Sample 1
Student Sample
Professor Sarah Martin
English 120
28 May 2017
Word Count: 1547
Unwanted Attention
How much information do you share with others on the Internet? More and more
people share information about themselves over the web without thinking about the risks
associated with increasing technology in their lives. With new social media apps such as
Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook it is more common for the average individual to put
their lives on display for others to see. While using these apps could be beneficial for
connecting with family and friends, it also opens the door for criminals to select potential
victim behind the screen of a computer. Therefore, technological advancements have
increased the risk of becoming a target of cybercrimes.
As technology has advanced, the rate of Internet crimes has risen as well. There
are many different types of cybercrimes that are ever so prominent with our society’s
technological advancements. A few of these cybercrimes include cyber stalking, identity
fraud, and common computer scams. Cyberstalking involves harassing another individual
through utilizing electronic forms of communication. The use of social media has created
a convenient way to share updates with your friends and family but it has become
common today to dismiss the dangers of who has access to that information.
With enough information out in the open, it is possible for an individual to know all
about you without ever formally meeting you. Furthermore, identity fraud is a type of
Sample 2
cybercrime that involves stealing personal/ private information for self-gain. This can be
done to a victim without their knowledge. Having your identify stolen can be very
damaging to an individual’s life if it gets into the wrong hands, as it gives them access to
private records as well as your bank accounts. Computer scams are scams that you see
more commonly when you are on the Internet. These scams target individuals by
promoting someone eye catching that entices them to click on it. Once it is clicked on it
opens the door to virus’s or potential hackers. These scams can also be in the form of an
email that weasels its way through the spam folder. Once the virus or hacker has control
of your computer, the information you have saved is no longer protected. All of the
different types of cybercrimes go to show that the Internet and rising technology has
given individuals numerous opportunities to commit these crimes.
There are also risk factors that go hand and hand with what should and shouldn’t
be shared on the Internet or be put on display for public view. Nowadays there are social
media apps that allow anybody to post pictures of what they are doing, where they are
going, and who they are with. The risk of publicly promoting your every move is that
with so much personal information out for display it makes it extremely easy for a cyber
offender to pick their next victim. According to Matti Näsi in the article “Cybercrime
Victimization among Young People: A Multi-Nation Study” young people are at a much
higher risk of becoming a victim of a cybercrime. The evidence shows that in survey
taken in 2012 “5.3% of people ages 15- 24 reported being a victim of a cybercrime, while
roughly 10% of Internet users reported being a victim of online scams or phishing” (Näsi
204). The target of younger victims could simply be due to their more active approach on
the Internet. Another risk factor associated with cybercrime is the ability to advertise it as
Sample 3
something else. Many people assume that if they see a link shared by a friend online that
it is harmless, but there are numerous ways of phishing through these means. As
computers get hacked it gives the hacker the ability to share virus’s hidden in appealing
links that make it intriguing to click on. Once the link is clicked it can be a matter of
seconds before you are the next victim. As technology advances and becomes more of a
common necessity, more and more people tend to rely on their computers and Internet to
keep track of their public and private information. The reliance on our electronic devises
for vital information makes it much easier for a cyber offender to pick their potential
victim.
As technology rises, the risk factors and types of cybercrimes previously stated
are subject to increase. Yet some readers may challenge my view by insisting that
advancements in technology have actually helped fight crime. In the CNBC news article,
“The High-Tech Future of Fighting Crime” author Julia Boorstin sheds light on the new
technological tools that are being used against criminals. In Boortstin’s view, she
describes that there are new tools such as “remote-control aerial vehicles give law
enforcement eyes from above to help with everything from bomb threats to search-andrescue, hazmat spills and active-shooter situations” (Boortstin). Although I grant that
advancing technology has helped law enforcement fight crimes on the ground, I still
maintain that these advancements have created simpler mechanisms to commit
cybercrimes.
Despite the advancements that have aided law enforcement fight cybercrimes;
there are significant weaknesses that play a role in the prevalence of these criminal
occurrences. Although there are security programs offered for cyber tools there are
Sample 4
loopholes that a persistent offender may get through. Some of these programs do not have
strict guidelines such as required changes in passwords or procedures to lock out an
account. In businesses however, the sensitive information stored in computers are subject
to the same loopholes. Once an offender breaks through the server the information is up
for display. This could give a cyber offender the opportunity to get access to employee
information, or banking accounts. In the journal “Cybercrime and Social Ties” author
E.R. Leukfeldt maintains that technology and social ties both play a vital role in the
weaknesses of security against cybercrimes. Leukfeldt states that technology gives
offenders a place to network or recruit, while cybercrime plays a social role of
“recruitment through social contacts and encounters on the street” (Leukfeldt 243). In
making this comment, he urges readers to identify the different approaches to cybercrime
and use proactive strategies to avoid them.
It is important to keep in mind the weaknesses of cyber security, and know
strategies to avoid falling victim to a cybercrime. In her periodical, “FBI Director:
Information Sharing Is Key to Battling Cyber-Crime,” Fahmida Rashid explains how
cyber threats are growing and that the FBI is taking it into serious matters. According to
Rashid, “each of the 56 FBI field offices around the country now has a dedicated cybersecurity squad, and there are 1,000 agents and analysts focused on cyber-threats”
(Rashid). This statement has important implications for the broader domain of steps we
can take to protect ourselves from cybercrime. One vital strategy that is often overlooked
is changing and creating different passwords. Creating different passwords for different
information makes it more difficult for hackers to get access to more than one account.
