Smart Technology and Lifestyle Change - Essay Example

Smart Technology and Lifestyle Change Name: Course: Instructor: Institution: Date of Submission: Producers label goods ‘smart' to create an expectation of trust that the good holds the best in satisfaction of customer needs (Katzenbach, 1993). There is a notion of leniency benchmark in the production of the good, and the buyer stands to benefit more than the seller. Smartness creates a good picture for goods with close substitutes in the market. Smartness makes the consumers to preference for a particular good while leaving out others (Grönroos, 1994). Smart technology entails performing tasks for humans to diversify their abilities. Smart technology helps to solve human weaknesses such as flying. Smart people are capable of employing smart technology in their daily activities (wise, 2010). The smart information comes from the mass media such as music and television and electronic gadgets such as mobile phones and iPods. Others include credit cards for shopping and remote controls for cars and buildings (Bull, 2005).Smart technology aims at placing the world under response to clicks, gestures, glances and words. However, advocates against smart technology argue that the new assemblage of technologies is a threat to culture (Wise, 2010). Smart technology enhances diagnostic monitoring especially in medical therapy and treatment. The sensors and monitoring devices define blood pressure and glucose meters, collect and disseminate information to healthcare professionals for a safe medication (Juris, 2012). Different users form different conception or models of mentality about computer-user interactions in learning and storing information (Juris 2012). Understanding of the interrelationship between culture and technology enhances intelligent people stand at a good point of making right choices (Demarest, 1997). Technologies contribute socio-cultural change. Both entities are deterministic ways of life. Technology and culture become inseparable from people's lives with time as a result of innovations (Castells, 2011). The culture of smart technology encompasses six factors namely; causal relationships, agency, use-technology articulation, assemblage, space occupation by machines and the user-identity that defines mutual action manipulation between the technology and the user. Politics that involves support of technology as a new culture can be incorporated too (Howard, 2010). There are six ways in which the smart people and smart technology show similarity. Firstly, smart people believe that the technology is an extension of liberal and humanistic discourse on the cyberspace (Armitage & Roberts 2002). Secondly, smart people delegate tasks and actions to digital and electronic avatars (Dowling, 2000). Thirdly, smart technology aims at abandoning the physical world for a city of bits (Friedewald & Costa, 2003). Fourthly, technology leads to transformation of institutional and architectural spaces (Gassmann & Enkel, 2004). Fifthly, smart technology enhances abandoning of the physical body and leaving the human consciousness to roam in the universe (Wood & Smith 2004). Lastly, smart technology enhances mutual human-machine dependence but under human control (Holmquist et al. 2004). It calls for modification of structures, devices and environments to respond to human's actions (Stauffer & Grimson 2000). Smartness entails some special relationship existing between the users and the technology. Intelligent people do not find it hard to utilise smart technology. There is also a claim that Smart people have an affinity to computers and computer- related technology. The intelligent people also frequently use the computer and the associated the associated technology. The people have a background of computer technology without anxiety. The people also have a positive attitude towards pursuing computer literacy and skills. The people also have self-efficacy that incorporates the confidence to learn computers usage. Smart people like computers and do not argue against beliefs of dehumanising feature of a computer (Stauffer & Grimson 2000). By describing the computers, and smart people as multidimensional, there is an implication of reference to the hyperspace. There is an emphasis of computer capabilities of compressing data, image processing, exercising exploratory data analysis and predicting patterns (Wood & Smith 2004). The technology uses data by creating and evaluating prototypes of physical and mobile interfaces and web applications. Creativity in world knowledge management, over-valuing of social networks for information and wisdom is the essence of the technology. Designing smart technology considers separation of relevant and irrelevant information mixing tangible and digital technology in day to day activities and encouraging human-agent interactions by use of autonomous agent systems (Bull, 2005). Opponents of ‘smart' intelligence disagree that there is no need to incorporate computers to human lifestyle. The claim that computer softwares cannot grow up as humans and experience in love, feel hunger or exhaustion. They hence lack the context that makes humans relate with one another naturally. Automation is not a defence point for the notion of agency. Smart computers are incapable of performing experiments by themselves. The devices depend on humans for running and maintenance. Contrary to this dependence, evolution enhanced development of general service creatures (Wise, 2010). Smart technology enhances genetic engineering and biotechnology which are the expected solutions to the predicted demand increase for food due to high future population. Example 1 There is a question of whether smart technology can define human interaction, decision making and life pursuits. Facebook scheme can answer the question appropriately. The facebook programme can exploit human potential, and lead creative life in a number of ways. Facebook as smart technology relies on the intelligence of designers to create a society that shares information, explores ideas, and enhances creation of awareness of issues and