Écrit en rapport avec Mode d'emploi 2014, ARTICLE, La fin des sociétés mobiles ?

 NYC_-_Times_Square

Time Square – NYC- Digital screens and billboards

We are involved in a world in constant motion where everyone is linked to anyone. This is the straight definition of globalization and social mobility.

We cannot live without imported goods : we would be naked in a house without any furniture. Obviously, we could eat, but only some basic in-season products. That could lead to frustration, for we are in a consumer society, used to a lot of variety, a lot of choice. Furthermore, our everyday life is hyper-connected and information comes from all over the world.

We are all concerned by mobile lives: everyone from every country and from every culture will know this phenomenon because of globalization. However, some people are more concerned than others, for instance, businessmen, both in developing countries and developed countries. Virtual devices will be profitable for these two kinds of countries, by making commercial exchanges easier. However videoconferencing will never replace a trip to an exotic place, so it will not destroy tourism.

We give a lot of importance to technological progress, because these technological devices are the only constant and reliable things in our increasingly mobile lives.

This phenomenon started not long ago, but it will mostly impact future generations and leave a stamp on the following decades.

This situation will raise many questions such as : can we really call technological progress a progress even if it does not make people happier ? Will it not be a step back for the world economy ?

42 Réponses à “What about mobile lives?”

  1. Nicolas BERNARD

    Thank you for your article, which analyses the question of mobility. However, I did not really understand your argument concerning the fact that technological devices are the only reliable things in our lives – I have the feeling that these devices can also often let you down and make you feel helpless ! – Could you explain your point of view ?

    Répondre
    • Aurore & Chloe

      Thank you for your answer.

      When we say in our article “technological devices are the only constant and reliable things”, it is based on an interview of Dr. Sven Kesselring, a sociologist who explains that our world is in constant motion (spatial, social and virtual mobility) and that the technologies structure our lives. Our opinion follows the same way as his.
      While it is true that these devices sometimes break down, we still constantly rely on them. What we mean is that we are in constant reorganization and therefore we always need to exchange with others to be aware of what is happening. For instance when a meeting is delayed at the last minute, without our mobiles we can’t warn other people. We live in a world in which changes occur on a regular basis, consequently we need to react and adapt promptly. In order to be able to do that we need to rely on new technologies, despite the potential technical problems.

      We hope our explanation have met your expectations.

      Répondre
      • Nicolas BERNARD

        Thank you for your explanations,you’re absolutely right as long as your mobile phone’s battery is charged up and that you can have some reception !
        However, I still prefer to rely on people rather than on technological devices, and I believe in politeness and honesty – delayed, cancelled or postponed meetings tend to get on my nerves !
        I guess I’m slightly old-fashioned, but I’ll survive !
        Thanks again for your interesting article.

        Répondre
  2. FERRER

    Great article ! Many points are studied and the final questions are interesting. I think that the technological progress can be a progress which doesn’t make people happier. For example the NASA realized some technological progress like sending men on the moon, however it doesn’t improve people’s everyday lives. Sometimes new technologies just allow the knowledge.

    Répondre
    • Thomas Girard + Clément Fraisse

      Your article is very successful and explains very well mobile lives and the characteristics of this phenomenon but a few questions remain pending.
      For example it is said that it « will never replace a trip to an exotic place, so it will not destroy tourism. »
      However, today, it is possible to visit monuments online. You can see all the exhibitions of the « Louvre » in Paris on the Internet. One day, a visit online will probably be as good as a « real visit ». So it could destroy tourism! The mind and the technologies change very quickly. It is the same thing for the videoconferencing. 60 years ago, nobody thought one day it would be possible to videoconference with anyone in the world! In 60 years, it will certainly be as good to meet face to face as virtually and the trips will become unnecessary!

      Thanks one again for this article very well built!

      Répondre
      • Oriane et Elsa !

