Let’s imagine for a minute. You’re flying down the expressway speeding away from a horde of cops, when you finally decide to casually drop a hand grenade out of your window. This is a common sight for one of the most popular video games in the media’s eyes today. Unfortunately, this sight is easily realized for even a child, engulfing them in a world without consequence. The question is whose responsibility is it? Is it the parents for allowing the child to get their hands on such a suggestive game? Or is it the retailers themselves that sold the controversial games to our youth? This is a question that causes heated debates, especially when analyzing the latest school shooting suspect. Video games should be subject to heavier review because: They are experiencing an increase of popularity in modern culture and they have negative effects on adolescents.Videogames for many seem to have existed forever. Starting with the classic Pong all the way to the latest installment of the “Call of Duty” series, video games have made a profound effect on modern culture. They have staying power to still be popular in many households. What hasn’t stayed the same is the content found in these videogames. Looking back at some of the first videogames, sports and fantasy seemed to have ruled them all. From Tennis, to Space Invaders, to even Pac-man, games could have been enjoyed by anyone of any age. Fast forward about 20 years, and now you have a different story. Taking a look at some of the most popular videogames such as the Call of Duty and Halo franchises, one can quickly find that the ultra-realistic graphics and gore content paint a scary image. Pop culture seems to glamorize these virtual realities, aggressively being advertised in all forms. Blizzard-Activision, known as one of the giants of the videogame industry, are some of the people behind some of the most played games ever such as “The World of Warcraft” and “Call of Duty: Black Ops” (Hawisher 98). While fun games nether less, they bear only small resemblance to some of the original best seller videogames. What’s more interesting though, is that the videogame industry is booming more than ever. Sales have skyrocketed since gaining popularity back in the 80’s. With such strong numbers associated with some of the most violent forms of media, there is a drawback. What if all of the violence portrayed in videogames has negative social impact on today’s world? Furthermore more, looking at specifically at one game, it becomes clearer why this is a problem.
Grand Theft Auto. This is the title of one of the most popular videogame series on the market right now. As the name suggests, the main objective is to commit crimes without consequence. Speaking for myself, I have never played one of these games until very recently, mainly because my parents wouldn’t allow it. After downloading it, I can understand why. Within the first ten minutes of playing the game, I found myself killing cops with flamethrowers, selling illicit drugs to racial stereotypes, and working my way up in an Asian gang ladder. Perhaps the most astounding part of the game wasn’t the content; it was that I was hooked. After playing this game for about an hour’s time, I found myself more irritable and edgy. After playing such a liberating game, I needed to remind myself that I was back into reality, and that I shouldn’t be playing out scenarios of crime in my head. I can only imagine the effect of that game on a child, blurring the lines of fantasy and reality. While this is fine and normal for most people, the problem lies in the youth of today. Just in the same way movies are giving rating based on suggestive content, videogames are also being monitored. The ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) is a non for profit organization with the intention of rating video games accordingly. Established in 1994, just when videogames started to really take off, was a necessary addition. Mentioned in their mission statement “To empower consumers, especially parents, with the ability to make informed decisions about the computer and video games they choose…” the ESRB has some great intentions behind them (Rating). They have an iconic rating labeled on every marketed game ranging with rating such as “EC” (Early Childhood) all the way to “AO” (Adults Only). The ESRB rating system, designed to help consumers make appropriate choices when purchasing videogames, is broken down into a simple lettering system. They group video games based on content such as, gore, education, sex, drug themes, and general violence to name a few. They review videos that the game producers send them and have reviewers fill out questionnaires on what they thought of the game. They finalize the rating shortly before the game gets released to make sure that developers have not made any last minute changes to the game which can potentially alter the rating it should receive. Over the years this process has been streamlined due the sheer amount of games they must review before they can be released.This is an excellent tool for parents to help them select more appropriate games for children. They have even has gone as far has heavy advertisement and celebrity endorsements to get their message across to the media. This plan, that may sound perfect on paper, has its own fair share of flaws.The ESRB has come under much heat for their rating system. Inconstancy and not rating some games harshly enough are often heard when talking about the ESRB. One reason for this was with the rapidly evolving game market, newer games were compared against older ones, thus giving the ratings solely based off of previous games. This is why some older games may have ratings they wouldn’t have in they were produced now. The ESRB hasn’t acknowledged this shift in modern videogames giving the ratings a distorted window when they appear on the market. One of the biggest controversies the ESRB has been involved with was also related to one of the Grand Theft Auto games. This game, although was rated “M” for 17+ players, contained a mini-game that involved the player having sexual intercourse that was pulled shortly before its release. The problem with this though, is that players can modify their copy of the game to access this content and allowed them to play it as normal. This got national attention and the ESRB went under heat by the United States government. After