In what way (or ways) is the current Knowledge Revolution a child of the industrial revolution? Is this a new revolution or simply an extension of the 18th-century revolution? Given the history, is it perhaps more appropriate to call the current revolution a Communications Revolution?
How important could the 18th century possibly be to our lives in the contemporary world? To answer this question you will need to know something about how the Industrial Revolution changed the world that Europeans lived in. Historians divide up the world history into neat categories: middle Ages, Bronze Age, Cold War etc. Unfortunately real life is a little more complicated and these breaks are helpful but more or less arbitrary. People who lived in these periods generally did not feel them the way we understand them in hindsight. This may affect the way you answer this question.
Most of the progress we encounter today depends on something that began in the past, from Gutenberg’s printing press to the type writer from the type writer to the computer and the printer. Even the communication “revolution” started with the telegraph that started its life as a series of signal posts that conveyed information through either the positions of moveable wooden arms or a set of flags and evolved to the electrical telegraph, the telephone and now the cellphones, satellite communications, optic cables, the internet and so on. So in a way everything we are today relays on something discovered in the past.
During the Industrial Revolution, things were invented to fill the needs of people back then. They never dreamed of the way that we are applying those technologies today. I guess we won’t know what future generations will do with our generation’s inventions, if they will be duds or if they will be a turning point in history some day.
Period of 18th Century is characterized by many inventions and technological discovery. Engines and machines in the industrial production simply revolutionized the production efficiency. What was needed to be done by 20 men, now it could be done by 1 machine within very less time. The concept of urbalization and development of city alongwith its malaise e.g. child labour started revolutionizing the progress of society and overall economy. Industrial Revolution implied that man now had some sort of control over nature. No other revolution in modern times can be said to have accomplished so much in so little time. The Industrial Revolution was not just progress in industrial techniques and production, but a social revolution with social causes as well as profound social effects. This period saw rapid improvement in transportation, communication, and technology. Inventions and new technology e.g. steamboats, railroads, electricity, telephone, telegraph completely changed the way people lived in the fast. In 1870’s, when electricity came in to use, many new factories were built. These factories produced large quantities of goods quickly and more cheaply with machines powered by electricity. Many people who had been living on farms, or in small towns came to work in factories in large cities. The Industrial Revolution helped change the American way of life to a great extent. I believe that the industrial revolution laid the foundation of all the future development including the ones in the contemporary world and it also made the life/work more easier, productive and efficient for the future generation.
These industrial/technological advances moved to a mass production allowing societies to prosper financially, and in the 1900s, households moved away from being the primary location of production (self-reliance). and more into a dwelling of consumption. This was the time where the idea of individualism and material possessions began to thrive, but dependence on outside networks (the markets, retailers for commodities, restaurants, milkman services, etc.) increased as more people began to see their individual happiness and the home as a place of relaxation and pride.
you brought up a good point about the transformation of home into a place of leisure and comfort as a result of industrial revolution rather than housewives doing all sorts of domestic works. Household and especially women benefitted to a great extent with these domestic technologies being acquired and used for almost all household activities thus relieving them from the world of drudgery. With this came the new science, so called “Domestic and Household Engineering” and plethora of experts giving their opinion on how the housewives could efficiently use these gadgets and thus “Home” now acquired a dignified status and continue to carry that status ever since. It led to an increase in their productivity and they demanded more and more of such technologies. With that, many domestic appliances such as sewing machines, cooking ranges, vaccum cleaners, washing machine, electric irons, refrigerators and dishwashers were developed which we continue to use even now.
References: Morton E. Winston and Ralph D. Edelbach. (2012). Society, Ethics, and Technology 4th Edition. Belmont CA: Wadsworth Group/Thompson Learning (Textbook)
Were those so-called labor saving devices intended to expand the leisure of women or “free” them so they could enter the market place and keep down wages by expanding the labor market. Do women really work less now or actually work more because they work outside the home and then also inside the home.
These domestic appliances actually led to the increase in the domestic productivity and women now could do the household chores much faster compared to what they were doing so far. Lot of domestic activities performed by these women earlier became now the public chores or services performed by some third party service companies. By the late nineteenth century, households that once produced their own goods had begun to consume the products of U.S. industry (Strasser,1982). It also freed them up for more leisurely activities like watching TV, gossiping over the telephone. Some of them used that time to engage in activities outside their home by taking up employment in different industries. By doing so, it actually increased the work load for the women as now they had to perform both the household chores as well as the paid wage work. But the women really liked this status of going out and working for the family and thus contributing to the income of the household. The avenues for entertainment e.g. shopping, driving and leisurely activities opened up for them and so the working hard or working more was not at all an issue for them so far as they could go out and share the responsibilities/work originally performed by the men in the outside world.