Furthermore, using a creative password that only you would know is another way of
Sample 5
ensuring others won’t gain access. Another strategy to avoid cybercrimes includes
providing more than one verification backup on each account. This could be a backup
email address and a phone number; that way, there is more than one wall to get through.
A simple yet effective strategy to protect oneself from a cybercrime is to report it when it
happens. Many companies offer security services, such as notifications that alert you
when something looks off with your account. Each of these notifications is important to
thoroughly check, and report before it’s too late. The essence of these strategies is that
there are multiple ways that an individual can easily take to protect themselves on the
Internet.
Ultimately, what is at stake here is that the technological advancements we make
each day add to the growing risk of cybercrimes. As beneficial as it is to use the Internet
and social media apps to communicate with friends or family, this information you share
online is never truly private. Sharing too much information about yourself or storing
sensitive documents in your hardware can have a lasting negative impact for a victim if it
gets into the wrong hands. Crimes such as identify theft, stalking, and phishing scams are
just a few of the cybercrimes that are lurking in the cyber world. Being aware of the risk
factors, identifying weaknesses, and utilizing strategies to avoid cybercrimes before they
happen will serve as vital protection for Internet users. Next time before you share
personal or private information on the Internet, think twice about what you are posting
before it gets into the wrong hands of someone from the dark web.
Sample 6
Works Cited
Boorstin, Julia. "The High-Tech Future of Fighting Crime." CNBC. CNBC, 21 Apr.
2017. Web. 25 May 2017.
Leukfeldt, E. "Cybercrime and Social Ties." Trends in Organized Crime, vol. 17, no. 4,
Dec. 2014, pp. 231-249. EBSCOhost.
Näsi, Matti, et al. "Cybercrime Victimization among Young People: A Multi-Nation
Study." Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology & Crime Prevention,
vol. 16, no. 2, Dec. 2015, pp. 203-210. EBSCOhost.
Rashid, Fahmida Y. "FBI Director:Information Sharing Is Key to Battling Cyber-Crime."
Eweek, 02 Mar. 2012, p. 1. EBSCOhost.
Sample 1
Student Sample
Professor Sarah Martin
English 120
24 May 2017
Word Count: 1,513
Hungry for Technology
When I think of technology and food, the first thing that comes to mind is my Instagram
feed. All the yummy food that bloggers and foodies post to their social media feeds makes me
think happy thoughts. However, there is more to food and technology than just pictures of food
and trying to find the location they’re from. Advancement in communication and technology are
helping with the understanding of the food industry and community. In this day in age we are
becoming more aware of what we eat, where it comes from, how it’s made and why it matters.
This is now the golden age of technology and there are many things in our everyday lives that it
affects without us paying much attention. Technology isn’t just one thing; it’s a broad word that
includes information, biotechnology, and automation to name a few. In addition, corporations,
government offices, researchers and scientists are using technology to track data, help farmers
and promote food to consumers. Our countries population is growing by the minute, not to
mention the global population as well. We are connected to one another so easily through
technology. As this number grows, so do our needs. Technology is imperative to help us as
societies understand the importance of food and how our “hunger” is connected to
technology like never before.
As consumers, we do our best to understand what we are putting in our bodies. For the
most part we read labels, do research, look online and try to be healthy. The reality is many
Sample 2
people do not do the things I listed. Genetically modified food ingredients or what we know
them by GMO’s have been around for a very long time. GMO’s are generally safe for people and
the earth. That’s why now it’s more important than ever that technology play a part in helping
farmers who in turn help consumers and the environment. For example, a genetically engineered
crop called DroughtGard was approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture six years ago.
This crop can continue to grow even throughout droughts. In addition to this crop, there is a
soybean genetically modified being used in Argentina that can withstand water shortages. These
GMO’s are helping farmers around the world provide food in safe way. However, this is not
without concerns. While many countries in Europe have not fully embraced this type of
technology, it may be only a matter of time. In his article, “Doubts About the Promised Bounty
of Genetically Modified Crops”, Danny Hakim states, “An analysis by The Times using United
Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in
yields – food per acre – when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably
modernized agricultural like France and Germany”. Although I grant that these are valid
numbers, I still maintain changes are already happening in the ecosystems, climate changes and
at this point farmers need all the help they can get. The benefits of GMO’s with changing
technology will only improve as time goes on.
Agriculture and farmers are now turning to technology to provide support on farms
across the country. Farmers are now using drones, satellites, soil sensors, smart phones and
computers to name a few, to assist with all aspects of keeping the farm running and feeding
America. According to Jayson Lusk, in his article “Why Industrial Farms Are Good for the
Environment”, “That’s one reason they’re turning to high-tech solutions like precision
agriculture. Using location-specific information about soil nutrients, moisture and productivity of
Sample 3
the previous year, new tools, known as ‘variable rate applicators,’ can put fertilizer only on those
areas of the field that need it (which may reduce nitrogen runoff into waterways)”. Technology is
helping with the use of water, fertilizer, gmo’s and even herbicide-resistance crops. These crops
are a good example of helping famers control weeds, all without plowing. It has become
common today to dismiss farmers. However, they are the reason we are alive and this new
technology will help ease the burden on farmers of having to feed us.