        Thank you for your article, it explains very well what the globalization is and how it will impact our lives. This phenomenon is very impressive : now we can talk to someone we never met. But I think there are limits for this developing globalization : how could people decide never to go out, only talk with people via the internet ? I think that nothing will never replace a face to face meeting .

        On this point I disagree with thomas and clément : Even if the video conférences improve there will always be a screen between people, and it can’t be as good as really seing each other.
        I think that visiting a museum online is not as good as a real visit. When you go to the museum you don’t have the same feeling as if you see the exhibition on a website. If everybody searches on the Internet to see an exhibition, they don’t pay for it. So the museum will may be close and you will not be able to see the exhibition anywhere. The virtual life is totally different from the real life. There is some cons and pros. And for me, you can’t reduce tourism to visits of museums ! When you visit other countries, you speak with the persons, you eat specialities (and you can’t eat via the Internet can you ?), you live good experiences and also it creates good memories. It’s not the end of the tourism !
        The questions you raise are very interesting it can create a lot of debates. Progresses are made but how can we know if we would be less happy without them ? But we live in a society in constant motion as you said, and progess is part of our lives. This progress has a lot of advantages such as robots which help disabled people, but there are drawbacks. Personally I find it is sometimes scary : a lot of strangers know more things about you then your own family.

        Répondre
      • Levesy Romain+Villermet Quentin

        Your comment is really interesting, and I think that what you ask is interesting !
        I think that you are right when you say: « You can see all the exhibitions of the « Louvre » in Paris on the Internet. One day, a visit online will probably be as good as a « real visit ». »
        But it is not really in connection with the « trip to an exotic place » because when you go to an exotic place, it’s not only to visit the museums, or the monuments of this place, you cannot trek online, or go to the beach online, how will feel the water that refreshes, or the heat of the sun on your skin? I think that this is a feeling that can not be relayed online.
        I don’t agree with your second argument:  » 60 years ago, nobody thought one day it would be possible to videoconference with anyone in the world! In 60 years, it will certainly be as good to meet face to face as virtually and the trips will become unnecessary! » Because today, we have got this technology to do this, so it is possible to do this, and it has not replaced tourism, there will always be people who think that it was better before.

        Répondre
      • Alice & Emmanuelle

        Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us! Your article is very comprehensive! To get back to tourism, we’d like to answer Thomas and Clément about online visits. You seem to believe it will destroy tourism. We have a more balanced view of things: for us, virtual experiences can’t substitute the real ones! That’s clear the internet allows us to admire the Sistine Chapel ceiling closely – which is hopeless in Rome. But travel is not just being curious, it’s also a pursuit of sensations. You can’t smell spices or ride an elephant virtually, can you? That’s why we think this kind of mobility will always be, even if it may become a luxury in future. Time will tell if we’re right!

        Répondre
      • Angèle et Nina

        First, we wanted to thank you both for your compliments. We are glad you found our article inspiring.
        However, we do not agree with you about the question of tourism. Indeed, according to John Urry, the number of passenger arrivals was about 25 million in 1950 and it is expected to soar to 1.6 billion by 2020. Obviously, videoconferencing won’t affect tourism. You also pointed out that we can visit places and monuments just with a computer; indeed that’s true. But do you think people give the same value to a trip made through a screen, which is impersonal, as to a real trip, that creates a discrepancy between people’s everyday life and an exotic experience? The fact is that people will always prefer to BE in the place they visit because of the food, the scents, and the atmosphere in general. They do not have that when facing a screen. We do not say that, in the future, new devices will allow us to smell or to taste things that aren’t actually there. But for the moment and for the 60 following years, we cannot imagine that possible. And even if things such as pollution or the cost of a trip prevent us from travelling, there will always be a part of us attached to “real” tourism.