I’m not so sure that all these domestic appliances actually led to an increase in domestic productivity. In fact, some might have had the consequences of more work. Think about the vacuum cleaner. It used to be that area rugs were standard, and periodically they had to be taken out and beaten on the line to remove dust. With vacuum cleaners becoming more common after WWII (prior to that they were considered luxuries), wall-to-wall carpeting became popular. The solid colors showed dirt more than patterned area rugs, requiring more vacuuming. I don’t know if it’s coincidental, but we’ve been transferred twice in the past eight years, so have done alot of house hunting. Hardwood floors and area rugs are popular again, and wall-to-wall carpeting is considered a “negative” when putting your house on the market or when looking at a home for purchase. I don’t know if this is just because tastes have changed, or that people are realizing wall-to-wall carpeting is more labor intensive. It also might speak to the fact that people are more mobile and want to take their rugs with them.
Labor saving devices were initially marketed as expanding the leisure time of women, not to free them to enter the marketplace. Looking at my expanded family and friends, I’d have to say that women work more now because they work both outside the home and inside the home. Although most of the men I know are pretty helpful guys, it seems like the ultimate responsibility of organizing what needs to be done childcare and homecare-wise falls to the women. (In defense of men, I’d also have to say that women seem to “see” more that “needs” to be done – at least at my house.)
I couldn’t have said many of things you did, but your third sentence brings back haunting memories of being a youngster, bouncing around the house with my ‘Stretch Armstrong,’ chicken noodle soup, and the nauseating sound of “As the World Turns,” coming from the den. My mother was a RN, by the way (worked the ER at night and never slept when we were young). 😛
Maybe back then, women associated “labor saving devices” with leisure or freedom. But they also realized that their role in life, for which society branded them, did not have to be bottlenecked in the house. Consequently, women fought for their rights to ensure equal employment opportunity on the same level as men. Women abandoned the confines of a kitchen and enlisted themselves in labor unions and movements that removed stigmas and established new social norms in the workplace (and community).
you seem to see the “labor-saving” devices for women as liberating. Now free to seek a career sounds very good. But realistically are women “free” to work or are they forced to work outside the home by economic necessity? Who pays for all those “labor saving” devices? Do women work outside the home because they want to or because they need to? What has happened to the marriage/divorce rate since those “labor-saving” devices have been invented?
Don’t you think this is another case of influence of politics/government also playing a role in social change? I’m thinking especially of the “Rosie the Riveter” poster from WWII. With so many men off to war, women were needed to fill production jobs in the defense industry and other industries, and they proved to be very capable in these jobs. Then the men returned and took these jobs back. The woman’s movement gained strength during this period because it became more difficult to say there were some jobs that could only be done by men.
I think you’ll find the women’s movement did not become very visible until much later after WWII. Someone might like to look this up.
I was taking a longer view of the woman’s movement. The feminists of their day, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, met in Seneca Falls, NY in 1848 and demanded suffrage. The right of women to vote was finally guaranteed when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1920. So “the movement of women into the public and political spheres had been gaining momentum and popularity since the mid-19th Century.” The movement of women into factories in WWII challenged the perception that women were not fit to do manual labor in a factory environment.
I think those leisure ideas play a part, but bringing in capital certainly plays a part as well. Capital investors have, and will always look for how to bring in the most bang for their buck. Perhaps there was more determination to dominate markets that drove a wealthy chap to say, “only the folks in Martha’s Vineyard are buying these things. Can we find a way to broaden our consumer base? Maybe we can alter these items and find cheaper labor sources to bring the prices and application down to a level that will appeal to a larger socio-eco consumer base. Then the orders will be flooding our factories, and we can retire in style.”
with the technological advances women work just as hard inside and outside the home. Though now they do both they have more time outside because of the advances.
I think we are starting to see more equlity between men and women. Not only are women working a full time job and taking care of the houldhold men are as well. Corporations are starting to realize this as well hence the development of paternity days. “Young men and women both want to work hard at their careers and also want to be great moms and dads.” This article is about women working both in a career and at home. It also states that this is possible because men are now working just as much at home.