A long time ago there was an animated show called The Jetsons. It was set in a futuristic
utopia with robots, aliens and other innovative things. So when I read about 3-D food printing, I
envisioned Rosie the Robot “cooking” food for the family using a 3-D printer. Although that was
just a kid’s show about the future, the reality is 3-D food printing does exist now. Granted, this
technology is still in its early stage, it does have a promising future. As Chris Horton states, in
his article “Commercial Kitchens Getting a Taste of 3-D Printed Food”, “At the heart of this
concept is 3-D printing technology, still in its earliest stages, but offering the promise of greater
efficiency in the production of food, with less waste and more customization”. The costs of these
machines are quite expensive, which is why it’s mostly being used in commercial settings. Not to
mention it’s taking away from the art of cooking. Here many chefs would probably object that
these will replace chefs and cooks. However, once all the flaws and kinks are worked out, this
technology will help the average person provide nutrient filled meals for themselves and their
family. These may even become as common as a microwave in the future.
Hunger in the United States, has been an underreported, sad problem that’s been going on
since the first days of this country. We live in a time where people throw away and waste food
like it’s no big deal. Except it is a big deal and it’s one that needs to addressed. According to
Tina Rosenburg, in her article “Going Digital to Rescue Food”, “By some estimates, about 40
Sample 4
percent of all food in America is wasted. Much of it ends up in landfills, where it emits
dangerous-to-the-plant methane gas”. Yet many families are going to be hungry because they
don’t have enough food. New technology is helping organizations like Feeding America, Food
Rescue USA and Rescuing Leftover Cuisine. Using an algorithm, recipients and donors are
matched up through Meal Connect. This will give restaurants instant connections with their
closest food banks. Smaller organizations like Food Rescue USA use apps to guide volunteers.
Giving those instructions and calendars on where they can find food and where to take it. I too
am guilty of throwing food away, when it’s perfectly good. But with this new technology,
hopefully it will make people more aware and eager to help the less fortunate.
Food is one of the most popular topics on social media. As technology is growing so is
the marketing of food products. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, apps for your smart phone are
altering the way we view food. Social media “Influencers” are changing the game. Influencers
are typically average people on social media that take it upon themselves to promote things they
like. Companies send them free goods or even pay them to promote their products on social
media. Madeleine Shaw who is food vlogger and blogger is a good example of this. She would
blog her healthy recipes to her website and started building a following. She has over 200,000
followers on Instagram and is working on a cookbook. Technology is taking this type of
marketing by storm, proving you don’t always need a celebrity or a super bowl ad to get the
word out. In her article, “Social Media ‘Influencers’: A Marketing Experiment Grows into a
Mini-Economy”, Sarah Halzack maintains that “In other words, while influencer marketing rose
to prominence as a raw, credible antidote to the slick world of television and glossy magazines, it
has metastasized into something every bit as calculated”. Anyone familiar with technology
should agree that social media has changed the way we view things like food. Influencers, of
Sample 5
course, may want to question whether changing technology will either hurt or help them.
Nonetheless, technology has revolutionized the landscape of marketing and promoting food on
social networks.
In conclusion, we can’t think about food without truly thinking about technology.
Technology is important because it has made it easier to farm, sell, promote, prepare and eat
food. Sure we can start a garden in our backyard and throw a few chickens and cows back there
too. Except for most people that’s not a reality. Ultimately, what is at stake here is the simple
way we consume food. Technology keeps growing and changing, and it affects every single one
of us. For example, when I sit down for dinner the last thing on my mind is the farmer who used
new gmo’s to grow the soybeans, which were bought by the company that made the pasta, which
I then purchased after seeing it advertised online. I even acknowledge that I might throw away
my leftovers, of course that is before writing this paper. Now I look at food and technology
different and understand there’s more to it. My conclusion is that we have to remind ourselves
how important technology is in all aspects of our lives, including the food we eat.
Sample 6
Works Cited
Hakim, Danny. "Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops." The New
York Times. The New York Times, 29 Oct. 2016. Web. 18 May 2017.
Halzack, Sarah. "Social Media 'influencers': A Marketing Experiment Grows into a Minieconomy." The Washington Post. WP Company, 02 Nov. 2016. Web. 18 May 2017.
Horton, Chris. "Commercial Kitchens Getting a Taste of 3-D-Printed Food." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 May 2017.
Lusk, Jayson. "Why Industrial Farms Are Good for the Environment." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 23 Sept. 2016. Web. 17 May 2017.
Rosenberg, Tina. "Going Digital to Rescue Food." The New York Times. The New York Times,
02 May 2017. Web. 09 May 2017.
.
Senthilingam, Meera. "The Tech Solutions to End Global Hunger." CNN. Cable News Network,
24 Feb. 2017. Web. 08 May 2017. .
Robinson 1
Catrina Robinson
Professor Sarah Martin
English 120 Section # 9676
12 July 2016
Word Count: 1,714
Medicine and Technology: Friend or Foe?
The emergence of medical technology in the late 1800’s either consisted of non-hygienic
procedures at the nearest hospital, or a doctor provided house calls to those who could afford it.
