Physical Issues and Technology

In the great tradition of philosophers like Plato and Bertrand Russell, I’d like to explore the concept of happiness, or how we, as a society, need to be aware and teach to have citizens who are happy. (I recognise that education has taken on other roles, that of training for the corporate world, or providing information for use on standardised tests, but I still believe that educations chief role should be in how it prepares citizens to live their lives and interact with the world around them in a way that will be of greatest benefit to all.) To do this, I’d like to spend a few entries examining the various parts of man, and how digital technology might interact with people and affect their happiness so that we have issues we might be aware of, and so that we can classify these issues as belonging to a certain area in the life of man.To begin, I’d like to look at some of the issues, or barriers to happiness, that might be faced in the physical well-being of man. (I choose to look at the obstructions to happiness not to attack the technology, but rather to observe ways in which it might improve to serve humanity best.)I would pose the question: Do we understand (or, are we fully aware) of the impact of digital technology on our health?I will begin by discussing the concept of light as an example regarding our knowledge, or potential lack thereof, of the implications of new technology on health.New research has shown that light has a vast impact on health and new media and digital technologies are often light based mediums, in that if you use computers you are staring into a light source. This brightness is a contributing factor in keeping people awake because they are receiving mass doses of bright light at times of the day which are potentially unhealthy. This is due to their ability to suppress the pineal gland’s release of melatonin. (the chemical which makes us drowsy, which helps us sleep in turn allowing us to create serotonin, a neurotransmitter responsible for, among many processes, happiness and appetite control.) A large number of studies are still delving into the implications of artificial light, but they have now been linked to pineal glad suppression of melatonin release (reference below) interfering with sleep cycles and therefore at least partially serotonin disorders such as depression and stress disorders; and also certain cancers such as breast cancer. (reference below)If we cannot fully appreciate the impact of an invention made in the time of Edison (artificial light) and how it has changed our sleep cycles, how can we be confident, or even satisfied that we have answered, or even suitably addressed the question regarding whether technology best serves us physically?It has taken from the invention of the light bulb til now to build a rudimentary understanding of the importance of artificial light impact on health (for melatonin release serotonin production). We must be forced to question the confidence with which we feel technology is physically safe. (This of course is one portion of a major question, which is how do we treat new technologies, are we hysterical, or are we not aware enough? And that I shall deal with in another blog entry.)What I feel strongly is required is more scientific study into the impact of light based digital technologies on health, and given our lack of understanding of such a longstanding technology as the light bulb, it does beg the question:Do we actually understand the implications of old technologies on our lives, let alone new technologies?Further to light, Magnetic field exposure is also being studied in the suppression of pineal gland function. (see reference below). So we must admit that if scientists are not even aware fully of the implications of technology, than we cannot confidently make assumptions either.I am not suggesting we get rid of the computer or digital devices, merely of making the technology serve our best interest instead of us serving the technology (or potentially, the companies creating the technology, who currently have no reason to adapt their technology as light pollution is not legislated against).If it is unhealthy for us to be staring into these mammoth light sources at a time when the light should be dimming, then could we not find a way to brighten and dim the light on a computer in accordance with natural light cycles in the day and melatonin release?One further point I would make, is that, in our mechanical view of humanity, we tend to treat people less individually; which means that some people may be more sensitive to the effects of various characteristics of digital media than others. In a growing market which claims to be able to offer solutions to individuals everyone should, ideally, be able to find the best solution for them. One wonders if this is the case.If we are unaware of the health risks then how can we confidently educate our future generations on the responsible and best use of these technologies? It is a case of the blind leaving the blind. And to not ask such questions is, I believe, irresponsible.Night Shift Work, Light at Night, and Risk of Breast Cancer, Scott Davis, Dana K. Mirick, Richard G. Stevens, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 93, No. 20, 1557-1562, October 17, 2001Light in the Built Environment: Potential role of Circadian Disruption in Endocrine Disruption and Breast Cancer, Richard G. Stevens and Mark S. Rea, Journal Cancer Causes and Control, Vol. 12, No. 3, 279-287, April, 2001.Changes in human plasma melatonin profiles in response to 50 Hz magnetic field exposure, A. W. Wood, S. M. Armstrong, Ml. Sait , L. Devine, M. J. Martin,