Transition to De-Personalized Virtual Interactions as an Amoral Process - Case Study Example

Life for modern individuals can best be described as a virtual grid. That is quite different from the way life used to be only as recent as the mid-20th century. Robots and advanced technology were still the subject of science fiction novels and vivid imagination. People communicated by meeting face-to-face and by talking on the telephone. But today, technologies are increasingly important and have not stopped to let humanity catch up. In such a busy modern world, fewer and fewer human connections are available. In Adam Gopnik’s “Bumping into Mr. Ravioli”, the narrator denounces the influence of a technologically-drive, busy lifestyle on his young daughter, Olivia. Olivia creates an imaginary friend, named Charlie Ravioli. Olivia communicates with Charlie, but Charlie never has enough time to play with her. In that manner, Charlie substitutes as an emblem for New York’s stereotypical busyness. On this same theme, Sherry Turkle’s 2012 book “Alone Together” features an exploration of how technology changes our social lives. People are lonely and fearful of intimacy – and instead of pursuing connections with other people, they seek intimacy with machines instead. With this growing literature expressing dissatisfaction with our modern preference for technology, we see a clear risk that technology poses to social interactions generally, from distancing individuals from family, decreasing face-to-face contact, and stunted social skills. Without a doubt, technology widens the distance between individuals who spend much of their time using devices and family. Gopnik mentions his daughter Olivia always talks about Ravioli’s busy life, which mirrors her parents’ busy lives and the unavailability of time to spend together as a family. He writes, “She has introduced the figure of Charlie Ravioli in order, it dawned on us, to insist that she does have days, because she is too harried to share them that she does have an independent social life, by virtue of being too busy to have one” (Gopnik 154). Rather than a human network, Gopnik is pointing to a virtual grid that individuals share with a machine or, similarly, an imaginary playmate. Accordingly, there is less time to spend with family or close friends. Turkle corroborates that point by saying that the distinction between the real world and the virtual world has become ambiguous in recent years, which is particularly true for younger people, whom have grown up immersed in technology. She writes, “These young people are among the first to grow up with an expectation of continuous connection; always on and always on them” (Turkle 278). Not only do young people have instant connections with virtual worlds, but these instant connections can displace the connections they in turn can have with people even as spatially close to them as those who live in the same household (i.e. siblings and parents). An imaginary playmate is an appropriate metaphor for what young people are doing when they devote time to playing on a device rather than engaging with others. Technology creates a wealth of convenience for many people, especially young people who tend to be more empowered by its applications. Instead of having to go out to the electronics store, one can simply purchase the item and have it shipped to one’s door. Instead of having to tie up the line on a telephone call with friends, one can simply message them by SMS or on Facebook. The apparent cost of that, of course, is how much that is impacting young people’s social and emotional intelligence, the part of our consciousness that allows us to empathize and understand the situations of others. It also exposes young people to greater risk of exploitation by allowing strangers increased access. As an example, if Charlie Ravioli had actually been a real person on a mobile device and had actually made time for her, one has to wonder the potential problems that could cause to the privacy and security of Olivia. Instead of spending time within a family unit that is concerned about a child’s well-being, the internet contains the possibility of unforeseen problems that result by making information publicly available and increasing the access that others have to that information. Insofar as devices, computers, and emails represent an obstacle to face-to-face interaction, individuals have less time to meet each other in person. To make up for the loss of personal interaction, many believe that simply searching for and finding a friend on a social network is an equivalent and alternative option. While it is admittedly true that we can potentially find out more information (including personal details) about a person by seeing their contributions to a social network, the quality of that information and the way in which it is transmitted is not as high. That is mainly because the intended recipient of the information provided to a social network is usually not anyone in particular, so the interest and usefulness of that information will always be equivalent to any other information we get that is intended for a general audience. In the near future, we will see this concern not just as one that applies to computers and mobile devices, but also to realistic, talking robots. Turkle explores the example of Roxxxy, a $3,000 sex robot that