themselves are becoming more complicated, so are their embeddings and relationships to the larger social, political, and legal contexts in which they exist. Scholars across all disciplines are encouraged to join us in untangling those complexities.

Josephine Wolff is an associate professor of cybersecurity policy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Her book You’ll See This Message When It Is Too Late: The Legal and Economic Aftermath of Cybersecurity Breaches was published by MIT Press in 2018.

Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link to 'How Is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology?' and will not need an account to access the content.

Subject: How Is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology?

(Optional message may have a maximum of 1000 characters.)

Citing articles via

Email alerts, affiliations.

• Special Collections
• Review Symposia
• Info for Authors
• Info for Librarians
• Editorial Team
• Emerging Scholars Forum
• Open Access
• Online ISSN 2575-7350
• Copyright © 2024 The Regents of the University of California. All Rights Reserved.

Stay Informed

Disciplines.

• Ancient World
• Anthropology
• Communication
• Criminology & Criminal Justice
• Film & Media Studies
• Food & Wine
• Browse All Disciplines
• Browse All Courses
• Book Authors
• Booksellers
• Instructions
• Journal Authors
• Journal Editors
• Media & Journalists
• Planned Giving

About UC Press

• Press Releases
• Seasonal Catalog
• Acquisitions Editors
• Customer Service
• Exam/Desk Requests
• Media Inquiries
• Print-Disability
• Rights & Permissions
• UC Press Foundation
• © Copyright 2024 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Privacy policy    Accessibility

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

May 25, 2023

Here’s Why AI May Be Extremely Dangerous—Whether It’s Conscious or Not

Artificial intelligence algorithms will soon reach a point of rapid self-improvement that threatens our ability to control them and poses great potential risk to humanity

By Tamlyn Hunt

devrimb/Getty Images

“The idea that this stuff could actually get smarter than people.... I thought it was way off…. Obviously, I no longer think that,” Geoffrey Hinton, one of Google's top artificial intelligence scientists, also known as “ the godfather of AI ,” said after he quit his job in April so that he can warn about the dangers of this technology .

He’s not the only one worried. A 2023 survey of AI experts found that 36 percent fear that AI development may result in a “nuclear-level catastrophe.” Almost 28,000 people have signed on to an open letter written by the Future of Life Institute, including Steve Wozniak, Elon Musk, the CEOs of several AI companies and many other prominent technologists, asking for a six-month pause or a moratorium on new advanced AI development.

As a researcher in consciousness, I share these strong concerns about the rapid development of AI, and I am a co-signer of the Future of Life open letter.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Why are we all so concerned? In short: AI development is going way too fast.

The key issue is the profoundly rapid improvement in conversing among the new crop of advanced "chatbots," or what are technically called “large language models” (LLMs). With this coming “AI explosion,” we will probably have just one chance to get this right.

If we get it wrong, we may not live to tell the tale. This is not hyperbole.

This rapid acceleration promises to soon result in “artificial general intelligence” (AGI), and when that happens, AI will be able to improve itself with no human intervention. It will do this in the same way that, for example, Google’s AlphaZero AI learned how to play chess better than even the very best human or other AI chess players in just nine hours from when it was first turned on. It achieved this feat by playing itself millions of times over.

A team of Microsoft researchers analyzing OpenAI’s GPT-4 , which I think is the best of the new advanced chatbots currently available, said it had, "sparks of advanced general intelligence" in a new preprint paper .

In testing GPT-4, it performed better than 90 percent of human test takers on the Uniform Bar Exam, a standardized test used to certify lawyers for practice in many states. That figure was up from just 10 percent in the previous GPT-3.5 version, which was trained on a smaller data set. They found similar improvements in dozens of other standardized tests.

Most of these tests are tests of reasoning. This is the main reason why Bubeck and his team concluded that GPT-4 “could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system.”

This pace of change is why Hinton told the New York Times : "Look at how it was five years ago and how it is now. Take the difference and propagate it forwards. That’s scary.” In a mid-May Senate hearing on the potential of AI, Sam Altman, the head of OpenAI called regulation “crucial.”

Once AI can improve itself, which may be not more than a few years away, and could in fact already be here now, we have no way of knowing what the AI will do or how we can control it. This is because superintelligent AI (which by definition can surpass humans in a broad range of activities) will—and this is what I worry about the most—be able to run circles around programmers and any other human by manipulating humans to do its will; it will also have the capacity to act in the virtual world through its electronic connections, and to act in the physical world through robot bodies.

This is known as the “control problem” or the “alignment problem” (see philosopher Nick Bostrom’s book Superintelligence for a good overview ) and has been studied and argued about by philosophers and scientists, such as Bostrom, Seth Baum and Eliezer Yudkowsky , for decades now.

I think of it this way: Why would we expect a newborn baby to beat a grandmaster in chess? We wouldn’t. Similarly, why would we expect to be able to control superintelligent AI systems? (No, we won’t be able to simply hit the off switch, because superintelligent AI will have thought of every possible way that we might do that and taken actions to prevent being shut off.)

