Is technology harmful to human interaction?
Human interaction is a necessary activity that constantly occurs. Through the use of technology this statement has been fulfilled completely. Technology allows for the communication and interaction between humans worldwide and constantly. Either through social media or phones a person is able to interact with others easily. However, this arguably limits the quality of human interaction and limits the relationships that can be built. When deciding whether technology is harmful to human interaction we must consider the implications of using technology to communicate with one another. I believe it is not harmful to human interaction but can be seen as a negative method of communicating.
The use of phones, computers and other electronic devices is apparent in human interaction. Through social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter an individual is able to communicate and interact with another from their homes. This means the individual does not seek as much human interaction at school or at work as they believe they have been social online and do not need to be social in reality. This restricts the amount of human interaction occurring in real life and is therefore harmful to human interaction. However, to argue human interaction is lowered as a result of technology we are suggesting technology does not allow for human interaction. This is contradicted by social media where a large amount of human interaction is occurring and human interaction is actually promoted. Through technology a person is able to make more friends and build more relationships. Therefore, technology is not restricting the amount of human interaction occurring as technology provides alternative forms of human interaction. However, the quality of human interaction occurring online is limited and can therefore be seen as a negative method of interacting. Ultimately, I believe technology is not the best method of communication however; it is not harmful to human interaction.
As previously stated the quality of human interaction using technology is limited. It is difficult to have meaningful interactions online. One cannot always see a person’s facial expressions or body language and is unable to hear a person’s tone whilst speaking. This suggests the quality of communication and interaction using technology is not good. However, some could argue video calls and voice calls allow for facial reactions, body language and tone to be interpreted and therefore, the quality of interaction is not affected. In my opinion, the rapport built whilst communicating face to face cannot occur online and the emotions one can sense whilst face to face cannot be accurately deduced online. This can be detrimental to human interactions since it does not allow for strong relationships to be built or for emotions to be shared. Therefore, technology can be harmful to human interactions.
Technology promotes human interaction worldwide and constantly. Through technology people have the ability to communicate with others from all areas of the world at any times of the day and in that sense technology can increase human interaction and is therefore beneficial. However, some could argue constant human interaction is not necessarily a good thing. As people are able to communicate at all times with anyone they will not value interaction as much. This will cause people to seek interaction less. Therefore, technology can be damaging to human interaction. In my opinion, the possibility of worldwide communication cannot be seen as harmful and allows for us to become more interconnected.
In conclusion, I believe technology promotes human interaction. Whilst the quality of this interaction is not always high it is a substantial method of communicating. Therefore, technology is not harmful to human interaction and can be a quicker alternative to face to face communication.
Turn on thread page Beta
Can someone look at this LNAT essay? Please! I feel like my essays are of bad quality watch
- Thread Starter
- 11-10-2017 18:10
- 11-10-2017 18:19
Some of it is good, but have you proof-read this? Some minor mistakes which make your writing a little less fluent e.g. the third sentence.. "and at constantly." huh?
- Thread Starter
- 11-10-2017 19:36