The presentations on Monday were really enlightening. I liked the different ideas our class came up with and seeing their interpretations of what a utopia would be. Their ideas, ranging from trailer caravans to complete isolation, were inventive and very original. The prospects of travelling, living off the land, and living everyday by a set of core values seemed to be a common theme throughout each of the presentations.
Although my group decided upon a farming community, it is not what I personally imagine a utopia to be like. The transcendentalists and those very close to nature would disagree, but I can’t see being very happy surrounded by nature and without technology for very long. Obviously, when the transcendentalists were prominent, there were no cell phones or internet; a great majority of the technologies we use every day and take for granted did not exist back in their time. So although it was only for a class project, none of the presentations seemed terribly realistic (except for the Canary Collective). If asked, I am sure half the class would not actually give up their lives and live on any of the utopias, myself included. I am far too used to having the everyday amenities and luxuries of this modern era. I do not have a perfect vision or idea for my personal utopia; however I know it would not be without technology or modern innovations.
This got me thinking about the debate between rejecting nature and rejecting technology, and the pros/cons of both sides.
One of my favorite bands, The Talking Heads, actually produced a song called “Nothing But Flowers” which satirizes those who forgo technology and try to reconnect with nature. “Once there were parking lots / Now it's a peaceful oasis / This was a Pizza Hut / Now it's all covered with daisies / I miss the honky tonks, / Dairy Queens, and 7-Elevens / And as things fell apart / Nobody paid much attention / We used to microwave / Now we just eat nuts and berries …” I think this song speaks to the extreme side of rejecting innovation and getting back to our roots, however it brings up a valid point.
Like the transcendentalists have expressed, embracing nature has its perks. You feel more spiritual and in touch with the earth. However, it is not practical. On the opposite side of the spectrum, being completely consumed by technology may seem rewarding, but it can turn you into a mindless consumer.
Dave Loveless, in a blog in The Prodigal, said “Of course, the obvious answer is neither an utter rejection of these advances nor an outright embracing. I feel that the correct path is in the middle…I don’t have a smart phone, I don’t get online but when I have to, and I do my best to restrict my Internet usage to the weekdays while I’m at work…I know that I could easily spend every moment of every day consuming for the sake of consumption, and so I fall much closer to refusing technology than embracing it.”
He talks about finding a balance between forgoing all technology and rejecting nature. I think his blog ties in well with my own thoughts on the matter; I agree that there should be a balance. Life is not much of a utopia without the best of both worlds.
No comments:
Post a Comment