Rainbows End

1) Although most of the book seems to look at technology as a kind of scary and potentially devastating thing to society and old ways of literacy, I believe Vinge accepts the ways in which technology is changing our world.  I think this is less of a book about the pros and cons of technological advances and more of a story about what might happen to society and attitudes towards literacy in the future.  I say this because Vinge doesn’t seem to be demonizing or supporting this new way of life through augmented reality and mediated commonplace, rather the book takes an almost satirical and neutral stance on these topics.  I think the better question to ask is whether or not this type of world is better for information gathering, culture and education?  Even though the reality of what Vinge describes will most likely not be reached in our lifetimes or our children’s, it is interesting to think that our world is slowly moving towards this type of augmented reality that is so every prevalent in Rainbows End.  We see the beginnings of this with Facebook check- in’s and Googles Goggles; in addition to some kinds of AR advertising through mobile phones.  More and more, we are seeing a world being looked at through mobile and stationary devices such as a computer or smart phone.

8) Robert Gu is the perfect protagonist for many reasons and represents a kind of person who is stuck in the past and has to (almost unwillingly) adjust and adapt to this new kind of technological world dominated by third party devices.  Vinge did a great job at creating a situation that was both new to Gu and to the reader.  Essentially allowing the reader to understand and learn about this new and complicated world, just as Gu does.  It allows for a more vivid and interesting story as the reader isn’t trying to play catch up with what is happening.  The evolution of Gu’s character almost mirrors that of someone who begins to slowly accept his or her new environment and finds a way to fit in as Gu did when he develops an algorithm that helps fix some of the bugs involved with the haptics system used in video games. 

I thought the way Vinge portrayed Gu was great because it gave the audience something to relate to and understand. 

Responses to Nicholas Carr's essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid."

Although in the past I have disagreed with much of what Clay Shirky has proposed, I chose his response to Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making us Stupid” essay as a good example of a thoughtful rebuttal.  Instead of attacking Carr’s argument that new technologies and computer programmers of these new technologies are largely to blame for societies shift from “deep reading” to “surface skimming,” Shirky creates a new argument proposing Carr’s essay is less about thinking and reading and more about an entire culture change.  I find it helpful when debating an issue if one begins to argue on a separate and more isolated point as Shirky did.  For example, Shirky didn’t argue that these new technologies are affecting societies reading practices.  In fact he embraced this claim.  Shirky decided to look at Carr’s essay as more of a cultural shift rather than an attack on literacy and thinking.  Overall I found this change of topic and focused argument often gets my attention more than does someone who just attacks the obvious main claims of another.

In addition I chose another rebuttal that was done in much the same way as Shirky’s.  Like Shirky, Douglas Rushkoff focuses less on Carr’s main claim that new technologies are endorsing less thinking and reducing reading and argues whether or not this can be seen as, in Rushkoff’s words, “a net gain or a net loss.”  Again arguing a separate isolated issue is more convincing and easier to prove than trying to attack the meat of Carr’s main claim, so to speak.  For example, it is obvious that much of what Google and other new internet technologies has done is create an abundance of information which has led to shortened attention spans and shorter texts.  It is hard to argue this point.  However, Rushkoff takes a different avenue and questions whether this is a bad or good thing or a smart or dumb thing for cultures. 

All in all I felt these two rebuttals portrayed a good understanding of how to disagree and argue a point without getting into a he said she said type of argument.  Each person, Shirky and Rushkoff, found two problems outside of the main claim and attacked those in a logical and thoughtful manner.  As to my own ideas on the internet and literacy, I do share many of the same ideas that were pointed out in both rebuttals.  This may help to influence why I thought they were effective.  In any case, I believe these two writers developed two very good rebuttals. 

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/07/why-abundance-is-good-a-reply-to-nick-carr/ - Clay Shirky

http://www.edge.org/discourse/carr_google.html#sanger – Douglas Rushkoff