Here’s another way of looking at it: a superintelligent AI will be able to do in about one second what it would take a team of 100 human software engineers a year or more to complete. Or pick any task, like designing a new advanced airplane or weapon system, and superintelligent AI could do this in about a second.

Once AI systems are built into robots, they will be able to act in the real world, rather than only the virtual (electronic) world, with the same degree of superintelligence, and will of course be able to replicate and improve themselves at a superhuman pace.

Any defenses or protections we attempt to build into these AI “gods,” on their way toward godhood, will be anticipated and neutralized with ease by the AI once it reaches superintelligence status. This is what it means to be superintelligent.

We won’t be able to control them because anything we think of, they will have already thought of, a million times faster than us. Any defenses we’ve built in will be undone, like Gulliver throwing off the tiny strands the Lilliputians used to try and restrain him.

Some argue that these LLMs are just automation machines with zero consciousness , the implication being that if they’re not conscious they have less chance of breaking free from their programming. Even if these language models, now or in the future, aren’t at all conscious, this doesn’t matter. For the record, I agree that it’s unlikely that they have any actual consciousness at this juncture—though I remain open to new facts as they come in.

Regardless, a nuclear bomb can kill millions without any consciousness whatsoever. In the same way, AI could kill millions with zero consciousness, in a myriad ways, including potentially use of nuclear bombs either directly (much less likely) or through manipulated human intermediaries (more likely).

So, the debates about consciousness and AI really don’t figure very much into the debates about AI safety.

Yes, language models based on GPT-4 and many other models are already circulating widely . But the moratorium being called for is to stop development of any new models more powerful than 4.0—and this can be enforced, with force if required. Training these more powerful models requires massive server farms and energy. They can be shut down.

My ethical compass tells me that it is very unwise to create these systems when we know already we won’t be able to control them, even in the relatively near future. Discernment is knowing when to pull back from the edge. Now is that time.

We should not open Pandora’s box any more than it already has been opened.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of  Scientific American.

Is technology good or bad for learning?

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, saro mohammed, ph.d. smp saro mohammed, ph.d. partner - the learning accelerator.

May 8, 2019

I’ll bet you’ve read something about technology and learning recently. You may have read that device use enhances learning outcomes . Or perhaps you’ve read that screen time is not good for kids . Maybe you’ve read that there’s no link between adolescents’ screen time and their well-being . Or that college students’ learning declines the more devices are present in their classrooms .

If ever there were a case to be made that more research can cloud rather than clarify an issue, technology use and learning seems to fit the bill. This piece covers what the research actually says, some outstanding questions, and how to approach the use of technology in learning environments to maximize opportunities for learning and minimize the risk of doing harm to students.

In my recent posts , I have frequently cited the mixed evidence about blended learning, which strategically integrates in-person learning with technology to enable real-time data use, personalized instruction, and mastery-based progression. One thing that this nascent evidence base does show is that technology can be linked to improved learning . When technology is integrated into lessons in ways that are aligned with good in-person teaching pedagogy, learning can be better than without technology.

A 2018 meta-analysis of dozens of rigorous studies of ed tech , along with the executive summary of a forthcoming update (126 rigorous experiments), indicated that when education technology is used to individualize students’ pace of learning, the results overall show “ enormous promise .” In other words, ed tech can improve learning when used to personalize instruction to each student’s pace.

Further, this same meta-analysis, along with other large but correlational studies (e.g., OECD 2015 ), also found that increased access to technology in school was associated with improved proficiency with, and increased use of, technology overall. This is important in light of the fact that access to technology outside of learning environments is still very unevenly distributed across ethnic, socio-economic, and geographic lines. Technology for learning, when deployed to all students, ensures that no student experiences a “21st-century skills and opportunity” gap.

More practically, technology has been shown to scale and sustain instructional practices that would be too resource-intensive to work in exclusively in-person learning environments, especially those with the highest needs. In multiple , large-scale studies where technology has been incorporated into the learning experiences of hundreds of students across multiple schools and school systems, they have been associated with better academic outcomes than comparable classrooms that did not include technology. Added to these larger bodies of research are dozens, if not hundreds, of smaller , more localized examples of technology being used successfully to improve students’ learning experiences. Further, meta-analyses and syntheses of the research show that blended learning can produce greater learning than exclusively in-person learning.

All of the above suggest that technology, used well, can drive equity in learning opportunities. We are seeing that students and families from privileged backgrounds are able to make choices about technology use that maximize its benefits and minimize its risks , while students and families from marginalized backgrounds do not have opportunities to make the same informed choices. Intentional, thoughtful inclusion of technology in public learning environments can ensure that all students, regardless of their ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language status, special education status, or other characteristics, have the opportunity to experience learning and develop skills that allow them to fully realize their potential.

On the other hand, the evidence is decidedly mixed on the neurological impact of technology use. In November 2016, the American Association of Pediatrics updated their screen time guidelines for parents, generally relaxing restrictions and increasing the recommended maximum amount of time that children in different age groups spend interacting with screens. These guidelines were revised not because of any new research, but for two far more practical reasons. First, the nuance of the existing evidence–especially the ways in which recommendations change as children get older–was not adequately captured in the previous guidelines. Second, the proliferation of technology in our lives had made the previous guidelines almost impossible to follow.