I think that women actually work more now. These “labor saving devices” have been instrumental in freeing up a lot of time – to do other things. Where it used to take hours to do laundry because it had to be washed piece by piece and hung individually on the line to dry, it can now be tossed into the washing machine (with the timer set so we know how much time we have to do something else). Preparing dinner is no longer time consuming and strenuous. The food processor has taken over the tedious chopping and if absolutely necessary, just microwave it. These devices have dramatically cut down the time in completing individual tasks but, overall, have really just provided a way to do more of them.
The “revolution” may appear very fast to use in retrospect but it actually covered 7 generations of people. The key to the “revolutions” are not the machines. Humans have made clever machines since the beginning of time. The key is the adaptation of chemical power to those machines to make the machine do the work using non-human energy. So burning fuel to produce steam to power the machines was the key. Later other fuels were used and then electricity was utilized as a power source..
Professor, if the key to the Industrial Revolution was the adaptation of chemical power to do work using non-human energy, then the relationships that developed over time because of the west’s increasing dependence on fossil fuel would be part of a discussion about how societies have been changed due to the Industrial Revolution. I think in particular of how the need to protect our ability to access oil has resulted in messy relationships with the Middle East and how all the money going into these countries has altered their cultures, putting vast fortunes in the hands of the few. The entities in the west that became rich and powerful because of our dependence on fossil fuel have used their influence to marginalize the development of other technologies (solar, wind, etc.) that would decrease our dependence on fossil fuel. This has resulted in environmental consequences. It would appear to me that one determining factor on whether or not the Knowledge/Communication Revolution is really revolutionary would be the extent to which it accelerates our ability and willingness to organize our culture around more sustainable energy sources.
As a “byproduct” of innovations (improved fuel sources) and developing inventions (steam engine, gas engine) to build economies, societies etc…man created nuclear power/weapons to control and protect it all. Nuclear technology may have been (and still is) the perfect deterrence for war–but it has certainly backfired on the U.S. and national security: specifically poor decisions from previous leaders (i.e. Clinton allowing N Korea and Iran to develop it in the early 90s).
North Korea and Iran were “allowed” to develop nuclear weapons? You mean we are allowed to have nuclear weapons and they are not? Can you explain that?
I did not mean “allowed”…as a result of poor decisions/policies of the Clinton administration in the early 90’s NK and Iran nuclear power programs did turn out as originally intended. North Korea and the US signed the Agreed Framework in 1994–didn’t go as planned. In 1995 Germany collaborated with Iran on their nuclear program–a NATO ally of the US? These were two unstable countries that never should have been afforded the opportunity for nuclear technology to begin with.
Agreed Framework 1994 (NK and US): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework_(1994)
ushehr Nuclear Powerplant (Iran): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushehr_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Safety_concerns
Do you think the picture might look very different from Iran and North Korea . There are no Iranian troops next door to us in Canada and no North Korean troops next door to us in Mexico. Just suggesting that our world view is our world view. Do you think we should consider the views of other countries when making policy?
I think the non-nuclear nations of the world might have a different opinion. Just because the U.S. is one of the most powerful nations in the world does this give us the right to say who can and can’t
Definitely 300 years can make a difference – 300 days or even 300 hours can make a world of difference in someone’s life. Like the text books says the industrial revolution brought great change to the people of that time. It took them from depending less on nature (weather and the effects of nature’s cycle) to more on each other (effects of social forces and the market) for their survival. From our perspective looking back on their times we can learn from them and how the transformation to the industrial age affected there interaction with each other. They became more aware of the power of socializing and working with their neighbors because they had become linked in large multifaceted networks to achieve a common goal – a progressive and successful technological system.
And in this current age that we’re in, we’re less dependent on each other and more dependent on the technology we use to make our lives easier. it should be clear from my use of the italics that while i enjoy the technology that i’m using to take this class, i don’t feel the technology has added much value to our lives.
let me pose a simple question to you all. how many of you can list off the top of your head, the phone number of five people you speak with on a regular basis during your week? how many can list ten? I recall when i was in high school and could remember the phone number for all my friends, family, and various departments at work. My mind has grown with more information, but the ability to recall specific information has lessened due to the dependence that has been created in my continued use of it.
There has to be a balance between the attaining of knowledge, and the level of dependence you place on the information providing you that knowledge.
I find it interesting that even as employment decreased, output increased during the later stages of the Industrial revolution and into the so called “New economy” of the 90’s (Winston, 2013). As the Industrialized nations grew and the global economy expanded we now see the reverse effect of third world countries expanding with emerging industries. The advanced nations seem to be putting a premium on knowledge to compete and the Industrial jobs are leaving the advanced countries and going to 3rd world nations where it is cheaper for labor and resources.