this incident, similar cases have came up and the ESRB got away with out and consequences. That is just one example why the way the ESRB operates needs to be revised.One of the biggest reasons why the ESRB is a flawed system is because they assign ratings based on video clips produced by the companies behind the games. This causes game developers to hide suggestive content from the ESRB to receive a more amicable rating. This in turn causes games that are too violent adolescences obtainable for them. What should be done is to hire play testers to play through these games several times for themselves and base the ratings on personal experience, rather than just that the developers want them to see. Granted, it would be significantly more costly for them to play test every game because of the large amount of games that get released weekly, but I think many agree that it would be well worth it. Why does all of this rating and violence jargon matter you might ask? Well it has been proven factually that there are social consequences associated with violent games. A study done by psychologist in Sweden tested this very theory of connection between aggressive behavior and games. They took 53 children varying in sex and age and had them play violent videogames and non-violent videogames. After several hours of the experiment, they had them go outside and play to observe their behavior. What they found had proven their theory correct. They found out the in males there was a 53% increase in aggressive behavior where there was almost none found in girls. This effectively proved that “A strong significant relationship between gender and violent games were found" (Polman). That being said, it has become safer to say that videogames can lead to violent actions for male boys. Taking a step back and looking at some of the most violent games out there, it is no wonder how these games can have poor influences.Another study, this time performed at Harvard, took the issue and broke it down into the two main opinions of videogame playing. The one that believes the relationship between violence and videogames, and the one that doesn’t. They point out some interesting statistics, saying that over 97% of youth between twelve and seventeen has had large exposure to video games (“Violent Video Games”). Breaking down the issue into three parts, personality, opportunity, and motivation, they explored the depths of the psychology in video games. The professors at Harvard close the experiment with words of warning, mentions to be very careful what kind of games your child may be exposed to, especially game of violence. This is not the only concern involving adolescents and violent videogames.Another issue that arises with the popularity of videogames and their content is the issue of addiction. Many of us can relate to someone that suffers from some sort of addiction whether it is a family member or someone they just know. Found on a website that focuses on videogame addictions specifically, they state “There is increasing evidence that people of all ages, especially teens and pre-teens, are facing very real, sometimes severe consequences associated with compulsive use of video and computer games” (“Video Game Addictive”). This goes to prove that the videogames today need to be monitored carefully before serious consequences can occur.Of course, there are always two sides to an argument. Many say that violent people are the ones playing violent games in the first place, and not the other way around. While this argument makes sense on paper, it needs to be applied in context. Violent games are in the hands of millions. With numbers like those, it is hard to argue the existence of negative side effects of these games. The other big argument of his issue is that violence is everywhere already and that videogames do not have any more of an impact then movies and television programs. The biggest flaw in this argument is that those other forms of media are not interactive. In videogames you are usually playing as a character representing yourself, actively making decisions that affect this alternate reality. Comparing this to movies and TV programs, you are simply an audience member watching the plot unfold. This is a huge difference where one encourages violent behaviors and the other simply displays them. Lastly, another argument you may hear is that it is the parent’s responsibility to make sure certain games stay out of the hands of younger ones. While it may be the ideal way to think of the issue, it’s also far from practical. Many parents are simply not knowledgeable enough to make informed decisions like that, nor have the time to obtain that knowledge.One reason this may be is because of time constraints. Many parents simply don’t have the time to take out of there hectic days to sit down with their child discuss the kind of videogames they are playing. This is not an issue of negligence, but one of time. It is tempting for a parent to simply want to come home from a long day of work and let them entertain themselves with videogames rather than take them to the park and play outside. Videogames are simply convenient. I sat down with my aunt the other day to discuss this issue, and she had some interesting things to say. When I asked about her involvement she has in her children’s videogames, she hesitantly responded “I simply don’t have the time to be involved with videogames”, and that “she doesn’t see the point of the ESRB” (Toay). This goes to show that some parents are misinformed about the ESRB and simply do not have the time or the means to evaluate their children’s habits and hobbies. This is a prime example why things needs to changed before they can potential become out of hand.Fast forwarding about twenty years, violence, sex, and drugs seem to be some of the most common themes. While perhaps it is a strong selling strategy, it may not be the most appropriate influence an adolescent. The ESRB, while known as the long established content rater, is definitely lacking in some areas. A rehash of this system is needed, due to the ever increasing amount in violence found in these games. And if that’s not reason enough, recent studies have also found that there is a link between violent games and violent behavior. With all of this being said, it would be wise to take some of this knowledge the next time you see a child hypnotized by a videogame.