        Répondre
      • Calmet + Egal

        Thank you for commenting ,
        Video conferencing will never replace tourism : even though it is very easy to be instantly connected with the whole world, the feeling of the atmosphere can’t be overcome. Taking the example of Mona Lisa : everybody has access to the picture on Google, but you might never experience her look following you all around the room. A trip is worthwhile when facing the local culture. What’s better than an unforeseen dinner with a Thaï family? For the moment, Internet can’t make you experience the smell,the noise, all the feelings that make the discovering of a country unforgettable and fulfilling.
        You mention the fact that minds and customs evolve quickly and we can’t deny it. However you can’t deny the fact that real human contacts are necessary for the well-being of a human being. Furthermore a digital revolution can be considered provided a revolution in renewable energy occurs: data centers consume an overall amount of energy that we are not capable to produce yet. To put it in a nutshell, instead of inventing new cell-phones , scientists should focus on the improvement of renewable energy. Otherwise, we could encounter a drastic climate change.

        Répondre
    • Benjamin et Pierre

      You are right that technological progress doesn’t always make people happier. In fact the goal is sometimes different. As an example the Rosetta mission’s goal is to know if comets could be at the origin of life on earth or on other planets. The answer to that question doesn’t make the people happier (except maybe the scientists) but it will change the way we study biology in the next decades. This will be a progress, and could potentially help us to be happier, in the end.

      Répondre
  3. Lycée Saint Exupéry Terminale Euro

    A really good article ! I agree that virtual technologies will never replace human contact, even as far as they could go.

    Répondre
  4. Carolane Christophe + Caroline Marin

    It’s clear that we have increasingly mobile lives. We benefit from the opportunity to travel into the world without difficulty, we have access to all information available in the world thanks to the Internet (but which we must be weary about because the information is so numerous that it is not always correct)… Technological advances facilitate our life so much that we can not live without it (like mobile phones or computers), but we always try to improve the technology and in the future we could reach dangerous limits that could even possibly go against human nature …
    The notion of reliability is relative too, because we must not forget that it’s question of virtuality, that’s not the reality.
    Communicating with someone via a video call will never replace a real face-to-face communicate. Making money transactions on the Internet is also a question of fictive money and it doesn’t guarantee us a real transaction.
    There’s the risk of hacking too, and it shouldn’t be forgotten.
    But I do not agree with the fact that “We are all concerned by mobile lives: everyone from every country and from every culture will know this phenomenon because of globalization », because true globalization doesn’t exist. Indeed, while we have the chance to live in highly developed countries in the north of the globe, a lot of people in the south don’t have access to a quarter of what we have, because they benefit only from secondary flows of globalization, and thus they only have a limited access to the Internet, they lag behind, and are thus only a little affected by mobile lives…

    Répondre
  5. Hugo&Samuel

    « everyone is linked to anyone » « our everyday life is hyper-connected »
    Is it really worth it to ask these questions and talk about these subjetcts ? It’s « has been » : everyone knows it!
    We are already in it, and can’t do anything against it.
    And others have already made [better] comments about that : go and watch Serial Experiments Lain, which was released ten years ago!

    Répondre
    • Alex & Etienne

      Short and effective: this is the way that article appears. Weighing the pros and the cons, it brings out many truths about globalization.
      the question raised about the « quest of happiness » seems very interesting. We should probably use new ideas so as to build a happier society. This should be a key point.
      We are warned from our constant motion: being necessarily connected in other words. It’s a widespread phenomenon impacting a lot on our way of life. It could lead to destroy some primary needs or fruitions such as appreciating a real conversation face to face and not by a virtual conference.
      It’s moreover absolutely true when saying technological progress became the only kind of trust. It remains first of all beneficial for developing and industrialized countries. Those contribute to gain more power. Good job.

      Répondre
      • Pierre L et Mael

        Thanks you for your nice comment. We agree with you about the « quest of happiness », in our opinion technological progress and inventions must contribute to our happiness and to build a happier society. But how must we react with the forms of progress which don’t contribute to happiness but which are necessary for the next generations like the sustainable development?
        Moreover, We think that even if the virtual conferences are developing, people will always prefer real meetings which are more satisfying.
        Finally, we wanted to say that technological progresses are not the only means to gain more power for example scientific advances are also very important.