Otherwise, services were rendered in his home office. The standard way of thinking about
medical technology then has it that Greek medicine suggests that the four humors - the metabolic
agents of the four elements in the human body, Blood: air, Phlegm: water, Yellow bile: fire,
Black bile: earth - provides information on an ailment to correct by taking a certain course of
action. For example, enemas, rest, dietary changes, and anti- inflammation herbs were
prescribed. But, the most common practice was bleeding a patient. Sometimes, a certain vessel or
area was cut with tools called a fleam or lancet. Other times, cups were used to suction a boil.
Finally, leeches were placed on the open wound on the area to purge the body faster than the
body’s natural process. This is not to say that old world practices were erroneous, but they were
very unsanitary, thus led to unnecessary deaths due to germs. Technology in the medical field
has increased over the years granting many difficulties. Yet, these advances increase
quality patient care, create new job opportunities in adjacent fields and achieves an
efficient health care system worldwide.
Technological achievements in the medical field in many ways cleared a pathway for
excellent patient care practices. In fact, these patients can now rely on these achievements for
Robinson 2
surgical procedures, doctor/patient confidentiality, and overall, the latest options for treatment
like Artificial Reproductive Technology (ART). In Seung- Yup Ku’s article, “IUI is a Cost
Effective Method for Achieving Pregnancy in These Couples” from Fertility Weekly, she asserts
that intrauterine insemination (IUI) in combination with Clomid—an ovarian stimulation drug—
can improve pregnancy chances. In Ku’s view, with no specific cycle chart to follow, patients
easily achieve spontaneous pregnancy after treatment. One implication of Ku’s treatment of
clomid and IUI is that together the effectiveness cuts the cost of reproductive procedures due to
its high success rate. For example, unlike other artificial reproductive technology, which costs
ranges from $10,000 - $15,000 for IVF, IUI’s cost $1,500 - $4,000 per cycle. My view, however,
contrary to what Ku has argued, is that even with the cost of IUI’s being far less expensive than
the others, it still has a success rate of 10% to 20% after the first cycle. The success rate raises to
50% to 80% when couples try for multiple cycles. However, do the statistics I’ve cited prove
conclusively that the success rate is based on the number of tries or the technology itself? Are we
paying for the equipment usage, or is the technology the extension of quality patient care? On
the one hand, I agree with Ku that tracing key factors in identifying both male and female
infertility, if the case may be, can offer hope for a strategic plan, like IUI, to combat the issues.
But on the other hand, I still insist that A.R.T is a one size fits most remedy when it come to
quality patient care. Future possibilities for treating reproductive challenges reminds me of the
1997 film, Gattaca, directed by Andrew Niccol. It is based on future technological advances in
eugenics and the manipulation of genes to create the perfect child by choosing specific traits
from each parent. In turn, leaving the parents and their offspring having less than desirable traits
with mediocre professions and limitations. Ultimately, what is at stake here is patient care. Not
only should it be a natural process, if possible, on the other hand, it must be affordable to all.
Robinson 3
Therefore, technology should benefit all patients. A.R.T can only advance through accessibility
for every patient.
While technology in the medical field should be accessible for optimal patient care, the
overall healthcare system via electronic information software has both positive effects, such as
admission and records access throughout the world, and negative effects, such as lack of job
related training and privacy issues. In his article “Electronic Health Records: Uses and Barriers
among Physicians in Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia” published April of 2015, Azza El
Mahalli explains that electronic health records (EHR) application in a developing country has its
drawbacks and fine points. He discovers that EHR reduces paperwork, and produces more
effective patient care, but physicians still have reservations about privacy and user friendly
adaptation. Mahalli then describes a measured attempt for utilization, physicians and nurses were
to conduct a self-questionnaire in response to EMR charting, order entry and documentation- to
name a few. The physicians also were evaluated on patient access outside of the practice which
resulted in a poor evaluation due to the complaints of lack of training, and an unfriendly user
interface. He admits, “the delivery of healthcare services could be enhanced if advanced
functionalities of the software are consistently and effectively adopted” (Mahalli). In making this
comment, Mahalli urges us to adopt software that is universal and easier to use across the world.
I agree with Mahalli’s research that by providing ample training on using HER software, there
would be a lot less confusion and more time providing excellent services. Technology facilitates
transitioning from old tools, such as a paper filing system to a new electronic software which
enables your personal medical history available outside your local hospital or personal
physician’s office. However, is having your personal medical information in the “cloud” really
as safe as they claim? The negative effects of technology in the medical field has an ongoing
Robinson 4
issue with internet hacking. The concern of protected medical files in a vulnerable state raises
questions. In Mary K. Pratt’s article “How Cyberattacks Can Impact Physicians: Data Thieves
Are Getting Craftier with Their Methods—and Are Actively Targeting Healthcare Records.”
from Medical Economics, published on June 25, 2016. Pratt advocates a serious issue with
hackers attacking hospitals in order to retrieve patient data. She states, “Hollywood Presbyterian
Medical Center were attacked by hackers who used malware to lock up the institution's
computers and then demanded 40 bitcoins, about $17,000, to free the system (The hospital paid
the ransom.)” (Pratt). The essence of Pratt’s argument is that personal health records are just as
vulnerable as any credit card information, in fact, she proves patient data obtained through
malware just pays a bit more on the black market. Thus, patient health records are easier to
maintain in healthcare software; nevertheless, cyberattacks for patient data is very real. Some
may want to reevaluate the healthcare systematic software.
