Analysis Of Mark Twain 'A Train Towards Obsolescence'

A Train Towards Obsolescence

The human DNA closely resembles that of chimpanzees, sharing over ninety-six percent of our DNA. For some perspective, the difference between humans and chimpanzees is ten times smaller than the genetic gap between rats and mice. Both human beings and chimpanzees are considered intelligent beings, partially due to their ability to create and use tools. But as the years have passed, like seconds on a clock, the gap between these two animals has increased an almost inconceivable, with the starting at the point at which we evolved from. Today the tools humans use are created in order to make our everyday lives easier. But at some point we as a species has to ourselves some questions: How much technological advancement

Mark Twain would not love what science and technology has lead us to in today’s day and age. Born over a century before the first computer was created, Mark Twain believed in the sense that there was no such thing as a new idea. He believed in a theory that as human beings we use what has already been created, use what he describes as a “mental kaleidoscope in order to create new ideas, inventions, and innovations. This mental kaleidoscope is simply given a turn, and new combinations are created using thoughts that have previously been constructed. Even though new ideas are not created, deep thought is necessary in order to turn the mental kaleidoscope. Today, with smart phones and computers in the hands and homes of people all across the world, our capacity for deep thought is diminishing. Along the same lines, as discussed in the Nicholas Carr book, The Shallows, people are thought to becoming less intelligent. The thought in the book is that even though we are still getting smarter, or at the very least our IQ scores are improving. This somewhat constant uptick since World War II is known as the Flynn Effect. The book goes on to explain that this advance is not us as a society getting smarter and having more knowledge than our ancestors, but simply a change in the way we think. In today’s society we are programmed to think more scientifically than any previous generation. This paradigm shift in the way we think and look at the world should not be considered an advancement for our society. In the end, we are only hurting ourselves by diminishing our ability for deep thought. The inability for deep thought in the relatively near future should be looked at similarly to global warming. Currently we have the ability to do something about technology taking over our lives. Something must be done in the next century or we risk