January 22, 1973 was a monumental day of controversy. This was the day of the case of Roe vs. Wade that ultimately brought forth the law permitting abortions with in the first trimester of pregnancy legal. And that is all that it is, simply a law. In response to Wednesday's letter to the editor in the Northern Star, "NIU Should Not be Taking a Stance on Abortion," the issue is not about what stance NIU holds. To briefly summarize Joseph Lotta’s point, he is concerned that the University is actively taking a stance on pro-choice. He goes on to say that through the resources provided to students on the University website, NIU is sending a biased opinion on abortion. He also mentions how NIU is tax payer supported institution and is out of line. The problem with this is NIU is not taking a stance at all. NIU supplies all sorts of resources and shouldn’t be held against it because it is responsible, neutral in nature, and is a benefit to students.
I understand that the topic of abortion is touchy, and needs to be addressed carefully. Yet in the same way the university provides links to such as counseling and medical support, NIU plays it safe by covering as much ground as they can. Just because someone doesn’t hold the same opinion as Joseph Lotta, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have resource available to them if they decide to go that path. In fact, that would be quite irresponsible not to be able to aid someone looking into a perfectly legal practice. This in fact has nothing to do with a stance on abortion, as it simply just provides students with information they may otherwise not be able to find. Even though NIU provides information on this touchy subject, it truly is inherent in nature.
What Joseph Lotta fails to understand is that it would make the university less neutral if NIU decided not to provide this type of information. Providing information does not “actively support abortion”, all it does it reinforce the idea of choice. That if someone did want to look into an abortion, they can. And if they chose not to, that’s okay too. I can understand how shoving information in someone face may appear biased, but that is not the case at hand. To find information like this you would need to actually be searching for it, which is not the case with the school website. All NIU is doing is supplying resources for students under the law and should not be interpreted as an opinion. Furthermore, the resources provided benefit students more than they would harm them.
Let’s think logically for a minute. Let’s say you’re in a position where you needed to get any sort of surgery. I think anyone would appreciate knowing all the options they have before committing to one. Abortion, free of opinion, is a legal procedure. Depriving one from potential resources is taking two steps backwards from what was accomplished in 1973. Like it or not, NIU has an obligation to provide its student body with resources directed at everyone. Found on pro choice Women Issue’s website, “Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced.” This is a great example that shows supplying students with information and resources are beneficial to those who seek it. All things considered, NIU is doing far more good than harm.
Surely everyone is entitled to an opinion and should be allowed to express that. After all, that is a law isn’t it? Joe Lotta’s letter to the editor expresses that NIU, a school funded by fellow tax payers, should not be supplying students with resources that suggest pro-choice. His argument however, completely misses the point. NIU is just giving all the resources they can to its students. In fact, NIU would actually be supporting pro-life if they didn’t supply these sorts of resources. NIU abiding to law and is neutral on its stance on abortion. It is providing information about a legal practice. It upholds to no opinion, simply just a law.
Is Google really making us stupid? Nicholas Carr, a technology writer poses that question about the internet and asks readers to give it some thought. He makes suggestions that the internet is changing the way our mind works and that it has negative consequences on the mind. Carr believes that we should be skeptical of the internet because of the adverse ways it may be shaping the way we think. Thinking critically about his article, I can find some patterns in his writing, such as fact and fiction, presenting evidence with an argument, cause and effect, and tonal qualities. Carr starts his article with a quote from a sci-fi movie.
“Dave, stop, will you” (Carr 1). He starts off illustrating an eerie scene from the 2001 movie Space Odyssey. This part of the article is obviously fictional, but does a good job of leading up to his next point. He discusses that he feels like his mind is being influenced by advancing technologies. He states that even as a writer his mind struggles to keep focused on a book, something that is new to him. He blames this on the internet, which he describes as “The perfect recall of silicone memory” (2). He uses his friends as examples, stating that “..many are having similar experiences” (2). While impossible to tell if this fiction or not, one can reason that he’s most likely stating fact. Carr does bring up facts from a London study where results suggest that internet readers aren’t reading in traditional methods and that they do not absorb the text that they are reading. Following that though, he sneaks his opinion that “We are what we read” (3). Carr then does bring up a conversation that he had, stating an interesting fact of how reading is not part of our genes like how speech is. That is a very interesting fact and that suggests that the way we read can be influenced just like other habits. He brings in quotes from other professors he has talked to and mentions how the human brain can still be molded even at older ages. To help support his discussion, he brings up a very interesting part of history. With the invention of the mechanical clock, people minds were changed into thinking in mathematical sections of time. That people “…eat, work, sleep, rise, we stopped listing to our senses and started obeying the clock” (4). When identifying the argument in Carr’s article, some interesting ideas and evidence surface.