With cyber threats on the rise, fortune 500 companies are racing to develop a more secure
and productive applications for the medical industry. In Eric Elenko, Lindsay Underwood, and
Daphne Zohar’s article, “Defining Digital Medicine” from Nature Biotechnology, published in
March 2015. They report that although some believe apps for medical use deems hap hazardous,
medical apps can be useful if used in a correct context and just based on consumerization. Also,
aspects in which medical advances can be made upon the success of these apps. For example,
Apple already produces software called, Macpractice for ipads, iphones, and Mac computers.
Macpractice has dominated the practice management, clinical and patient tools by offering a
smooth operating system. According to both Elenko, Underwood, and Zohar, “pharmaceutical
companies as well as tech companies, like Apple, are joining production of digital software and
similar apps.” Of course, many will probably disagree on the grounds that medical professionals
Robinson 5
and consumers alike are seeking a clear definition of the advancing medical technology which
only depends on the embracement of lingering fears. These fears allow companies, like FitBit
and Apple, to examine the effects on commercial sectors and explore and validate products that
diagnose, prevent, treat and/or monitor conditions. Hence, the terror of all things digital permits
new job opportunities from medical device companies to biopharmaceutical to Information
Technology Security companies. As a result, rising college students are majoring in more STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) programs; therefore, new jobs are being
created. In Jiang Yuanwen’s article “Injectable Biomaterial Could Be Used to Manipulate Organ
Behavior” from the University of Chicago July 2016. He introduces a medical device implanted,
by injection, to serve a purpose to engage the nerve cells while manipulating muscles and organs.
Although, it’s still in its developing stages, it replaces damaged cells by re-engineering tissue to
ensure proper functioning. He claims that “synthetic biology without genetic engineering is
enticing.” Although I agree with Yuanwen up to a point, I cannot accept his overriding
assumption that a non-genetic system he’s trying to create can still manipulate cell activity
without altering a person’s genetic makeup. The promise of this device is far away from
becoming reality because we[humans] barely cracked the code to our genome. Are injectable
medical tools used to regenerate cells possible? Or, are we taking ideas from science fiction
movies? Yes, this college graduate student, and others like him, are opening doors for new job
opportunities in the STEM fields. My view, however, contrary to what has argued, is that this
may produce more graduates without jobs if the market becomes flooded. In Jia Lynn Yang’s
article “Study finds there may not be a shortage of American STEM graduates after all” from
The Washington Post, she argues, “according to a study conducted by the Economic Policy
Institution (EPI), they have a surprisingly hard time finding work. Only half of the students
Robinson 6
graduating from college with a STEM degree are hired into a STEM job, the study said.” These
findings challenge the market to adjust to supply and demand. We will see startup businesses
booming over the next decade to meet those demands for STEM grads.
In conclusion, technology in the medical field has tremendous potential to either change
our lives or ultimately destroy ourselves trying to achieve such greatness. So, if we are right
about technology in medicine, then major consequences follow for patient privacy, cyber
intrusion, apps based solely on consumerism, but not quality patient care, and a flooded job
market, to say the least. Yet, an efficient healthcare system worldwide outweighs the negative
consequences. Although, technology in the medical field could be considered a “catch -22
situation”, we accept it because it’s the devil we all know and seem to love.
Robinson 7
Works Cited
Mahalli, Azza El. "Electronic health records: Use and barriers among physicians in eastern
province of Saudi Arabia." Saudi Journal for Health Sciences 4.1 (2015): 32. Academic
OneFile. Web. 6 July 2016.
Seung-Yup, Ku. "IUI Is a Cost-Effective Method For Achieving Pregnancy In These Couples."
Fertility Weekly (2015): 9. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 July 2016.
Burnham, Jeremy M., and Jared L. Harwood. "Wearable technology: implications for
orthopaedic surgery: mobile apps present a potential minefield." AAOS Now (2015): 18+.
Academic OneFile. Web. 12 July 2016.
Elenko, Eric, Lindsay Underwood, and Daphne Zohar. "Defining digital medicine." Nature
Biotechnology 33.5 (2015): 456+. Academic OneFile. Web. 12 July 2016.
Yuanwen, Jiang, University of Chicago. "Injectable biomaterial Could Be Used to Manipulate
Organ Behavior: Silicon-based invention is tiny, soft, wirelessly functional."
ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 1 July 2016.
Pratt, Mary K. "How cyberattacks can impact physicians: data thieves are getting craftier with
their methods--and are actively targeting healthcare records." Medical Economics 25 June
2016: 43+. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 July 2016.
Yang, Jia Lynn “Study finds there may not be a shortage of American STEM graduates after all.”
The Washington Post Web. 24 April 2013.
