Kaku and Rifkin: Two Sides of the Same Coin

    Kaku and Rifkin, have got the ball rolling on the conversation about the evolution of consciousness. They are dead on in their allusions to the concept that the Internet, in it's hyper connectivity, is really a reflection of humanity's expanding consciousness. Never before has the earth experienced such a massive shift in such a short period of time, and never before have we been given such a chance to take part in that shift. Kaku lays out both dark and beautiful possibilities, yet seems closer to our present day state of affairs. Rifkin is more hopeful, but also mostly theoretical. The point that they concur on is that the changes we are undergoing are massive, and only through awareness and action will we remain relevant.
    The only limitations these two thinkers impose upon themselves are the limitations of science. They both trump science, and the recent discoveries being made in various fields, as proof of their conclusions. If we as a society are not careful, science will simply become a new theology amongst the many others, where scientists remain just as close-minded as creationists. The current status quo that hinders science from evolving is a pervasive dependence upon materialism.
     Science aims to build theories and concepts that help us understand the world through "hard evidence," i.e. material proof. The issue is that the scientist as an entity is a human being, who perceives evidence through the senses, and makes sense of it with the logic of the mind. This is the domain of consciousness, and yet has science fully explained consciousness?  I think not. The scientist may always seem to have an answer, but when it comes to the ultimate existentialist questions, such as the purpose of consciousness, we are left empty handed.
    The internet is just one of many recent technologies that acts as a solvent upon the boundaries with which we delineate reality; time and space. Cellphones, television, jets, microwaves; all of these continue to move into faster, more accessible paradigms, and our generation is somehow attuned to effortlessly ride the wave. The wave will some day crash though, for technology is a double-edged sword. Either we will become so enthralled with our powers and abilities that we will forget what is important and ultimately destroy ourselves, or we will recognize the need to consciously utilize technology for the enlightenment of all. I believe it comes down to what we do as artists. The stories we choose to tell, and the emotions we choose to experience are the very realities we create for ourselves to live in. Art, technology, and science are all aspects of a universal truth, and can therefore one day be synthesized to prove that everything is simply a reflection of the primordial creative act.

    Len Masterman, although writing on the subject ten years ago (a millenia in the context of the evolution of technology) clearly outlines the reasons that establishing a universal language of media literacy is imperative for students who want an education relevant to the world they inhabit. He explains the origins of media literacy as arising from a fear that the media was subversively and subconsciously indoctrinating young people. In their essay "Critical Media Literacy, Democracy, and the Reconstruction of Education," Kellner and Share point to the same origins in their summary of the protectionist approach to media literacy. Both articles, however, conclude that it is not enough to simply wage an intellectual war of morals against the media, but rather learn it's applications, and how we as individuals can become co-creators in the ever changing world we face.
    I strongly agree that it is an obligation of any educational system to continually reinvent itself in order to remain relevant. The children of today are not the children of yesterday, and neither is the world that they are being brought up in. If we have no say as to what images and sound permeate the air waves, then it is only fair that we are taught to analyze the context within which we live, and begin to see things as they are, and not how we are told they are. As a child I was lucky in the sense that there was minimal television in my home. It always stunned me when I went over to a friends whose parent actually let him have the remote and didn't care to remain in the room. The mind of a child is extremely susceptible to believing what it hears and sees, and commercials aimed at children are all too proficient in combining colors with songs to make the child believe that product will change their life. Such an acceptance of blatant commercialism will only be carried on through the years if teaching media literacy is not incorporated into all educational systems.
     After reading the above mentioned articles and considering the topic for myself, it would seem that by agreeing upon the need for a truly holistic and grounded study of the media and its various forms, education would not only be improved upon, but wholly transformed. The current state of public education seems to be one of mediocrity, adhering to the status quo, and not asking students to think critically. Establishing the importance of new media literacy would herald a shift in education towards a more global, progressive perspective. It would be the first change of many, and all for the better.

The All Consuming Flame of a Digital Prometheus

        Education is the major determinant of what a generation will accomplish and bring to this world. It is therefore the duty of education not to dictate, lecture, or fill with information, but to cultivate critical thinking, curiosity, collaboration, and independence. If an individual is imbued with a love for learning, then nothing will prevent that individual from seeking out knowledge on their own, which is an entirely viable endeavor in this era of instant information.
The goal of any educational system ought to be to create progressive thinkers, problem-solving inventors, and highly creative artists who understand the importance of specialization in tandem with collaboration. Content should take a back seat to methodology and means in the classroom. Rather than teaching kids what to think, the focus should be on exploring the varied ways of thinking. Adaptability to different perceptions and understandings of how the world works is an absolute necessity in a time when globalization through technology is dissolving all boundaries, on both a cultural and individual level.
Young's article "Actually Going to Class, for a Specific Course? How 20th-Century" could be taken as premonition of higher education dark ages, where a generation of anti-university adolescents discard learning models of the past for an alternative that suits their facility with technology better. On the other hand, the article shines a faint beam of hope on the potential for institutions and professors to accept the inevitable and facilitate a transition into actually implementing said technologies in the classroom. One may ask, "Why bother wasting time in class, around people I don't like, when all the answers are in my phone?" The thing is, we have yet to reach the point where phones grow our food, or give us our paycheck, or build our houses. Human interaction still plays a vital role, even if much human interaction takes place via different forms of technology. The principles remain the same, so what one learns in the presence of another is not only applicable, but integral.
The current dilemma faced by our educational system offers us a very important opportunity in terms of how we view education, and while the impetus may have been the burst of technological advances recently experienced, the questions that must be asked reach far beyond "To tweet or not to tweet?" There is no question that education must evolve in order to remain relevant in today's world. It already is evolving, whether the so-called individuals who determine what education consists of are conscious of it or not.
       

     
        In order that we do not see simply a cutting and pasting of our current system of education into a Blackboard friendly model, we must remind ourselves of what is at the core of our educational needs. Information abounds at our fingertips already. What society needs more than ever is a massive overhaul of the modes of thought we have become accustomed to, and that flexibility must be incorporated into individuals at a young age. Children are the future, and their education ought to be the highest priority of any nation on this earth. Not just any education, but a truly holistic education that cultivates a love for learning and the ability to form thoughts and beliefs independently of others.