The truth is that infants, in particular, learn by interacting with our physical world and with other humans, and it is likely that very early (passive) interactions with devices–rather than humans–can disrupt or misinform neural development . As we grow older, time spent on devices often replaces time spent engaging in physical activity or socially with other people, and it can even become a substitute for emotional regulation, which is detrimental to physical, social, and emotional development.

In adolescence and young adulthood, the presence of technology in learning environments has also been associated with (but has not been shown to be the cause of) negative variables such as attention deficits or hyperactivity , feeling lonely , and lower grades . Multitasking is not something our brains can do while learning , and technology often represents not just one more “task” to have to attend to in a learning environment, but multiple additional tasks due to the variety of apps and programs installed on and producing notifications through a single device.

The pragmatic

The current takeaway from the research is that there are potential benefits and risks to deploying technology in learning environments. While we can’t wrap this topic up with a bow just yet–there are still more questions than answers–there is evidence that technology can amplify effective teaching and learning when in the hands of good teachers. The best we can do today is understand how technology can be a valuable tool for educators to do the complex, human work that is teaching by capitalizing on the benefits while remaining fully mindful of the risks as we currently understand them.

We must continue to build our understanding of both the risks and benefits as we proceed. With that in mind, here are some “Dos” and “Don’ts” for using technology in learning environments:

Related Content

Saro Mohammed, Ph.D.

November 3, 2017

June 16, 2017

September 27, 2017

Education Technology K-12 Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Magdalena Rodríguez Romero

September 10, 2024

Tom Swiderski, Sarah Crittenden Fuller, Kevin C. Bastian

September 9, 2024

Julien Lafortune, Barbara Biasi, David Schönholzer

September 6, 2024

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• U.S. Public Wary of Biomedical Technologies to ‘Enhance’ Human Abilities
• 6. Public sees science and technology as net positives for society

Table of Contents

• 1. Understanding patterns in Americans’ reactions to gene editing, brain chip implants and synthetic blood transfusions that push boundaries of the human condition
• 2. U.S. public opinion on the future use of gene editing
• 3. Public opinion on the future use of brain implants
• 4. The public’s views on the future use of synthetic blood substitutes
• 5. From plastic surgery to vasectomies: Public opinion on current human enhancement options
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

The possibilities for human enhancement stem from new scientific and technological innovations. And even though many Americans have reservations about the potential use of cutting-edge biomedical developments considered in earlier chapters, large shares say they think of science and technology, writ large, as mostly beneficial forces in American society.

Two-thirds of U.S. adults (67%) say science has had mostly positive effects on society, while 27% say there have been roughly equal positive and negative effects and just 4% say the effects have been largely negative. This finding is in line with a 2014 Pew Research Center study and others showing generally positive views about the effect of science on society.

Overall, views about the effects of technology are also largely positive, if a bit less so in comparison with science. About half of adults (52%) say technology has had mostly positive effects, compared with 38% who say there have been an equal mix of positive and negative effects of technology. Just 8% say technology has had mostly negative effects.

Many Americans see science as having positive effects from health and medicine

The survey asked an open-ended question to give respondents a chance to explain, in their own words, why they feel the way they do about science’s effect on society. Some 67% of Americans say science has had a mostly positive effect on society; the most common reasons cited are related to medicine and health (59% of this group), including improvements in medical research, quality and longevity of life, and treatment of disease.

Other ways science is seen to benefit society include overall knowledge and reasoning skills (19%), technology improvements (15%) and environmental benefits and awareness about environmental issues (14%).

Just 4% of adults say the effect of science has been primarily negative. This group of 60 survey respondents is not large enough to analyze separately.

Technology seen as positive, especially for quickly and easily sharing information

Overall, 52% of U.S. adults say the effect of technology has been largely positive. Within this group, 57% cite the vast network of information and communication that is available, easily accessed and shared across the world as a benefit for society. Another 21% see improvements to health, medicine and medical research as benefits of technology.

Other ways technology is seen to have a positive effect on society include increased knowledge and understanding, improvements in industry and jobs and an interconnectedness of the world as a result of globalization.

Just 8% of Americans say technology has mostly had negative effects on society. The leading reason for this perspective is the feeling that technology has led to a breakdown of communication and human interaction (41% of this group). Another 28% say technology has degraded society’s morals and values, leading to a reliance on instant gratification and promoting negativity. Others complain that technology has led to an inability to handle normal tasks (20%) or to the misuse of widely available information (16%).

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Beliefs & Practices
• Emerging Technology
• Health Policy
• Medicine & Health
• Religion & Politics

Most Popular

Report materials.

• Scientific and Ethical Debates
• Perspectives on Human Enhancement
• The scientific and ethical elements of human enhancement
• American Trends Panel Wave 15
• American Trends Panel Wave 16

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center