Ortiz 1
Genevieve Ortiz
Sarah Martin
English 120 #9676
15 July 2016
Word Count: 1,500
How Technology Negatively Affects Human Interaction and Relationships
Technology has been vastly advancing and spreading throughout the world for years and
continues to become bigger and better more and more each year. With new models of computers,
new upgraded phones, versions of 3D televisions, and even more, consumers and lovers of
technology are always seeking the new and next big item on the market. But in today’s society,
people are losing sight of what is most important in life which is human interaction. All of the
extravagant technology is becoming detrimental to our society and it is not difficult to see how it
has impacted and made an effect on human interaction and relationships. Here, many teenagers
especially would probably object that technology has such a negative impact on our lives.
Technology has a negative effect on our brains, family relationships, romantic
relationships, friendships, and human behavior.
Technology has its negative effects on the brain. In Chris Morris’ news article “Is
Technology Killing the Human Brain” from CNBC, he addresses, “Scientists at the Chinese
Academy of Sciences found that the brain chemicals of people who habitually used the internet
had abnormal connections between the nerve fibers in their brain. These changes are similar to
other sorts of addicts, including alcoholics.” Morris argues that as people are becoming more
connected to cyberspace, that new behaviors are evolving, explaining how technology is killing
the human touch because of how many people are connected to the internet as well as the amount
Ortiz 2
of hours society uses technology in a day. Ultimately, some things that are at stake here are
communications, relationships, and day-to-day interactions with others. Morris continues his
article with a look on a research study in 2014: “The iPhone effect: the quality of in-person
social interactions in the presence of mobile devices.” This study observes 100 couples who had
a 10-minute conversation while their phone was present. Researchers concluded that the
individuals continued to use their phones communicated less. When the same individuals
engaged in conversation without their phones, the conversations resulted in greater empathy.
While some people might disagree with this research because they don’t think their cell phone
use is negatively affecting their lives, I agree with the results of this research by having similar
experiences in situations with a phone present. For example, phones at the dinner table distract
from conversations. It is commonly found that in today’s time many people will be out to eat
with loved ones or friends using their phone. Morris’s article emphasizes how the addiction to
technology is negatively affecting our brains and I think that most readers would be able to
agree. Furthermore, in Jim Steyer’s article, “How Does Addiction to Technology affects
behavior?” from CNN, Steyer explains what addiction means and how kids and adults spending
time with their screens is affecting their behavior but in fact we don’t know how technology is
altering behavior. A statement in the article mentions, “It is important to reflect on how our
human connections are being altered by our technological connections. The truth is, we simply
don’t know enough about how our human interactions and behaviors.” The author was writing
this article to warn parents whose children who are glued to their electronic devices. Therefore,
parents especially should be responsible for limiting their children’s time with social media to
help promote a healthier lifestyle.
Ortiz 3
In addition to how technology affects our brains, technology can also have a negative
impact on family relationships. In Dr. Jim Taylor’s blog “Is Technology Creating a Family
Divide” from Huffington Post, Taylor informs readers how the impact of pop culture and
technology is growing more noticeable on children’s relationships with their families. Children
absorbing technology by texting and playing video games limits the availability to engage in
conversation with parents. Children who are victims of technology put a divide on the family
with the barrier of their phone, computer, or television. Taylor mentions, “Consider this. In
previous generations, if children wanted to be in touch with a friend, they had to call them on the
home phone which might be answered by a parent.” Now parents, cannot monitor their
children’s social lives as easily as they once could. At the same time that I believe children are
using technology way too frequently putting a divide on the family, I also believe the parents are
just as guilty. Furthermore, in an article from Nancy Shute titled, “Parents Not Kids, Are the
Biggest Abusers of Technology,” Shute emphasizes how parents are just at fault as children are
for the time spent on phones and all other electronic devices. Shute gives readers an example of a
parent who gives more attention to her phone than to her son, “The mom who’s on the phone
while pushing the kid on the swing has defeated the whole point of taking him to the
playground.” Not only children are responsible for not communicating with parents and siblings
from spending too much time with electronic devices but so are parents just as equally.
Unfortunately, parents are losing sight of the importance of the family bond by giving their
phones their full attention rather than their children. Children and parents are creating a family
divide with the time spent with technology, negatively affecting the relationships within the
family.
Ortiz 4
Technology does not only affect family relationships, but also makes an impact on
romantic relationships. In Sharelle Burt’s article “Work, Relationships, and self,” from New
York Daily News, she argues that the internet and all sources of technology affects relationships
and I agree because in today’s time, it’s highly likely to see couples in a restaurant, one if not
both of them, on their phones. Facts stated by Burt include, “73% of women believe that
technology will make their relationships less authentic and 71% of men agree.” Phone addiction
begins when people start their day by checking Facebook, answering texts, and emails before
even getting out of bed. People are starting to be more connected to the internet than human
lives. Burt also claims, “More than one-third of the younger generation admitted to having a
relationship end due to technology.” How did this society become so addicted to technology that
some people let it ruin their relationships? I agree that technology can interfere with
relationships, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people are blindsided by how
technology is disconnecting them from human lives.
Friendships are also affected by technology. In Hilary Stout’s article, “Antisocial
Networking?” from the NY Times, she addresses how technology is affecting kid’s friendships.
