ALL SHALL RETURN TO THE VOID (EXDEATH)

Introduction:
Digital technology has, without a doubt, an engulfing effect. Digitalization has taken over many aspects of our lives. The things we see, the things we listen to, the way we interact- they have all been manipulated so that it can be more accessible to us through digital representational devices (DRDs). Anyone would, of course, tell you that they are well aware that these simulations are not authentic and are distorting our perception of world. There is a consensus about the effects of digitalization; most people would agree that it alienates us from the world, and wastes our time. However, we continue to obsessively use these DRDs, neglecting our realizations about digitalization- as though, our thoughts should not matter when we're submerging ourselves into this world. We are imprisoned by our own way of digitalization. We knowingly continue to live our faux-lives, returning to our internet profiles regardless of what our thoughts and feelings tell us.

Argument #1: Way of Life
“That’s just how it is” (Interviewee). There is a general belief that digitalization is engraved into our lifestyles. We believe that since digitalization has such a lasting role thus far, it is here to stay. We have already come to accept it as a part of life- as a medium that connects us with society and the rest of the world. Without it, we will fail to succeed in society socially and economically, or at least that is what we believe. Even now, as I am writing this essay on my blog, I feel as though my desire to succeed academically is binding me to the computer. Digital technology is now perceived as a necessity, rather than a privilege. In a way, it has become the way to communicate; everything else is marginal. We’ve taken in DRDs as a major part of our lives, because we directly associate communication with DRDs. And we constantly return to DRDs because if we were to forfeit them, we would be forfeiting our way of communication, and our connections with the rest of the world.

We are at a point where “the internet has become the default playground of our society” (Carrie L). DRDs play such a big role in our way of communication that we passively accept it into our lives, hardly ever reconsidering an alternative method. We constantly go back to DRDs because it is the set way of communication, as is drinking water, eating food and inhaling oxygen are the set ways of survival. As portrayed by M.T. Anderson in his allegory Feed, these pieces of digital technology have been implanted into our lives. The characters have chips, known as the Feed, that are literally implanted into their heads, and they monitor and influence everything the person is thinking and feeling. “Her spine was, I didn’t know the word. Her spine was like…? The feed suggested ‘supple.’” (14). Not only do these characters communicate through the feeds, like we do with AIM or MSN or whatever, but these chips in their heads prompt them with what they have to say.

In a very similar manner, we too rely on our "feeds" to tell us what to think. Much of our attention goes to what is happening online, who said what on Facebook, what comments are you receiving, even when we're not physically in front of digital screen. The internet, itself decides on how we interact with one another. It has already been incorporated into our lifestyles. Without our feeds we too wouldn’t know what to think, or how to properly socialize. We would lose our way of life, and be stuck in a state of mental immobility.

Wall-E, another representation of our lives, demonstrates that we cannot escape DRDs because it has become an all-surrounding part of our lives. From what was seen in class, the people in the movie are all moving along a set track, as they are distracted by the flowing screen put directly in front of their faces. These people are blindly staring and accepting what is presented to them. And when they are told, “try blue, it's the new red,” they did just that. These DRDs are shoved right in front of our faces, and play such a large role in our lives, that we do not avoid because we think we can’t avoid it. The only path that seems available to us would be the same path we’ve been following most of our lives: an arbitrary path that consists of a physical world replaced by holographic screens.

We constantly return to digitalization because we see it as a requirement. These rectangular glowing devices aren’t just tools for us to watch numbers grow larger, as more people comment on our lives, but they’re tools that help you fulfill your societal needs. We see them as figures that cover many aspects of our lives. Regardless of what the situation might be, DRDs will be the medium that connects us with it. Having such lives that revolve so much around these objects, we have to continue to take the easy path, and continue to return to the DRDs.

Argument #2: Safe Zone
The sanctuary is behind the glowing screen. We strive to be in a place that is both comfortable and empowering- and what better place is there than the internet? We can control our identities, manipulate other's perceptions more easily, pick out what we see and hear, and be cool. There is an expectation that everyone has to act as a reflection of the positive energy that other people send them. And most people try to meet this expectation. Everyone has to be nice; everyone has to be charming; everyone has to be funny; and everyone has “lol” at every dumb statement. If done successfully, the person’s chances of developing a more “intimate” relationship with the other person. But of course, hardly anyone can act this way all the time- unless they’re on the internet.

