<p>I'm having trouble deciding whether to support Lanier's view that tech is bad for the human experience or to write against him. On one hand, writing against him and arguing how tech is good for humanity sounds "easier" to write, but arguing with him is what his book prepares you to do and what most students might end up doing.. There's a lot of evidence on that side too..</p>
<p>Also, 2 more things:
-will we have to bring the book with us? I bought an e-book copy
-Are we required to read the whole thing? Honestly, reading like a fourth gives me more than enough evidence in quotes etc.</p>
<p>Parent here. Read the whole thing. If nothing else, it will give you practice in completing unpleasant assignments. But another thing is that, in this particular case, he isn’t always saying technology is bad. When does he say it’s bad, when does he say it’s good, when do you agree with him, and when do you not and why?</p>
<p>Yes, on the 23rd. However I’m also wondering whether the first part was even necessary. I’m thinking of BSing the whole thing (it’s quite easy to figure how it will affect me without tech).</p>
<p>Just gonna make like a diary entry about my day. Since I was actually in the ER with my great grandma for a week, and during the week I was planning on doing this, I’ll just say that I wasn’t very affected at all since all I did was make phone calls, talk to doctors, and make sure he was ok. Granted, I was bored as all hell, but that’s about it.</p>
<p>I for one actually took part 1 seriously, and…it was hell having no computer and nothing to do (I even timed it on a day when I was NOT hanging out with anyone).</p>