It seems like we have come full circle where once again human capital and knowledge are the most important criteria for a nation’s progress, or for that matter the entire planet.
Winston, Edelbach. (01/2011). Society, Ethics, and Technology, Update Edition, 4th Edition. Wadsworth Publishing. Retrieved from <vbk:9781133614456#outline(1.4)>.
Would all that storage and retrieval of information have been possible without the Industrial revolution? Why is our current development not simply a continuation of the Industrial Revolution. Specialized information jobs increased rapidly as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Clerks, accountants, billing experts etc all developed hundreds of years ago, isn’t our information technology just a bunch of bells and whistles to allow those information people to do it faster and cheaper? Mass circulation newspapers have been in production since the first quarter of the 19th century. Doesn’t the internet just do that faster? That sounds like continued development more than “revolutions” doesen’t it?
There are countless things that we used to physically do, and now we do in the cyberworld. The newspaper is one example. Once in print, the newspaper can be seen and held, it is unchanged and undeniable. Online, that is not true. Now, a great deal of our life is virtual, never physically seen and held, never “set in concrete”, always updating and changing. I think this is a way of life that is more than highly developed technology. I think this more than just doing it faster. Reality has changed.
I actually agree, this does seem like a continued development rather than a “revolution,” the big change in the last few centuries and the one that brought the most transformation (other than the industrial revolution) was not technological per se’ but the discovery and utilization of fossil fuels and the wild increase in population that followed.
The 18th century is very important to the way we know life as is today, granted these other different ages had their importance’s which did also make small contributions of inventions towards the Industrial Revolution, but the productiveness in producing certain machines or products helped sculpt the way of today. Yet as to call this a new revolution whereas I think of it as more of an extension of the industrial revolution and where the poorer countries are catching up and and taking the place of North America and Europe as the dominant manufactures of our current day we are just moving on to the next stage of the revolution in communication.
I believe that the current ‘knowledge revolution’ is a child of the industrial revolution, and also that it should indeed be termed a ‘communications revolution’. I say this because communication is the key to knowledge and the sharing of that knowledge. The industrial revolution came about after the agricultural age, and created opportunities for growth in the areas of knowledge and services. Where people depended on the land during the preindustrial revolution, during the actual industrial revolution they realized they were linked through vast complex networks, both physical and social, and that they now had to depend on each other for services – for survival. For their survival during the industrial revolution communication was born and developed into what we know today as the knowledge revolution, and that is why I say it should be aptly named the communication revolution or communication era. Mass media has taken the world by storm: printing; faxing; emailing; telephoning; texting; GPS; flying (aircrafts; spaceships); satellites; television; radio; newspapers; magazines, etc.
Didn’t the “knowledge” revolution begin in the 15th century in the West when Gutenberg made the first mass produced books with the printing press. China did it several centuries earlier.
I thought it was interesting in the iConnect Live lecture in week 1 that the reason the printing press exploded in Europe was because of the nature of cities and governments which needed paper documents to convey laws, legal documents like deeds, etc. printed in the vernacular – not Latin. And that even though the printing press had been invented in China in the 9th Century, it just didn’t catch on.
Well in that sence, it does seem to have a sign to be a knowledge revolution, but it was still the printing industry that was being revolutionized, therefor it was still an industrial revolution going through. It was only when printing methods became really smart did it truely count mass production of books into the knowledge revolution.
I prefer to think of the Knowledge Revolution more in the terms of a Knowledge Evolution. Further, I’m not sure if the Knowledge Revolution is a “child” per se of the Industrial Revolution. The Knowledge Revolution is more of a “successor” (not “offspring”) of the Industrial Revolution as being a necessity…“necessity” that has proliferated crucial technological progress, development and change.
More importantly “revolution” focuses on a punctual, immediate discontinuation of current methods to drastic, new changes in a shorter period of time—e.g. instead of manual labor (agricultural to industrial movements) the change is quick and dramatic to machine operation (cotton gin, printing press, steam engine etc). The Knowledge Revolution is more of an EVOLUTION because the change is more incremental yet progressive over a longer period of time to bring about the change.
The early days of the first, primitive computer that filled an entire room has transformed (in many ways/examples) to a high-speed hand held personal computer that fits in your back pocket today–in other words the computer is not reinvented (or part of a revolution) instead it is an evolution of human and technological assets: a knowledge evolution.