We are, for the most part, well aware that we put on these false identities when we’re chatting away online. “You have no idea who you are, so you're experiment which one is more likeable” (John L). We want to be liked, so we project ourselves in whatever form that will appeal to more people. And when we’re online, our identities are more easily adjustable. However, when we’re in the outside world, such an alteration is not as accessible; in that we are much more perceivable. If a person allows their internet profiles completely overlap their physical lives, they would be called a “fake” or a “phony,” at least that’s what my observations have told me. We return to DRDs and the internet, because that would never be the issue. Everyone is trying to act nice, and managing their coolness. No one will ever try to blow off anyone’s mask, because they’re so preoccupied in trying to project their own. Your faux-identities are safe, and forever-growing.

Given the opportunity to be who they want, people are more inclined to use DRDs to project themselves, even when believing that being “someone who you’re not” is a negative thing. In an interview with the employee at Yogurberry, I asked him why he thought people would choose to text and use the computer over sports. He responded by saying, “It's more fun to talk on phone. And I become more fun on the phone.” There is some sort of distortion caused by the phone that allows the person to be more “fun.” The interviewee also added, “I am more confident when I am in front of the computer. People become more social through technology.” Again, having this indirect connection with another person allows the user to alter their personalities. This particular interviewee didn’t appear too ashamed about this habit of using DRDs to seem more “fun.” However, do know that this person is a person who said, “You feel more alive when you're playing sports and actively moving.” So even though there is a better option, sports, that make you feel more “alive,” this individual, along with many others, chose to be fun and confident through the phone.

Even though being someone you’re not is considered bad, and there are options are considered to make you feel more “alive,” people continue to return to DRDs. There’s something about having this invisible, digital wall that allows any person to seem like a better, more ideal version of him/her. And with that, DRDs are more appealing to the people, even though it alienates us from our identities. We’re living these fake lives through DRDs, because we can finally become what we sought out to be, without any real effort.

Argument #3: Instant Gratification (Cowboy Paragraphs)
Gavin, in his HW 14 about Everything Bad Is Good For You, talked about "instant gratification." He says, "With Feed TV shows, they don't necessarily need to concern themselves with cognitive advancement, only with pulp entertainment, as everything is instant gratification." Being that Feed is an allegory of our lives, we also follow this pattern. We have this desire for quick, and visual possessions. And DRDs are able to provide that to us.

In Everything Bad is Good For You, Johnson describes this "instant gratification" as "just as Tetris streamlines he fuzzy world of visual reality to a core set of interacting shapes, most games offer a fictional world where rewards are larger, and more vivid, more clearly defined, than life" (Johnson, 37). DRDs easily fulfill our needs for visual representation of approval, which would otherwise be difficult to gain. We return to using DRDs, because it satisfies that need.

Opposing Point of View:
DRDs have their benefits as well; therefore it is okay for us to use them. If we emphasize on them enough, we have a legitimate excuse to continue on this path to doom. In Everything Bad is Good For You, Johnson mentions on several occasions that we are the ones in control. When we are watching television, playing video games, or using the internet, we are the manipulators not the manipulated. Through DRDs, we are “learning to lead.” Of course this is, to some extent true. We do these things based on our own senses of judgment. And based on Johnson’s argument, “it’s not about tolerating or aestheticizing chaos; it’s about finding order and meaning in the world, and making decisions that help create that order” (62). We are constantly stimulating our brains through DRDs, and making sense of the situation provided by them. According to Johnson, we are the ones that are in control; we decide on what we do on our DRDs, and how much of it.

From my experience, I never sought to play video games, or to watch television in hopes of “finding order and meaning in the world.” I just do them because it’s part of my connection with other people. These distractions act as common grounds for people to network in. However, if we keep believing that video games, television, and the internet yield such great benefits (I’m not saying that they don’t hold any at all), we can continue to be consumed by DRDs, without feeling any guilt. But as it is displayed in Feed, the characters are given the access to instant knowledge, and yet they’re extremely ignorant. Although our education is not as instantaneous, we still do not take advantage of DRDs in that aspect. But since we’re not actually taking control, we’re still caught in these daily cycles of logging on to our internet lives. At least now, we can return to our DRDs with an excuse.

