Not long ago, one told the time by reading a watch or clock with a face and a dial - an analog device. Now, time is told by reading a number off of a screen - a digital device. Many just read the time off a smartphone screen. And quite a number are unable to read the older analog timepieces at all.
Is it possible for technology to go too far? If it is, how far is too far? Even more important, how does anyone determine if it has gone too far?
The news headlines on any given day reveal new hopes, promises and actual developments in the computer and other tech worlds.
Recently, the majority of the articles and reports appear to deal with "personal devices," such as iPhones, smartphones, tablets and more.
Security of the devices is currently at the forefront. Will governments be allowed the ability to determine who was texted, emailed or spoken to by anyone they choose? Or will the information remain encrypted and unreadable by anyone except the sender and receiver?
Which is the most important - civil liberties or surveillance of those a court or other government entity deems "vital?" The tech industry is on one side, and the government is on the other. Each side has many supporters, and at this point it is not easy to see who will win.
Replacing bank cards with smartphones for ATM use is another big step being taken. In fact, there is an effort underway to eliminate the ATM screen and keypad. Everything would be done with the smartphone, using the device's fingerprint reader or possibly an iris scanner. But is it a good thing, a bad thing or merely another change in the way things are done?
There is also a move, already underway in several countries, to get rid of cash and have every transaction digital. That would mean every transaction would be trackable. And it would be tracked. The same question can be asked - good or bad?
Then there are the humanoid robots being developed. They are expected to take over many tasks previously done by human workers. The advantages for the company are obvious - no eight-hour days; no need for parking lots, break rooms, sick days, vacation schedules, health insurance costs - probably no need for HR departments - and definitely no union membership or employee strikes.
The disadvantages for the people are numerous. What does a person do if there is nothing to do?
There have been several films with just that premise. "The Matrix" trilogy was about a very small number of human beings living in a practically uninhabitable world where most of the people lived in a virtual reality world. Another film, "Surrogates" with Bruce Willis, featured a world where humans hardly moved. The fat, physically unfit people were connected via WiFi to humanoid robots (avatars) who actually did everything - not exactly virtual reality, but close.
Science fiction? Maybe not. In an article in USA Today, Mark Zuckerberg is reported as saying virtual reality is in the future and will be "the most social platform."
He went on to say, "Pretty soon we're going to live in a world where everyone has the power to share and experience whole scenes as if you're just there, right there in person. Imagine being able to sit in front of a campfire and hang out with friends anytime you want. Or being able to watch a movie in a private theater with your friends anytime you want. Imagine holding a group meeting or event anywhere in the world that you want. All these things are going to be possible. And that's why Facebook is investing so much early on in virtual reality. So we can hope to deliver these types of social experiences."
Is someone living life in "virtual reality" actually living life? Or is it merely a futile, meaningless pseudo-existence?
There appear to be many young people, and some not so young, who need to be entertained constantly, usually with some electronic device or another. Whether streaming, gaming, texting, engaged in FaceTime, on Facebook, or phubbing (phone snubbing), constant electronic stimulation is "needed." Otherwise, "it's boring." We've all heard it.
As far as that goes, is it really living life if you have to be entertained constantly from some outside source or if everything is done for you? There is more to living than constant entertainment. It is not a perfect world, after all. Sometimes it is good to sit back, smell the roses and watch a sunset which is not on an electronic device. There is a lot of satisfaction to be had from being able to do some things for yourself. That includes working, hobbies that are not on a computer, cooking, taking time out for others, reading, writing (remember when that was a thing?) and seeing what the actual world is like.
Electronic devices are useful tools, but people need to make certain to remain in control. We need to make sure the smartphone doesn't rule our lives.
As singer-songwriter Joe Walsh of Eagles fame sang in his solo album released in 2012, "I'm An Analog Man in a Digital World."
Use the digital devices, but remember how to read the time on an analog clock.