        Répondre
    • Tristan ; Clémence

      Thanks for your comment but your criticism seems us to be a little bit unfounded.
      Indeed :
      It is not because a theme is known by everyone that people are truly aware of it.
      In fact here is the point of an article: going deeper !
      On this article we are talking about our world and even if we are already in this phenomenom this is not a reason to be powerless in front of it.
      And to be powerful we HAVE to study this phenomenom in order to avoid the drawbacks that could come further.
      And about ‘serial experiment Lain’ it seems to be a manga, that’s the reason why you cannot make any comparison between the both.
      Our article is based on real thesis (for example John Urry’s one) and linked to the fact that our world is in constant motion, is ‘Serial Experiments Lain’ still reliable ?

      Répondre
    • El Djohar & Pauline L

      We agree with you, this is not complete but there are so many things to develop on this subject!
      Thanks for your answer although it was clearly negative. This article was made just to give a short, simple and clear definition of what mobiles lives are. It is sure that we could have given a more precise explanation, but there are too many things to say about this theme! We would not see the end of it! So we preferred to give a more general definition to introduce this subject. Then, as you both probably know our world is in constant motion, meaning that an article, even very pertinent, can although be improved with different points of view from other people. Moreover, the aim of this work wasn’t to make a thesis about mobile lives but only to gather our knowledge we acquired in class in order to answer to the problematic. Furthermore you can’t make a perfect work unless you are professional of this subject or at least you spent years studying it. This is a thing we obviously can’t pretend to be or have.

      Répondre
  6. Paul and Florian

    Thank you for this clear explaination. I will not hide that John Urry’s interview was a bit hard to undersdand. But I would like to comment on a few things, which I don’t agree with. You say that « technological devices are the only constant and reliable things ». I will take the most obvious example : the smartphones. Every year, the smartphones companies present their « brand new » device. Some present even two flagships in the same year. For me, these technologies are not « constant », as you say… And you don’t ignore that hackers can hack your smartphones so easily that we don’t even know that we are spied upon. « Reliable » is maybe not the good word…
    The rest of the article is great, and I agree to say that we live in a pivotal time, and the progress will speed up more and more to transfigure the world as we know it : 50 years ago, the NASA’s computers were enormous and not very powerful ; today, we can see and speak with someone in the United States or in Australia on the fly with a smartphone we can place in a pocket. And tomorrow ?

    Répondre
    • Victoire et Juliette

      Thank you for your interesting and challenging comment !
      We agree with everything you are saying about progress: there are new inventions everyday, projects are made, perspectives are created… Right now our world is in constant motion. And that is why we need to be able to rely on something: and those reliable things are our technological devices. Indeed, our smartphone is the tool to connect us to the world: with it we’re aware of what’s happening all around the world, we like, we talk, we share, – like you said, it allows us to talk to people living in the US or Australia: we are a part of globalization. It may be evolving more and more everyday, but we can use it at any time, in any place, and that’s is the reason why it’s the last reliable thing in our life.

      Répondre
  7. BONNET-CHATEAU Justine & DUSSUD Maxime

    First of all, we would like to thank the students who wrote this article because it makes the notion of “mobility lives” much more obvious.
    We go along with what they wrote about the globalized world we live in. Like they said, “our everyday life is hyper-connected and information comes from all over the world”. The day commercial, cultural and human exchanges will end, we will no longer be able to survive. Like it or not, all countries are always connected and without this connection, we couldn’t do what we do everyday (going on the Internet, watching international movies …).
    We totally agree with Carolane Christophe and Caroline Marin. A world led by new technologies would create disparities between the countries because they do not have the same economic development. Some countries would be late because they couldn’t be economically able to support such innovations. So we can not talk about a « globalized world » since only a few countries are concerned. Of course, we are privileged because we live in a highly developed land.
    We think that saying that the only reliable thing is the Internet is a little bit pessimistic. As far as we are concerned, we believe in human relations, especially as our societies are not doing so great, so if people turn on themselves, it will be only worst.
    We do not agree with what Thomas Girard and Clément Fraisse wrote about tourism. Like the euro-students said, “videoconferencing will never replace a trip to an exotic place”. Indeed, the true feeling an exotic place gives you, will never be replaced by something else and certainly by a screen.
    Finally, is this world, which is constantly moving, really a good thing for us and our future ? Aren’t all these new technologies and possibilities to communicate with the entire world going to impose the exact contrary of what they were made for ? In other words, won’t the people be more and more isolated from the world behind their screens ?