Even if we did seek for education through DRDs, the amount of distraction caused by them outweighs the knowledge it brings. “After all, "never have the opportunities for education, learning, political action, and cultural activity been greater," writes Bauerlein, a former director of Research and Analysis at the National Endowment for the Arts. But somehow, he contends, the much-ballyhooed advances of this brave new world have not only failed to materialize - they've actually made us dumber” (Drutman). Our generation is getting dumber, even though technology is becoming more advance, making them more accessible for education. With that, we actually do not have a grasp of our digital lives. We’re merely puppets that believe we’re making our own movements. But in fact, we’re just continuing this cycle of DRDs, lying to ourselves so we would feel better about the experience.

Connection:
Having such a cycle of constantly returning to DRDs connects to the website that John posted on his blog: The Story of Stuff. The website emphasizes on the repetition of "work, ads telling you you suck, shop, work to shop and repeat." We're follow this meaningless cycle of buying stuff that you would eventually throw out, for the same reasons we keep using DRDs. We follow this consumer cycle because we believe it's part of our lives. It's down on such a regular basis, we do not see it as something wrong. Buying stuff is also a display of wealth, in order to project your status in society, you would have to buy visual representations. This cycle also provides both a sense of comfort and confidence, and instant gratification. There are certain many parallels between different aspects of our way of life. In this case, there are parallels between our usage of DRDs and the way we consume.

Conclusion/Significance:
Allowing DRDs to play such a big role in our lives is contributing to our collapse. We’re living and reliving a lifestyle that blinds us from the problems that are in front of us. Soon enough, if not already happening, we will be like the characters in Wall-E- completely unaware of everything that surrounds us. The glowing screen that is put directly in front of our faces will be the only thing that is of our concern. Being aware of that DRDs alienate us, and distract us from the physical world is, of course, important. However, with that knowledge we continue to interact with DRDs throughout most of our days. Understanding why we continue this cycle can, perhaps, allow us to consider alternatives, maybe see that we don't really need DRDs, and that they're just an option that we choose to follow by. Rather than saying it's simply engraved in our lifestyles, we can start to see that it can actually be a replaceable, insignificant part of our lives. Instead of saying that it acts as a haven that allows us to comfortably socialize, and become the person we want to be, we can begin to do that in face-to-face interactions. And instead of returning to DRDs for the instant gratification, we can reconsider our values and what we consider meaningful, or obtain instant gratification in some other source. Seeing how we are trapped in this cycle allow us to be free, at least freer than before. DRDs, as of now, plays such a big role in our lives. It is not enough to just say they're bad, but that wouldn't give us an incentive to change; we wouldn't know which parts to change in order to avoid this lifestyle. Pointing out just a few reasons can hopefully cause some change. Although, DRDs will not become extinct from our lives, it would still be a step forward (maybe) if we trimmed it down a bit, or at least find some meaning to all the time we spend in front of the screen.

Works Cited:
- Anderson, M.T. Feed. 1st. Somerville,Massachusetts: Candlewick Press, 2007. 97. Print.

- Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad is Good For you. New York: Riverhead Books, 2005. 123. Print.

- L, Carrie. "HW 14: Second Text." (2009): 1. Web. 12 Nov 2009.
< http://personalpoliticalbycarrie.blogspot.com/2009/10/hw-14-second-text.html >.

- L, John. "HW 14 New Text." (2009): 1. Web. 12 Nov 2009. < http://personalpoliticaljohnl.blogspot.com/2009/10/hw-14-new-text.html >.

- Leonard, Annie. "The Story of Stuff." Free Range Studios (2009): n. pag. Web. 12 Nov 2009. < http://storyofstuff.com/index.html >

- M, Gavin. "HW 14." (2009): 1. Web. 12 Nov 2009.
< http://quitetheconundrummydear.blogspot.com/2009/10/14draft.html >.

- Drutman, Lee. "'The Dumbest Generation' by Mark Bauerlein." Los Angeles Time (2008): 1. Web. 12 Nov 2009. < http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-book5-2008jul05,0,6248930.story/index.html >.