Kids used to actually talk to each other by calling from home phones and playing outside with
friends after school which in today’s time seems to be somewhat of ancient idea. Technology is
affecting children’s friendships because more children are spending more time on technology
and less time interacting with friends face to face. Research findings from the Kaiser Family
Foundation found that, “American between the ages of 8 and 18 spend on average 7 ½ hours a
day using some sort of electronic device, from smartphones to MP3 players to computers.” The
evidence shows that that is 7 ½ hours a day children could be spending time with friends,
building friendships, participating in physical activities, making new friends, and engaging in
Ortiz 5
conversations with friends face to face rather than through a screen. Hilary Stout’s goal in this
article is to inform parents as to how how technology is negatively affecting the friendships their
children have. Stout emphasizes the importance of familiarizing parents with how much time
teens are spending in front of a screen and how it can affect future adult relationships by stating
facts such as, “People who study relationships believe, because close childhood friendships help
kids build trust in people outside their families and consequently help lay the groundwork for
healthy adult relationships.” These conclusions, which Hilary Stout discusses, add weight to the
argument that technology affects children’s friendships.
The above has reflected on how technology has a negative effects on our brains, family
relationships, friendships and human behavior. It is up to humans around the world to decide
how much of their time they are willing to devote their lives to technology rather than to engage
in human interaction. It is up to us to dedicate more time with our families rather than watching a
television show during dinner time. We can choose to check Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc
or to live in the moment and enjoy the time we spend with our significant other. Parents can limit
the amount of time their children spend in front of a screen and encourage them to play outside
with friends, promoting a healthier lifestyle for them. And lastly, we as a human race should
learn to put our phones down, turn off televisions, computers, iPads, and all else, to enjoy each
other’s presence and the world around us rather than a virtual world. Considering the steps listed
above will allow us to protect our brains, family relationships, friendships, and human behavior
in the most positive way.
Ortiz 6
Works Cited
Burt, Sharelle. “Work, Relationships and Self.” The New York Daily News. 24 Oct. 2015. Web. 9
July 2016.
Morris, Chris. “Is Technology Killing the Human Brain?” CNBC. 15 Aug. 2015. Web. 6 July
2016.
Steyer, Jim. “How Does Addiction to Technology Affect Behavior?” Common Sense Media. 2
Dec. 2015. Web. 10 July 2016.
Shute, Nancy. “Parents, Not Kids, Are the Biggest Abusers of Technology.” U.S. News. 9 Feb.
2011. Web. 15 July 2016.
Stout, Hilary. “Antisocial Networking.” The New York Times. 30 April 2010. Web. 9 July 2016.
Taylor, Jim, “Is Technology Creating a Family Divide?” The Huffington Post. 15 March 2013.
Web. 6 July 2016.
Sample 1
Student Sample
Professor Martin
English 120
21 May 20187
Word Count: 1,590
Technology is Ruining Teenager’s Live’s One Post at a Time
I remember being a kid, around 8 years old, I wasn’t allowed to watch TV for too long,
let alone own a cell phone. Now it’s so normal to see toddlers playing on their parent’s
smartphones and I even babysit children as young as 7 and they own their own iPhone 7. Not
only do these youngsters have smartphones, but they are starting to own social media accounts
where they post pictures of themselves and their everyday lives. Obviously, it’s not only young
kids who love social media, but teenagers and adults are obsessed with it too. Our society is so
addicted to social media that it is ruining teenagers’ sense of self by the retouched photos,
high and unrealistic standards towards their body images, and making it okay to lower
standards when it comes to dating and other aspects of life.
It’s impossible to flip through a popular magazine today or scroll down Instagram and see an
un-retouched photo. These pictures are what destroy teenagers’ sense of self. According to
“False Beauty in Advertising and the Pressure to Look ‘Good’,” written by Jo Swinson, who was
formerly a British member of parliament for East Dunbartonshire in Scotland and cofounder of
Campaign for Body Confidence, there was a study done that reports “a third of women say they
would sacrifice a year of life to achieve the ideal body weight and shape, and almost half of girls
in a recent survey think the pressure to look good is the worst part of being female.” (Jo
Swinson. “False Beauty in Advertising and the Pressure to Look ‘Good’”. www.cnn.com, Cable
Sample 2
News Network, August 10, 2011) It has become common today to dismiss the damage that is
being done to young adults by false advertising. Although not all readers of the magazines and
viewers of the social media posts think alike, some of them will probably dispute my claim that
these edited pictures are harmful to the well-being of many children and adults. However, does
the evidence that I have cited prove conclusively that many females are being negatively affected
by these pictures they see every day? As a society, we should be using healthy and natural
models to promote products because it is obviously causing issues in our world today.
Most of the top models into today’s world are actually considered underweight and
unhealthy, but that is what is being promoted so girls and guys set unrealistic body goals. It is
often said that being thin is attractive because that’s how the models look. The Learning Network
states, “the bodies seen in the media are not only unrealistic, but also unhealthy (the average
model is 5 feet 10 inches and 110 pounds)… Models have admitted to eating very little and
exercising an unhealthy amount in the weeks before a photo shoot.” (The Learning Network.
