Cell Phones
4-19-06
Robert J. Samuelson will not be the last person in America without a cell phone. I do not own a cell phone and do not plan to acquire one at any point in the future. Cell phones can be useful, and even essential, in the lives of some people such as doctors or salesmen. But for people like me, cell phones are all wrong.
Why would I need a cell phone? The only answer that comes to mind is: “in case of emergency.” But there have always been cases of emergency. What did people do before cell phones? It seems we have forgotten. As time has marched on we no longer depend on ourselves because we do not need to depend on ourselves: we have our cell phones. Maybe I’m just strange, but I prefer to be able to depend on myself. Minus cases of emergency, however, cell phones are nothing but a troubling (for people like me).
First, they are very expensive. It’s expensive to own, expensive to talk, it’s expensive to text, and each one of those other features (Internet access, pictures, movies, music) is expensive. I can only think of all the other things that money could go to. Charity, family, retirement, savings, travel...
Second, having a cell phone means that you are available at all times and in all places. Anyone can reach you, and you cannot deny that they tried because all cell phones have some form or other of caller identification. But you can turn off a cell phone or leave it at home. Then why have it? It will only irritate the hell out of anyone who tries to call you. So that “in case of emergency,” I can turn it on and call for help. Here it is my personal choice to depend on myself. How far away can the nearest ground-based phone possibly be? Especially here in Manchester. Maybe I’m just a reckless teenager, but I value my alone time and privacy.
Third, Samuelson points out, when you have a cell phone, “if it’s on and no one calls, you’re irrelevant, unloved or both. If everyone calls, you’re a basket case.” And you have no time to yourself whatsoever. Why would you want to add another social burden to your life? Another lose-lose situation?
As for the other features, they are all available in some other form, in better quality, and it’s probably less expensive. As Jamie so animatedly told us: why would you want to surf the Internet on a 1 X 1.5 inch screen? And for me, considerations like digital camera vs. camera phone or iPod vs. a cell onto which you can download music are hardly considerations at all.
I cannot say that there are not situations when a cell phone saves trouble, or saves a life; and I know that for many people, a job, or special circumstance makes it essential or just wise for them to have a cell phone. But, as I said, for people like me, cell phones are all wrong.
Did I just prove myself wrong in my own paper? I think I did. I started by evading argument, then taking a position and proceeding to prove it wrong. Weak. The paper is well oraganized, and well researched.
Robert J. Samuelson will not be the last person in America without a cell phone. I do not own a cell phone and do not plan to acquire one at any point in the future. Cell phones can be useful, and even essential, in the lives of some people such as doctors or salesmen. But for people like me, cell phones are all wrong.
Why would I need a cell phone? The only answer that comes to mind is: “in case of emergency.” But there have always been cases of emergency. What did people do before cell phones? It seems we have forgotten. As time has marched on we no longer depend on ourselves because we do not need to depend on ourselves: we have our cell phones. Maybe I’m just strange, but I prefer to be able to depend on myself. Minus cases of emergency, however, cell phones are nothing but a troubling (for people like me).
First, they are very expensive. It’s expensive to own, expensive to talk, it’s expensive to text, and each one of those other features (Internet access, pictures, movies, music) is expensive. I can only think of all the other things that money could go to. Charity, family, retirement, savings, travel...
Second, having a cell phone means that you are available at all times and in all places. Anyone can reach you, and you cannot deny that they tried because all cell phones have some form or other of caller identification. But you can turn off a cell phone or leave it at home. Then why have it? It will only irritate the hell out of anyone who tries to call you. So that “in case of emergency,” I can turn it on and call for help. Here it is my personal choice to depend on myself. How far away can the nearest ground-based phone possibly be? Especially here in Manchester. Maybe I’m just a reckless teenager, but I value my alone time and privacy.
Third, Samuelson points out, when you have a cell phone, “if it’s on and no one calls, you’re irrelevant, unloved or both. If everyone calls, you’re a basket case.” And you have no time to yourself whatsoever. Why would you want to add another social burden to your life? Another lose-lose situation?
As for the other features, they are all available in some other form, in better quality, and it’s probably less expensive. As Jamie so animatedly told us: why would you want to surf the Internet on a 1 X 1.5 inch screen? And for me, considerations like digital camera vs. camera phone or iPod vs. a cell onto which you can download music are hardly considerations at all.
I cannot say that there are not situations when a cell phone saves trouble, or saves a life; and I know that for many people, a job, or special circumstance makes it essential or just wise for them to have a cell phone. But, as I said, for people like me, cell phones are all wrong.
Did I just prove myself wrong in my own paper? I think I did. I started by evading argument, then taking a position and proceeding to prove it wrong. Weak. The paper is well oraganized, and well researched.
posted by Andy | 7:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home