I like that, Eric… Knowledge Evolution. This was something that I said, that I don’t think that the “Knowledge Revolution” is revolutionary at all.
That’s a great article Jesse. The ‘pushes’ and ‘pulls’ seem to point to society and technology cyclically inter-twined. It kind of reminds my of the Ouroboros (serpent eating it’s own tail), only this one has a head and a tail on each end. In some instances, human society drove the technology in search of efficiencies to free up human labor. In contrast, some technology turns on society, (diseases in more densly populated areas, environmental disasters, etc.) which create a situation where it’s a matter of necessity that drives the technology(sometimes to avert economic colapse and sometimes for survival). Think of all the immunizations we get. It changes the way we live, work and play. When/if we run out of oil, there will be immediate changes to the way we live our lives. It will become a technological necessesity that will drive society to alter technologies (alternate fuel sources, modes of transportation, etc.) and not necessarily determinism to master our domain.
During the 1800 century when there was a hugh explosion in the industrialization revolution it affected the environment terrible with water pollution and terrible smog from the factories.Yet, the workforce grew very rapidly but at a hugh cost for women and children who were force to work long hours with little pay. The social and environment challenges at the time surely must have been hard for all. Technology had changed society for the good and the bad. The balance of the expanding industrial growth and protecting the environment came too late causing other problems that John had mentioned. As technology grows and expands so quickly in the 20th century we need to still be aware of the impact of this technology on society and keep a balance between the two.
But do these changes represent a Knowledge Revolution or a Communications Revolution?
One of the challenges we have been facing for a long time as a society is to find alternative energy sources that don’deplete natural resources or pollute our environment. Renewable energy is a sustainable energy source because it is naturally renewed by nature without harming the environment. We are only able to harness this energy as a result of modern technology advances. As an example, highly sophisticated windmills that produce green, renewable energy are able to place electricity on the existing electrical infrastructure. These are obviously not the windmills of yesteryear; they are the result of the knowledge revolution.
Energy is certainly one of our challenges. As we require machines to do more and more for us the energy demand to run the machines grows and grows. Particularly as what we used to call the “third world” developed their own machine applications the demand for energy is shooting up.
The volume of devices we use that require energy has expanded greatly in the last few years. Fortunately, while the number of the devices is increasing, so is the energy efficient nature of the devices. Take a look at televisions for example. A modern LCD panel uses about 60% less power than a “Tube” style CRT television that was popular for half a century. Of course, while many households previously only had one television, now American’s have nearly 3 televisions per household on average. (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/u-s-homes-add-even-more-tv-sets-in-2010/)
It is definitely going to go up as long as we have to depend on these natural resources, but I do think that we have been chained to using these natural resources and that progress has been slowed from making new technological advances for renewable green alternatives. I don’t know if it is just me but I can’t believe with all the technology that we have that no new machines have been invented to replace some of these resources that are harming our environment.
The name for people who work to stifle new technology are often called Luddites after John Ludd, an Englishman, a weaver by trade who stimulated an attack on power driven looms in England early in the Industrial Revolution. They failed. Do you think that may have a different outcome sometime in the future.
In my opinion they represent both. We are the point where industrial revolution would not be able progress as rapidly if there would not be communication revolution. i think they drive each other.
the communication revolution allows to join the forces in research and go further because many scientists can share their work. this is very efficient comparing to the past where most of the researches worked almost alone. the work often overlapped and did not progress as much. The team work is more possible and affordable world wide which aid the revolution and this is something that used to be struggle.
Well there is alot more to the knowledge revolution than just communication in which it was making the machines that were created in the Industrial revolutions smarter. In this sence, it drastically improved on what was made during the Industrial revolution in all aspects of life including community, communications, production and overall technology.
An important point . Just how does the internet differ from a 19th century newspaper?
The 19th Century U.S. Newspapers provides access to primary source newspaper content from the 19th century, featuring full-text content and images from numerous newspapers from a range of urban and rural regions throughout the U.S. The collection encompasses the entire 19th century, with an emphasis on such topics as the American Civil War, African-American culture and history, Western migration and Antebellum-era life, among other subjects. The internet has many things that can help you find out all kinds of things.
Both the internet and a 19th century newspaper have a bias towards what is the truth that should be reported to people. Except that when viewing a newspaper in the 19th century you were only exposed to the bias of the local government or city (depending on which one you were reading) who owned the paper. On the internet you are exposed to a level of bias so grand, it is almost difficult to say you are really exposed to bias. There are so many conflicting opinions made freely available that you are able to find whichever one fits your opinion and read what they have to say.