learning (Bucher, 2013). Facebook technology uses the expected beliefs and activities about culture and friendship to create electronic friendship. Facebook designers have a commercial motive rather than the user intuitive of being a social platform. The traditional notion of friendship entails a bond between two colleagues with no charge of structural constraints. Aristotle claims that friendships need nurture and care, are not static and require ongoing active engagement having temporalities. Aristotle calls for rhythms of repletion, memories, anticipation to avoid ontogeny at all costs among or between friends, and this is the character that facebook exploits(Bucher, 2013). Aristotle argues that friendships need nurture and care, are not static and require ongoing active engagement with temporalities and rhythms of repletion, memories, anticipation hence ontogeny. The designers of facebook use the idea to make facebook an agent that connects people as friends (Bucher, 2013). The Facebook software can choose friends and regulate friendship activities for its subscribers (Bucher, 2013). The software platform sets algorithms that enhance functionality of the site. The software creates relational impulses by combining in different parts and processes. The elements include people, equipment, software processes, shared processes and standards. Facebook assumes friendship creation by use of correlating elements. Assembling of dynamic Protocols facilitates the program to connect with friends through platforms just as principles enhance creation of social connections (Wise 2010). After registration the software urges users to add friends. The program uses the profile information to suggest friends from the existing users. The users that are subjects of friendship are similar to ghosts roaming in the network waiting for the closest suit (Bucher, 2013). When an individual with profile similarities registers in facebook, the ‘ghosts' become alive. Relating the similarities in the personal profile facilitates the template to forge relationships. The friendship creation process depends on findability and compatibility rather than a natural process (Bucher, 2013). The regulation of friendship is through customizing the privacy for nature amount and information access. PYMK algorithm recommends friend a friend with similar characteristic or activity. Shared friendship contradicts with a business requirement. Edgerank and graph rank display interesting stories in the platform depending on how the parties interact through comments and likes (Bucher, 2013). The software configures friendship online by use of software elements that alters the traditional understanding of relations. PYMK uses similarity as a basis for creating the association. The software highlights activities that occur between other friends that brings memories of togetherness (Bucher, 2013). The intelligent society emphasizes on creativity and knowledge (Wise, 2010). The smart technology is all about intangibility of ideas. Social capital entails obtaining benefits through group and individual preferential treatment and cooperation. The like button implies sameness. The like button is commercial and shows purchasing interest. It publicises 'likes' of businesses on friends' timelines hence indicating a recommendation (Bucher, 2013). The facebook technology uses the intelligence of its designers to determine what happens among ‘friends' and combines the features of friendship to connect people in the platform. However, the difference emerges from the idea that the number of friends created by the platform is many unlike what the classical definition of friends. The facebook program, though appearing as a social platform, it is for commercial asset for its designers. The subscribers' needs of interactions and co-operation provides client base for the facebook venture. The facebook subscribers' interaction and their cooperation counts to the social capital (Bucher, 2013) Example 2 Smart technologies can define the interaction between humans, their decision making and define what they pursue in life. A question arises on whether smart technology can provide a number of opportunities to exploit human potential and lead a creative life. An illustration is the programmed personal assistant in offices. The personal assistant software can be attached to an individual's needs and personality and thereby manipulate the person's lifestyle (Murphy & Collins 1997). The agent personifies and focuses the actual concept in the current technological world and becomes the extension of its controller or user. The computerised personal assistant works on behalf of the person in decision-making such as shopping, telephone calls, acting as a travelling assistant when the individual is doing other things (Wise, 2010). However, the users of the smart technology become dependent on the technology with time. The assistant is an interface between the computer and the person and can predict through the internet about the wishes and demands of a person (Nowak et al. 2005). The agent can also communicate and negotiate with other agents on behalf of the individual. The particular agent thus works on behalf of an individual, creating the impression that the assistant and the individual are substitutes. However, the prediction that the assistant makes can be against the wishes of the individual. The inhumane feature creates a riddle of controlling the activities of agents to avoid making improper guesses for the individual being assisted (Wise, 2010). The designers of the agents aim at enhancing continued interactions in the absence of the biological person. The increased interactions created contribute to social capital for the designers. Smart technology is about people and their relationship. In this case the smart people are the developers and users of the technology. Smart people can thus generate the smart technology and benefit from social capital through acceptance of users to incorporate the smart technology into their daily life. The delegation of work to technology by users makes them benefit from intelligent