I would say that the main point of this essay is to stir discussion how the internet may have negative effects on the human mind. He states how his own memory is being affected by speeding on the internet jumping from one page to the next. He further supports that his reading habits that used to be natural for him have become struggles. He argues that the zip lining across the internet is changing how we read and how we interpret text. He backs this up from evidence from studies performed in London that suggests that people exhibit “”a form of skimming activity” and “…read no more than one or two pages of an article or a book before they would bounce out to another site” (3). Another point he tries to argue is that technology is taking part of forming in his thoughts. He proposes that it has “changed from arguments to aphorisms, from thoughts to puns, from rhetoric to telegram style” (4). The pattern of cause and effect is also apparent in his writing, starting from the very beginning.
Early in the essay, Carr suggests that he is having trouble reading. He then argues that the way we use the internet has hindered his attention, and that he is not alone with this problem. This claim becomes more valid after he references some of his colleagues and reinforces his argument and thesis. One of the most compelling examples of cause and effect is found later in the essay. Carr introduces the idea of the mechanical clock, a piece of technology that arose in the 14th century. Carr states, “…the clock disassociated time from human events and helped create the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences” (4). That is a startling concept and definitely goes along the line of cause and effect, suggesting that the clock completely affected the way our minds operate. The last pattern of tone can be found throughout the paper.
Carr’s tone seems to have a concerned feel to it, and rightfully should. This can be found by analyzing some of the examples that he gives, and how he seems almost nervous about what the future holds. A good example is when he begins to talk about the internet again. Carr says, “The internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is submersing most of our other intellectual technologies” (5). He uses words such as “immeasurably”, “powerful”, and “submersing” that suggests that the internet is truly a threat to us. His purpose seems to get a message across, saying to be aware of how the internet is shaping us.
Carr suggests that we should be skeptical of his skepticism, but he brings up some very interesting concepts. Adverse effects of the internet are undoubtedly out there, and Carr does a good job of getting that across. He uses patterns of fact and fiction, cause and effect, evidence and tone and leaves the reader with much to think about. His paper works because it stirs up thoughts about the relationship between technology and us and backs it up correctly. Maybe we shouldn’t be concerned about Google making us stupid, but how as technology shapes and contorts the way our minds work.
Edward Wilson, a professor at Harvard University writes a letter to a Southern Baptist minister self titled “A Letter to a Southern Baptist Minister.” He introduces the piece by introducing himself as man not so different from him, and states they could possibly even be friends. He begins to ask the Minister for help and acknowledges the major difference between them, how one is a literal interpreter of scripture while Wilson describes himself as a secular humanist. He then tries to make the big connection, “You and I and everyone other human being strive for the same imperatives of security freedom of choice, personal dignity and the cause to belief in that is larger than ourselves”(464). Wilson then surfaces the point of his letter, to set aside their differences and to save creation.
He starts to discuss some scientific facts about the environment suggesting that it is heading in a downward spiral. He tries to rationalize with the minister, suggesting that nature is not a matter of science or religion; it is one of humanity. Wilson then goes on to explain the reasoning he is writing to him, making the strong statement that “If religion and science can be united on the common ground of biological conservation, the problem would soon be solved”(465). He then explains his confusion why many religious leaders hesitate to take action on the cause. He begins to suggest that it’s the way that theses religions work and how the environment won’t matter in the end. He then begins to back off and challenges him to consider his words. He then concludes with a very interesting example of Charles Darwin. Once a religious minded individual, he was eventually changed into putting his faith in science. He closes with a statement of respect and hopes that they can find common ground to help save the environment.
This paper gives a very interesting perspective of the mind of a secular humanist. I find this paper very convincing for numerous reasons. Wilson does a good job of making himself sounding open minded. His arguments are well constructed and supported. The ability to unite religion and science to solve a common problem is a great idea. Religion has an amazing power to unite people and coupled with the interest of science our environment issues can be solved. Wilson addresses this directly stating, “[Nature] is a masterpiece of biology and well worth saving” (464). Coming from a religious background I understand how religion can appear selfish to the environment. I grew up going to Catholic schools and I also noticed the exclusion of the environment which I found bothersome. Sometimes a religion has a tunnel vision effect on people until they put things into perspective. I agree with Wilson’s points how puzzling it is that many people believe the world will end in their lifetime and that only the well being of humans will matter.
Putting that aside, a bigger picture emerges. “The great challenge of the twenty-first century is to raise people to a decent standard of living while preserving as much of rest of life as possible”, is a great way to look at it, said by Wilson(465). Although religion and science on surface appear to be enemies, when put together they can have a powerful influence on this planet.