    Répondre
    • Garance et Pauline F

      Thank you for your long and complete analysis of our article and the questions it raises.

      To get back to the human relations’ topic, we all know that human curiosity has previously led us to great discoveries on ourselves and others as well.
      This is why we believe,that trusting human being’s nature is the safest choice to make! Also is there anything better than a rewarding meeting with people from all over the world? Indeed, it’s worthwhile spending time and money on tourism in order to gain fabulous memories instead of buying tons of new technologic devices and not leaving one’s couch…
      Though our article was quite alarmist, our society isn’t yet involved in such a crisis. Keep traveling and communicating and you won’t live in an isolated world.

      We hope that our explanations completed your determination to understand our world in motion.

      Répondre
    • Océane ARBEZ & Marie BAL-FONTAINE

      First of all, we would like to point the fact that your answer is totally enriching for us to complete our knowledge about this subject. Indeed, your different points of view are really appealling and lead us to think more about the limits of our article. We’d like to raise an idea that you counteracted concerning the « globalized world ».
      We cannot deny that there are some «  disparities between the countries » .
      However, we cannot help thinking that our world will tend to develop itself even if it probably takes more time for some currently developing countries. As far as we know, the emerging countries were considered as destitute and needy countries ; yet they progressed and today they represent an important part of the world economy. Those countries are now led by technologies…
      Besides, the Less Economically Developped Countries (LEDCs) belong to the International Division of Labour ; in other words they are in the « globalized world ».
      Any situation can be reversed…

      Répondre
  8. Agathe Mouton & Camille Ambellie

    « However, some people are more concerned than others, for instance, businessmen »
    So, you think all highly mobile people wear suits and ties and rush about pulling suicases on wheels ?
    We do not agree. For us, we are all concerned by mobile lives because mobile lives depends not only on globalization. The people were nomads before being sedentary. It concerns everyone not just the rich and educated people, the directors, sports figures and celebrities.

    Répondre
    • Louis Masson & Lucas Prieur

      As far as I’m concerned, I agree with this article on this point. Indeed, we can’t say that someone who travels thousands miles a week is as concerned by mobility as someone who stays at home most of the time. The way you interpret this sentence « However, some people are more concerned than others, for instance, businessmen » is may wrong. It’s obvious that they didn’t want to reduce this phenomenon to a restricted kind of worker. They just want to say that we are concerned by mobility at different levels.
      I want to thank the students who wrote this article because it enabled me to beef up my knowledge on this notion, which was not really clear for me. But know, we are all waiting for responses of the questions you raised at the end of the article!
      I hope you will do it as soon as possible…

      Répondre
    • Salomé&Marion

      We agree with you about the fact that businessmen are not the only people concerned by mobile lives. However if you read our article correctly, it was just an example.
      Indeed we can draw out three different types of movements : one that goes with tourism, an other comes from migration but travels are especially made by businessmen as it is a daily action for them. Moreover we chose to use this example because we are part of the globalization process – thereby businessmen are relevant to exemplify our point of view.

      Répondre
  9. Alex&Etienne

    There are a few problems in your article
    You talk about our need to consume as if it was a fate but if it was true it would mean that we are like robots.
    You also say that « everyone from every country and from every culture will know this phenomenon because of globalization. » but it’s not sure that people who come from a little village in a poor country have heard about mobile lives. They are not really concerned by this phenomenon.
    This article doesn’t teach us much about the globalization even if the 2 questions of the end are rather interesting.