life of efficiency (Wise, 2010). Example 3 Technology is critical in making people smart since ICT is used to make intelligent decisions and transform life significantly in a number of ways. The IT infrastructure and applications are pre-requisites. However, if the people do not cooperate and collaborate, there is no smart technology. Cooperation encompasses accepting the fact that the body realm and technological realm are inseparable entities. It is impossible to abandon one realm in favour of the other. There must be acceptance that the world has geographical and economic differences. The union of the differences enhances acceptance of technology, discourse, mediation and agency as constituents of human identity. The reduced discrimination of technology as unnatural can enhance its embodiment to edge out the separation from the world. The embodiment creates unification with people and gives humanistic cognition for a sense of common direction (Wise, 2010). The intelligent machine can influence the level of knowledge in the party by participating in making intelligent decisions. The development of World Wide Web (WWW) and internet in the cyberspace are examples. The website can enhance commercial activities such as advertising marketing and consumer surveillance. Negroponte claims that the prospected world of bits will see a significant transformation of institutions and architectural spaces. The technology minimises the tedious physical movements and increases spread of ideas globally. Smart technology makes humans increase smartness, but the technology cannot exist without humans. Berkun (1995) as cited by Wise (2010) argues that there must be an established control of the idea of self-extension by users of smart technology. The limited exhibition of agency capabilities of the agents such as that of WWW and internet serve as illustrations. Despite the agents acting as delegates of tasks in the cyberspace, they rely on programming and logic of their designers (Wise, 2010). In conclusion, technological progress is fast and non-excludable from peoples' lives. Adapting to the advancement is necessary for socio-economic and political development. Technology saves time and money by increasing the speed and capacity of doing tasks. Failure to adopt modern technology creates a gap in terms of development. Technological costs such as unemployment and overdependence on machines to work need positive perception as ways of expanding human potential. Human control of the technology despite its versatility can lower the adverse effects of overdependence. The harmony between humans and technology can contribute to global social capital whose utility can contribute to economic development opportunity. References Armitage, J., & Roberts, J. (Eds.). (2002). Living with Cyberspace: Technology and Society in the 21st Century. Bloomsbury Publishing. Butcher T., (2013).Friendship Assemblage: investigating Programmed Sociality on Facebook. University of Oslo. Bull, M. (2005).The iPod and mobile listening culture. Leisure studies, 24(4), 343-355. Castells, M. (2011): The age of information: Economics, society, and culture (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons. Demarest, M. (1997). Understanding knowledge management. Long range planning, 30(3) 374-384 Dowling, C. (2000). Intelligent agents: upcoming ethical issues and dilemmas. Australian Institute conference on Computer ethics (pp. 28-32). Australian Computer Society, Inc. Friedewald, M., & Da Costa, O. (2003). Science and technology: Ambient intelligence in day-to-day life (AmI@ Life). Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer-Institut für System-und Innovationsforschung (FhG-ISI). Gassmann, O. & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards open innovation: The core process archetypes in managing R&D (Vol. 6). Grönroos, C. (1994). From marketing of mixing to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in marketing. Management decision, 32(2), 4-20. Holmquist, L. E., Michaels, F., Schiele, B., & Mazé, R. (2004). Building intelligent environments with smart-information technology. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 24(1), 56-64 Howard, P. N. (2010). How digital origins cause emergence of dictatorship and democracy: Information technology and political Islam. The Oxford University Press. Juris, J. S. (2012). Reflecting on occupying everywhere: Social media, public space, and emerging logic of aggregation. American Ethnologist, 39(2), 259-279 Katzenbach, J. R. (1993). How teams show wisdom: Creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business Press. Kidd, C. D., Orr, R., Essa, I. A., MacIntyre, B., & Newstetter, W. (1999). the home awareness: A living laboratory for ubiquitous computing research. In Cooperative buildings. Integrating information, organizations, and architecture (pp. 191-198 Stauffer, C., & Grimson, W. E. L. (2000). Learning patterns of activity using real-time tracking. Pattern Analysing and Intelligence of machines, IEEE Transactions on , 22(8), 747-757. Matrix, S. E. (2006). Cyberpop: digital lifestyles and commodity culture. Routledge. Kidd, C. D., Orr, R., Abowd, GAtkeson, C., Essa, I.., MacIntyre, B., & Newstetter, W . (1999). A laboratory for ubiquitous computing research. In buildings. Integrating information, organizations, and architecture (pp. 191- 198). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Murphy, K. L., & Collins, M. P. (1997). Communication conventions in instructional electronic chats. First Monday, 2(11). Nowak, K. L., Watt, J., & Walther, J. B. (2005). The influence of synchrony and sensory modality on the person perception process in computer‐mediated groups.Computer‐Mediated Communication, Veltman, K. H. (1997).How Computers Transform Education. The global Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia and Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA 97 & ED-TELECOM 97). Wise, M. J., (2010).Intelligent. Agency. Routledge Wood, A. F., & Smith, M. J. (2004).communicating online: relationship between technology , personality, & culture. Routledge . Read More