The difference is, that the content is more restrained in the newspaper due to the costs of production. The stories all had maximum word counts that had to be adhered to. Even the 140 character twitter limit is negotiable when you use other resources like Twitlonger you can extend the amount you wish to say. So, length of stories is another difference.
Still kind of following with the Twitter angle, stories that could take several days to find their way to the people wishing to know the information is now available within minutes of it occurring so long as someone nearby is using a mobile device with media sharing capabilities (and there’s no cloud cover). The news can be given so quickly that people simply wishing for a quick conversation with a friend could become distracted by the tweet in their header field while pressing the speed dial button.
Last point (because lunch is up), is that in the 19th century, not everyone could read. While that is technically still true, there is a much larger readership in the world and thus news that could have been missed by the “common folk” before, will not be missed now.
In addition to the accessibility and availability of information on the internet, I would also say that there is also a large amount of duplication of information across various news/information portal and so it is “Information anywhere and everywhere”. So, the reader has to make the choice for the suitable platform which he can rely upon today. Also, in today’;s world, you will find that most of the information are tagged or linked to several other pieces of information which is good to have to get the complete picture of the issue to the reader But at times it also is an overload of information for the reader.
Technology now is different from the industrial revolution. Technology in machines now are made to be faster, portable and cheaper. In the industrial revolution thing were buillt to last for a long time. Now you have to get a new phone ever year be cause your is out of date. A new computer very 3 years. The knowledge revolution made machine smarter but not better.
I believe that the Internet, World Wide Web, and other information technologies rapidly transformed the economic and social environment, many analysts, journalists, and scholars took the time to reflect upon the current transformations and breakthroughs and situate them in a broad, historical context. The beginning of this was the conception of the current era as the Information Revolution, and in its historical importance and impact to previous economic revolutions, particularly the Industrial Revolution.
I agree but people can decide not to be totally depended on technology. You don’t need your phone with you 24/7 there was a time where you missed a call. You didn’t have to check facebook or comment on twitter. I think people don’t want to go back to those days and that what makes it a revolution.
I see your point about people not wishing to go back to the days of “yore” when we didn’t live in a world with constant updates about Kim Kardashian’s latest hubby, a funeral the Westboro Church is going to be protesting, and how a woman in the middle east decapitated the man who raped her. This digital age is so much better than when we learning about community events that promoted family involvement, local businesses were able to sell their goods and pay their employees a fair wage, and people took the time to hold verbal conversations with their extended family.
Do I seem cynical? I just find it unfortunate that so many choose to allow technology to replace the connections we used to have established between each other. The most valuable thing technology gives me right now is the ability to video conference with my family that is out of state so I can see the kids growing and make sure they see, and still know who I am. I just fail to see the “Revolution” in all of this.
new things come into the system. But new things are always coming into a technological system. At one time the wheel barrow was new, the zipper, buttons for that matter, cooked food, bread, the iron hoe. So I’m not sure what it means that new things are coming into the system.
Everywhere we go people in the general public people are engaged in technology. We are consider a society of computing mobility by email, banking, video and cameras. I believe the publics attitude has changed towards technology as being connected and accepted, even in the grocery stores.
Communication and the internet have allowed us to change the world at a rapid pace. Much more information can be shared around the world much more quickly. Decisions can also be made more quickly at a moment’s notice. An example that I recently thought of where technology is shaping our world is Justin Bieber. He is a popular singer today and he was found on Youtube. He is one of the most popular performers today and he is the result of social media being used to find one of the world’s biggest entertainment stars. This is probably the start of a new era. Many performers may no longer need to sit on the street corner and try to take make it. They can go to social media and based on those results, they will be found sooner or later. This is somewhat of a phenomena in my opinion. In the past you may have performers that really weren’t very good but they had the professionals around them to make them look and sound like stars. Today and in the future this may not be the case. A natural born star can post their performances online and social media will take care of the rest.
I agree the communication revolution is not only a great tool that everyone uses. This gives everyone an opportunity to show their skills or do something such as singing and posting their videos so everyone can see and hear their talent.
Ever since the industrial revolution began one invention followed another and each invention allowed new research and opened the way for new inventions. With that in mind, I believe that the industrial revolution never ended. It could be construed that the technological revolution is a sub revolution since its effects on the world, from socioeconomic effects to geopolitical, brought a change to the world; but the same can be said to the “electrical revolution” and the “communication revolution.” So all in all I don’t believe these inventions and the progress they brought with them merits the name revolution.