    Répondre
    • Nils, Nathan & Adrien

      First, if you had read our article more carefully, you would probably have noticed that we pointed out the fact that « some people are more concerned than others ». We gave the example of businessmen.
      Furthermore, it would be wrong to say that inhabitants of small villages in developing countries (or « poor countries », as you like to call them) won’t be affected by globalization : the New International Division of Labour directly links them with us, as long as we consume things which are manufactured in their countries : clothes, mobiles phones…. And they might have to move from their village to an urban area in order to get a job.
      In our opinion, saying that we need to consume doesn’t reduce us to robots. We consume everyday, could we live without out of season products ? Without buying clothes ? Without purchasing new devices ? Most of the people in the world consume everyday, it is a fact and this does not mean that we are robots, are you ?

      Répondre
  10. Quentin V. & Romain L.

    This is a great but incomplete article.
    Even though globalization and mobile lives started not long ago, the principle of mobility and globalization is not that recent. Such a tight link between people all around the world instantly might be a recent phenomenon, but the very nature of the social man is so that contacts and exchanges are as old as we are.
    But the time is not to carriage travel anymore, this whole mobile thing is growing at such a rate that the connections between people and cultures are exploding. Constant connection and mobile phones reaching everywhere on the planet, mass tourism expanding at alarming rates, exchanges of goods increasing by thousands of percents with the new transport models and above all money transactions undergoing a massive rise because of electronic currency available everywhere; all these phenomena make the Earth just a huge village. I could even know my Chinese friend better than my neighbour or my roommate and it would be perfectly normal :
    THAT, is the concept of mobile lives, and it’s already happening, with new apps and travelling means being invented day by day.

    Furthermore, you could have spoken about the fact that there is still an apprehension of this whole mobile and all-connected system, mostly in developed countries where some people try to deny all form of globalization by creating transition towns, eating local, dumping their petrol-fueled cars and such, but this turning on one-self will not resolve the problems that this system is causing, and we need to work together to form a new, durable system that will not cause any kind of problems.

    Répondre
  11. JEANNE.M THOMAS.Clab

    Thank you for the answer ! we’d like to speak more about the technology: indeed some progress don’t affect real life and are just « new knowledge » as you said but this new knowledge will be useful for the scientists who work to make our daily routine better. It might not be directly linked but we think that except in case of huge drawback, technology is always a progress.
    Moreover you talk about people who want to ignore globalization, and are living in transition towns or eating local. However the aim of these kinds of activities is to learn to know your neighbours very well and to involve a local community in working together (to produce local for example) : in a way, these people could be right. Indeed, if you know better your Chinese friend than your neighbour, how could you have real relationships? How could you enjoy the real emotional pleasure of life?
    That is to say that as far as we are concerned, a balance should be found between the development of new technologies and our relationships in everyday life

    Répondre
  12. Albertin Timothée and Antonin Dudermel

    I think it’s a good topic because (and you said it) we’re all concerned by this phenomenon. But there is something else you don’t explain: everybody can’t have an access to this « technological progress ». Of course people in Somalia don’t really care about mobile lives. So is it a real progress when a big part of the world population still can not have it? I don’t think I am breaking news when I told you that there is a lot of people in the world who haven’t got any electricity and really haven’t any idea of this debate which we are having. Thank you very much for reading my little comment.

    Répondre
  13. Lycée Saint Exupéry Terminale Euro

    You wrote: « It will mostly impact future generations ». You are right indeed. These new technologies have an impact on the environmment: if you consider the energy computers, phones, tablets, etc…need, it is a lot of energy. So let’s hope we will find new sources of energy in the future to be able to use those devices.
    I didn’t quite understand your definition of social mobility?
    You seem to have debated a lot around all those issues, that’s great.