It calls for modification of structures, devices and environments to respond to human's actions (Stauffer & Grimson 2000). Smartness entails some special relationship existing between the users and the technology. Intelligent people do not find it hard to utilise smart technology. There is also a claim that Smart people have an affinity to computers and computer- related technology. The intelligent people also frequently use the computer and the associated the associated technology. The people have a background of computer technology without anxiety.

The people also have a positive attitude towards pursuing computer literacy and skills. The people also have self-efficacy that incorporates the confidence to learn computers usage. Smart people like computers and do not argue against beliefs of dehumanising feature of a computer (Stauffer & Grimson 2000). By describing the computers, and smart people as multidimensional, there is an implication of reference to the hyperspace. There is an emphasis of computer capabilities of compressing data, image processing, exercising exploratory data analysis and predicting patterns (Wood & Smith 2004).

The technology uses data by creating and evaluating prototypes of physical and mobile interfaces and web applications. Creativity in world knowledge management, over-valuing of social networks for information and wisdom is the essence of the technology. Designing smart technology considers separation of relevant and irrelevant information mixing tangible and digital technology in day to day activities and encouraging human-agent interactions by use of autonomous agent systems (Bull, 2005). Opponents of ‘smart' intelligence disagree that there is no need to incorporate computers to human lifestyle.

The claim that computer softwares cannot grow up as humans and experience in love, feel hunger or exhaustion. They hence lack the context that makes humans relate with one another naturally. Automation is not a defence point for the notion of agency. Smart computers are incapable of performing experiments by themselves. The devices depend on humans for running and maintenance. Contrary to this dependence, evolution enhanced development of general service creatures (Wise, 2010). Smart technology enhances genetic engineering and biotechnology which are the expected solutions to the predicted demand increase for food due to high future population.

Example 1 There is a question of whether smart technology can define human interaction, decision making and life pursuits. Facebook scheme can answer the question appropriately. The facebook programme can exploit human potential, and lead creative life in a number of ways. Facebook as smart technology relies on the intelligence of designers to create a society that shares information, explores ideas, and enhances creation of awareness of issues and learning (Bucher, 2013). Facebook technology uses the expected beliefs and activities about culture and friendship to create electronic friendship.

Facebook designers have a commercial motive rather than the user intuitive of being a social platform. The traditional notion of friendship entails a bond between two colleagues with no charge of structural constraints. Aristotle claims that friendships need nurture and care, are not static and require ongoing active engagement having temporalities. Aristotle calls for rhythms of repletion, memories, anticipation to avoid ontogeny at all costs among or between friends, and this is the character that facebook exploits(Bucher, 2013).

Aristotle argues that friendships need nurture and care, are not static and require ongoing active engagement with temporalities and rhythms of repletion, memories, anticipation hence ontogeny. The designers of facebook use the idea to make facebook an agent that connects people as friends (Bucher, 2013). The Facebook software can choose friends and regulate friendship activities for its subscribers (Bucher, 2013). The software platform sets algorithms that enhance functionality of the site.

Read More