The list below reminds me of a "toy" commercial I saw recently--except that it wasn't really a commercial for a toy. Instead, it's a commercial showing a man giving his wife and children each a high-end cell phone, before revealing that he has, of course, kept the best one for himself.
And if a company here in Texas has its way, pretty soon your kids will each be clamoring for their own phone (if they aren't already) just for the games. Computer game company id Software wants to bring cell phone games out of the classic game era and into what it sees as a new and bright future for cell phone gaming.
I'll admit that I'm not a video game person. The limited access our children have to video games centers around time spent with their dad, who has always enjoyed certain video games and is glad to play only those games our girls can play with him. I know the girls appreciate the time they get to spend with daddy, sharing his enjoyment of video games, but I also know that this sort of entertainment can be addictive if it's not kept within reasonable limits.
Parents may disagree on what constitutes reasonable limits for all kinds of electronic entertainment: video games, television, computer time, and so on; and these limits may vary widely depending on children's ages or other responsibilities. But I have a lot more common ground with parents who try to set limits and keep the allure of the newest technology and most dazzling game from becoming an obsession to a relatively young child than I do with parents who see no problem at all with their kids being plugged in, tuned in, online, and so on for the better part of each day.
The notion that cell phones are rapidly becoming tiny mobile entertainment centers is troubling to me. For one thing, it seems that parents who are trying to set limits on their children's use of these types of technology are going to find their children immersed in it in the surrounding community; for another, if mom and dad is always connected or always being entertained children will sense a hypocrisy in the limits being placed on their own electronic entertainment privileges.
And why do we need cell phone games, or cell phone televisions, or cell phone web access, anyway? So we won't have to smile pleasantly at the stranger in line with us at the post office? So we won't be bored for the twenty-six seconds it takes the elevator to reach our floor, and the additional seventeen it takes for us to reach the floor a few levels down where our meeting is being held? So we won't miss a second of streaming video coverage of what in retrospect will be a non-event, during time that would otherwise be "wasted" in a relatively pleasant walk from the store to our parked car? So our companies and employers can not only reach us twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week by phone, but insist on spontaneous video conferencing as well?
We can't acquire a sense of community with our faces intent on the pocket-sized screen in the palm of our hands. We can't admire the unexpected beauty of a robin's song when the pellet-shaped buds in our ears deafen us to his presence. We can't experience even a moment of peace, when the voice on the other end of the line constantly demands our attention, our focus, our energy.
We can't appreciate life, if all we are doing is entertaining ourselves to death.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Elizabeth--Are you talking about the book "Better Off"? It was written by a guy getting his master's degree from MIT, and he went to live in a Mennonite-like community for a year. MIT was not thrilled with his thesis to explore a world without technology.
I'm 52 (almost 53) and still don't have a cell phone. (Didn't even get a credit card until I was 45.) However, I do believe I will buy a cell phone maybe even an I-Phone, in the next year. The point to me is not to reject new technology, but to reject conforming to the latest technological "must-haves."
Connie,
I had not heard of that book. The story I had in mind was about a female grad student who only did the experiment for a month or two. Or three. It was in the local paper some time last year. She didn't go farther back than some date in the 1950s.
Back to the Amish for a moment. I had the pleasure of touring Amish businesses in Missouri a couple of years ago. One shop made furniture and wooden playground equipment. They use power tools with electricity from Honda car batteries. They also used kerosene-fueled refrigerators from Sweden (?) in their homes. Smells like kerosene all the time.
I have to say that the Amish cookbooks were a disappointment. I thought we'd be getting great-grandma-style country cooking. Instead they were full of recipes using Jello and canned soups, right out of the 1950s Betty Crocker cookbook.
Hi, Eric: One reason people wear ipods or CD players in the train, is that it seems to cut down on undesirable interactions with some of the riders. If you don't make eye contact, and have headphones on, *sometimes* you are safer from being the object of a drunk or disturbed person's attention.
Hi, Elizabeth: I think the Amish are very idealized by a lot of people, and know exactly what you mean about the "Amish cookbook" phenomenon. In general, "old-fashioned" cooking isn't that great, depending on your tastes. I would much rather cook French Provencal rather than late 19th century German, or (as you so accurately describe it) Jello salad and bread pudding made of stale Wonder bread.
The other misapprehension people have about the Amish is that they are "anti-technology." They are *not.* Their views were shaped by living in Prussian-controlled territory 400 years ago, when men were being forced into the military for 20 years at a time. They didn't want to become dependent on "the state," so to speak. So they *will* use technology like kerosene refrigerators, or batteries - what they are opposed to is using power "off the grid." In other aspects, they will use power tools in wood-working, or will go to the hospital if sick.
I don't think the Amish worldview was *ever* intended to serve as a kind of blanket "sustainable" one.
The other misapprehension people have about the Amish is that they are "anti-technology." They are *not.*
Neither were the Shakers, who are often used as examples of simple, low-energy consumption lives. What's admirable about the Amish is that they use much less energy per capita than typical Americans. In discussing the Amish, you often hear these criticisms that they are not sustainable,ie not completely independent of mainstream America's high-tech, gasoline-intensive lifestyle, as if that were a failure on their part. The Amish lifestyle comes far closer to long-term sustainability than the average Americans. Future generations of Americans who won't have our current blessing of cheap fossil energy will have to re-learn what the Amish practice every day - the skills of agriculture and animal husbandry that are all but forgotten by average Americans these days. Why study these things when all you need to know is Wal-mart has cheap food, big screen TVs and cell phones with music and games?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.