    Répondre
  14. Natacha, Romain & Faustine

    This article is very interesting ! But I think you accentuate a lot the beneficial side of mobile lives and don’t speak of the negative side. For example, new technologies like mobile phones are useful for a contact with one’s friends and family. But by using it too much, we sometimes miss our real lives. In my opinion, virtual meetings could never replace the human warmth of real meetings.
    Be that as it may, mobile lives keep a lot of advantages, thank you for sharing this article.

    Répondre
  15. Yannick Pouic-Pouic, Milky Mo and S(Urry)cate

    The question of progress at the end of your article is really interesting, because we can note with studies as John Urry’s that the technology can totally dehumanize our attitude to new mobility devices. The concept of making people pay for their moves is an aberration, which is a big « step back » as you say in your article, even if this project includes using new technologies which were made to make things change positively. This example shows us that the need for human being to constantly renew can sometimes be morally and philosophically insane and harmful.

    Répondre
  16. Mathis, Nathalie & Marie

    First of all, we would say that it’s a very interesting article, well, which explains in a simple way all the impact of our technological life.
    Our world is « in constant motion », I agree, but these hyper-connected lives don’t exist in poor regions. We are lucky to live in a connected area, compared to other people who have not even a choice between a pair of blue and black jeans for example.
    Furthermore, they don’t even have good food and running water.
    I think that technological progress has to increase before we can talk about a revolution.
    On the firt side, as you said, obviously mobile lives help economy, importations and citizens’ choices.
    On the other side, now, « mobile lives » are an addiction and we can’t continue to live without this connected world.
    To conclude, this article is right about the present but you close your eyes about other consequences, I would say the globalization and social mobilities.

    Répondre
  17. Paul,Gregoire,Romain

    First, thank you for your article. It’s a great and complete analysis about our world.
    We agree with you that today we live in a society run by new technologies. But are they only good for us ?
    That’s true that without technology, our life would be boring and devoid of culture and discovery ! New technologies enable us to denounce unfairness. For instance, the « arab spring » would never have happened ! But new technologies are also harmful. New technologies create a world where everyone is formatted and directed: all out actions are traceable. Anyway it’s an endless subject and your article gives us a new point of view about it. Thank you.

    Répondre
  18. Eva Anglaé Ombline

    Very good article!!
    We think the aim of technological progress is not really to please people but more to advance our daily life and facilitate our lives.
    For example a surgical operation does’nt make people happy but it is still a big revolution for everyone!
    The notion of « step back » is wrong, on the contrary, for many countries this allows to participate in its economic and social evolution, and for other countries it allows to stay connected anytime and anywhere, speak from one country to another .. It’s a revolution!
    It encourages peoples to travel, work ..etc

    Répondre
  19. amandinefayard@hotmail.fr

    We live in a consumer society. We ask for more and more consumer goods, it is a world of ease. Is technical progress really a progress? Not necessarily, because we turn more to ourselves with, for example, our earphones in public transportations, before we were in a more communicative society (we used to say hello to people in the street.

    The Globalization has good points because we have better access to the information around the world thus we can develop a faster economy. But won’t the advantages in the information area, deprive us of our private life? We are constantly on our smart phones, on social networks like Facebook or Twitter. However these social networks have largely contributed to a sense of isolation.

    Humans can now travel for the time of a meal, a meeting in a few hours thanks to planes, trains, cars. They can be in Paris on Monday, Tuesday in Hong Kong and Wednesday in New York ! Now the journeys have become basic and the purpose is to shine: say that we have visited such and such countries. There is not appreciation anymore of the landscape where we are.

    The human beings got used to believing that they dominate the nature yet it is Her who controls us and we are powerless faced to it: for example tsunamis. We want to accelerate the process of the new technologies in a purely selfish purpose. Someday, Nature will make us pay for the damages we caused.

    We are constantly watched by security cameras which analyze our movements. Our movements became resources for example in toilets where the lights can ignite alone thanks to the detection of our bodies.