“Teaching and Learning about Body Image in the Social Media Age”. www.nytimes.com, New
York Times Company, June 2, 2016) The Learning Network is an offshoot of the New York
Times family, with wide ranging news stories and writers which provides a large framework of
ideas to build different plans and ideas to create ideas, opinions, and lessons. The Learning
Network’s point here is that many of the models girls look up to are actually living an unhealthy
lifestyle and we shouldn’t be striving to be like them. The standard way of thinking about males’
bodies is that they should be extremely fit with sculpted abs. At first glance, people might say its
only being healthy when guys workout so much. But on a closer inspection it is unhealthy to
work out vigorously everyday like many boys do today. In Douglas Quenqua’s view, “…boys
who chase an illusory image of manhood may end up stunting their development…” We should
Sample 3
trust Quenqua’s view because he is the Editor-in-Chief of Campaign of US and has been writing
about advertising and communications for the past 15 years. His work has appeared in many sites
and magazines including the New York Times, Adweek, Wired, Media Post, Co.Create, and
much more. In other words, kids who start working out too early at an unhealthy rate can
actually slow down their transition into adulthood because their bodies are being damaged as
opposed to being built up. Ultimately, what is at stake here is the general happiness and
healthiness of models and regular men and women trying to uphold these fake standards of being
perfect.
Besides ruining self-esteems of many people, social media has basically destroyed the beauty
of old fashioned dating and the thrill of having a guy ask for your phone number and vice versa
because there are dating apps where you can literally “like” someone based upon pictures. Apps
like Tinder and Bumble allow the user to put selfies of themselves on their profile with a brief
bio describing what they like and don’t like so other users can scroll through all these people and
swipe their screen left if they think the person is ugly or swipe the screen right if they are
attractive enough. If they swipe right on each other, they become a match and they can start
messaging one another. This is a damper on both men and women’s sense of self because if you
don’t get a lot of matches, you can start to feel terrible about yourself. Social media can become
addicting in a way that you are constantly checking your phone to see if you have any
notifications causing the users to check their phone at any hour of the day, which can actually be
dangerous. According to the article “Twenty-Four Hour Social Media ‘Link to Teenage
Anxiety,’” written by Hannah Richardson who is the BBC Education Reporter, “those with
higher levels of emotional investment in social media, and who use it at night, were more likely
to feel depressed and anxious.” In other words, accessing your social media accounts whenever
Sample 4
you please, especially right before you go to bed, and being highly active on the accounts can
boost your chance of suffering from anxiety and depression. This might not seem true to some
people who use social media often, but think about how much pressure you can feel to reply to
everyone and be respond to posts online when it is already hard enough to make time for every
person in real life. People are busy and they shouldn’t be shamed for not responding to posts and
texts right away because sometimes you just don’t have time for it. Next to making people feel
badly about themselves because of the dating apps, social media has also created a platform for
dating which includes unrealistic standards for dating in general. By this statement, I mean that
girls and guys see things online that some people do while they are dating that don’t usually
happen and if this event doesn’t occur to them, they will be unhappy. For example, I have seen a
post on Instagram where a girl’s boyfriend left a note on the door of his girlfriend’s house that
says “wear this and meet me at our dinner date I planned for us” and a box of nice clothes and a
cute pair of shoes. Then the caption under the picture read “Goals.” This is honestly sad to see
because it isn’t a common thing to happen, and girls now have this standard in their head that if
they get a boyfriend, he should do this or he doesn’t really care that much. This then puts the
pressure on boys to go above and beyond for their girlfriend to keep them happy. I’m not saying
that nice gestures are to be shamed and forgotten, but relationships are based upon the
individual’s like-mindedness with each other and not so much on what you buy and plan for each
other. These posts are setting the bar extremely high for people and not all people can manage to
keep the bar raised like that.
Overall, technology and social media isn’t very healthy for the society as a whole. The
advertisements on TV and in magazines, and models’ posts on Instagram are mentally damaging
to many people today all over the world, young and old, men and women. The pictures we see
Sample 5
everywhere create this irrational way of thinking about ourselves which compare our average
lifestyles and bodies to those who live luxurious life styles with access to numerous things that
make them glamorous. For example, many people who are role models to us have access to
personal trainers and expensive, healthy food. Not all of us can afford that, but we still try to aim
for the bodies of them. Social media is a big problem when it comes to the way we see ourselves
and the way we date now. By using photos that are extremely edited, girls and guys aren’t
usually fully confident in their own skin because society is glorifying fake pictures and models
who are unhealthy. It is weird to me that we see this problem being created and we can tell that
the images are obviously retouched, yet we still feed into it and don’t try to fix the
complications. Our society as a whole should be encouraging young people to grow away from
the overuse of social media because we can see the damage that is being done and we shouldn’t
wish that upon future generations. If we don’t fix these fake standards, the anxiety and
depression is just going to get worse and worse as the social media gets more popular.
Sample 6
Works Cited
Douglas Quenqua. “Muscular Body Image Lures Boys into Gym, and Obsession”.
www.nytimes.com, New York Times Company, November 19, 2012. Date of Access:
May 14, 2017
Hannah Richardson. “Twenty-Four Hour Social Media ‘Link to Teenage Anxiety’”.
www.bbc.com, BBC News, September 11, 2015. Date of Access: May 14, 2017
Swinson, Jo. “False Beauty in Advertising and the Pressure to Look ‘Good’”. www.cnn.com,
Cable News Network, August 10, 2011. Date of Access: May 14, 2017
The Learning Network. “Teaching and Learning about Body Image in the Social Media Age”.
www.nytimes.com, New York Times Company, June 2, 2016. Date of Access: May 14,
2017
Purchase answer to see full
attachment