talks and has real interactions with people under six different girlfriend settings. While today it is difficult to imagine who would buy such an expensive toy, Turkle is willing to argue that such a device won’t be so out of the ordinary in the future. It is, after all, symbolic of a larger issue in society, which is the loss of personal relationships between humans. The availability of robots means that the work required of us to invest in a relationship is taken out of the equation, and all one will receive in return in unconditional acceptance. “Dependence on a robot presents itself as risk free. But when one becomes accustomed to ‘companionship’ without demands, life with people may seem overwhelming” (Turkle 66). In other words, for people who spend all day immersed in a personal relationship with a robot – which is relatively simple from an emotional standpoint – it might weaken someone’s emotional intelligence (EQ) to such a level where that person cannot adequately deal with the emotions of actual other humans. One could draw a parallel between Roxxxy and Gopnik’s Charlie Ravioli – both are people who are “made up” in a sense. The difference, however, is that Roxxxy is never too busy or too occupied to be a good friend; in fact, that may be the advantage of a robot over even an imaginary friend. The danger is how people – especially young people – are losing their deeply human instinct when it comes to interaction by imposing agency and consciousness on inanimate objects. Turkle also presents the example of Tamagotchi, which is a “digital pet” that has needs and feelings just like a real pet. Children and the elderly use the device for companionship. As Turkle’s story goes, one day a 2-year-old girl brought a doll with her to visit her 82-year-old grandmother. When the device began crying, the elderly woman cradled the robot and asked, “Oh, why are you crying? Do you want to sit up?” Then, when her granddaughter actually started whining, Edna ignored her (Turkle 118). All of these developments in technology are not destined to make us happy, according to Turkle. Gopnik’s essay about his daughter’s relationship with the imaginary Charlie Ravioli echoes this sentiment by highlighting how Olivia “still hopes to have him to herself someday” (Gopnik 158). In the meantime, Olivia will seek a relationship with her friend that is never quite satisfying – like pursuing a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow: the closer one gets to where it ends, the farther away it seems to be. Similarly, the banalities of electronic interaction are caused by the constraints placed on our rage of expression by our gadgets and devices. Happiness, in this context, has been replaced by an emoticon, sent from one person to another. Such trends towards lack of a satisfaction with technology will not stop, especially as newer forms of technology including more advanced gadgets and devices are released – allowing people to offload more of their emotional responsibility to the online world. Just like Charlie Ravioli, many people like to talk, but only if there is time – which is where email is so useful. Gopnik explores in-depth how evolving technologies lead to a busier life and weaker ties with others. He writes, “Content, exhausting, no time to meet your friends Charlie Ravioli- style busyness arrived as an affliction in modern life ling after the other parts of bourgeois city manners did” (Gopnik 156). It is undeniable that busier lives means weaker relationships. A lack of face-to-face contact will inevitably lead to a lack of emotional connection between individuals. In addition, Turkle describes how this impacts the workplace. She writes, “In corporations, among friends and within academic departments, people readily admit that they would rather leave a voicemail or send an email than talk face-to-face” (Turkle 276). Email, texting, and other forms of instantaneous written communication allow individuals to escape the need for face-to-face interaction. While such media reduce the time of delivery to seconds rather than the time it takes to travel to meet another person, they cannot replicate the intimacy offered by in-person communication methods or replicate the depth of feeling that individuals involved in personal communication have. In sum, while technology need not present an obstacle to human connection (we see for example, technology connecting family members from across the globe in video chat), it does often get in the way of human connection and intimacy. As Turkle and Gopnik argue, that interaction is best separated as much as possible as our use of technology and gadgets has started to remove us from the natural process of interacting with others on a personal level .One can argue that their perspectives are similar becoming outdated and that the transition to de-personalized interactions is an amoral process that we must accept as we progress in the development of technology. However, as the example of Edna (the elderly woman who ignored her real granddaughter in preference of the robot), these developments have real world consequences that we should perhaps stop to consider in a rapidly changing environment. Works Cited Gopnik, Adam. "Bumping into Mr. Ravioli." 30 September 2002. The New Yorker. 1 March 2015. . Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books, 2012. Read More