    Life has accelerated: we eat badly all week (fast food), and from time to time we want a restaurant. We buy luxurious kitchens but do we really use them? We want the most beautiful car, the fastest cars, more petrol, more money, more food, more everything…. but in the end there will be consequences on the environment for the generations to come. Will it be too late ? We do not become aware of what we possess. We lose the notion of the origin of our life, the psyche can’t follow this pace any more.

    In conclusion the progress facilitates life, the circulation of information but we don’t have a long term vision to judge what it will be like in the future and so for the future generations.

    Répondre
  20. Julie MAGNAT, Lara DARRAS & Rebecca CHAMBARLHAC

    On the one hand, this article is very interesting because it forces us to ask some questions about our society. Can we say that we are nothing without globalization, imported goods etc ? It’s so sad to think about it, but unfortunately it’s real! However, it’s very important for our lives,such as business lives or private lives, because we need to be always connected to somebody else and more generally connected to the world. Why ?
    Moreover, you’re right when you accuse technological progress: technology has changed the communications means through generations but we’re not victims (we are not aware of being victims). But I feel deeply anxious about these technological lives. In fact, commercial culture and human exchange will not end tomorrow. So I’m not sure that a world in constant motion is beneficial for our society.
    On the other hand, I agree with the idea that  » videoconferencing will never replace a trip to an exotic place  » and in my opinion, virtual meeting aren’t even better than meeting someone face to face in a café or anywhere else because we’re human and we need to see each other face to face ! Otherwise, we would be alone, on our own with our computer or mobile phone and this is not a life!

    Répondre
  21. Pauline & Gabrielle & Karine

    This article reflects well the reality. This lifestyle is integrated into our society.

    As a matter of course, we agree with the fact that technical progress and the globalization do not return necessarily happy people, for example tribes of Africa disappear because of these phenomena because the tourists come to visit them and to exploit their lands.

    However, If this lifestyle came to disappear or to change most people would be lost, disorientated.

    Thanks to the new technologies, there is progress every day.
    Mobile lives allows the smooth running of our economy worldwide and without them, life would have been different and – who knows – maybe more difficult.
    In our opinion, we must defend this modern lifestyle which we depend upon.
    Moreover, mobile lives change the social relations with our family, work colleagues, friends. It is therefore an opportunity for people.

    Répondre
  22. Julie MAGNAT, Lara DARRAS, Rebecca CHAMBARLHAC

    On the one hand, this article is very interesting because it forces us to ask some questions about our society. Can we say that we are nothing without globalization, imported goods ect ? It’s so sad to think about but unfortunately it’s real! However, it’s very important for our lives,such as business lives or private lives, because we always need to be connected to somebody else and more generally connected to the world. Why ? Moreover, you’re right when you accuse technological progress: technology has changed the ways through generations but we’re not victims( we are uncounscious of being victims) of this progress we are required. But I feel deeply anxious about this technological lives. In fact, commercial culture and human exchange will not end tomorrow. So to my point, I’m not sure that a world in constant motion is benefic for our society.
    On the other hand, I agree with the idear that  » videoconferencing will never replace a trip to an exotic place  » and to my opinion, virtually meeting aren’t even better than meet someone face to face in a coffee or anywhere else because we’re human and we need to see each other face to face ! Otherwise, we would be alone, on our own with our computer or mobile phone and this is not a life!

    Répondre
  23. Galys, Lucile et Laura

    This is an interesting article !
    It shows very well how the world has evolved thanks to the new technologies and this new world of globalization and social mobility.
    Indeed, globalization allows developing countries to have better living standards.
    however, the question « can we really call technological progress a progress even if it does not make people happier ? » is a good way to show that progress is not always good and that it has increasingly negative points. Actually, not everyone has access to technological progress and it increases the disparities in the world.
    To conclude, your article is very good, but you don’t speak that much about the drawbacks of social mobility.

    Répondre

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur comment les données de vos commentaires sont utilisées.