which do you prefer, technology to human behaviorSome business owners prefer more technology to human labor, while some business owners prefer human labor than technology. which do you prefer, or...
Some business owners prefer more technology to human labor, while some business owners prefer human labor than technology. which do you prefer, or do you have another choice?
With the use of the word "behavior," I took this to mean something totally different: do I prefer the company of people to spending time on the computer?
If this is the case, it depends upon my mood. If I am happy, I enjoy spending time with positive people. I enjoy exchanging information and sharing a good laugh. If I'm feeling down, I tend to read a book...or get on the computer. Time flies whether I'm working or playing a game. It requires nothing of me other than functioning brain cells, and I don't have to pretend to be happy—though I can often have a good laugh if I'm checking my email.
There is the danger of too much time spent on the computer or with other forms of technology: then it becomes too easy to isolate oneself. I know that today, kids think nothing of breaking up with a text, which I think is just bad form. However, they also have an intricate set of rules about texting: double-texting, for example, from a guy is bad news. For a girl, it's ok if it's done quickly, but is seen as "needy" if someone does not respond immediately to her text and she texts again...it's like calling someone on the phone instead of waiting for him/her to return the original call.
I could also take this to mean, do I enjoy working with humans or with technology? That also depends on my mood. Working alone, I get a great deal done; the computer allows me to search the globe, talk to people on the other side of the world, define an unknown word, etc. But sometimes the office (where I often am alone) seems too quiet. Then I turn on the iPod. It does not take the place of a person, but fills the quiet. I'd prefer people, but only the nice ones...otherwise, give me a computer.
In terms of business, technology is great when it can protect human beings: a robot used to disarm a bomb is preferrable always to sending in a person. However, if I have to use a machine when calling a business, it annoys me because a machine cannot understand the nuances of conversation, questions or specific problems. Technology is laudable when it can achieve medical miracles, but sometimes the human touch understands the body—the human hand can still do more than a machine. Teach me with a human; have a person deliver my food; make sure I can share a concern with a living body rather than an answering machine. Technology can do a lot.
It can also replace people who need jobs. For me, it depends.
The impression that I get is that the question is actually inquiring whether I would rather interact using technology or via the traditional way of everyday human communication and daily dynamics.
My answer would be that I prefer to interact via technology. After so many years working with the public as a teacher and then as a professor, I have come to realize that people are becoming less and less willing to listen. Moreover, I have also found an overall laziness in people making themselves consider more than one side to a point of view. This generation seems almost automated in both action and thought. When you spend two hours having a discussion only to have a student refuse to get the point just makes you feel as if you were talking to someone who is hard of hearing. Hence, what do you do? Write down what you wish to say and hope that the recipient "gets it".
Noticing how texting is far more used than talking on the phone, I wonder if we have gotten to the point to where our ears and heads are oversaturated with conversations that often lead nowhere. It seems like, when people text, they really get to the point of what they want to say. It is just my opinion and I know I kind of detoured on this one, but this is the reason why I prefer technology.
This is a very interesting question with philosophical and moral overtones and implications. On the one hard, the more technology that is used, the fewer humans are needed. Thus there are fewer jobs and greater strain on the economy, especially in terms of overall revenue and unemployment. On the other hand, with the massive world population and ever growing demand for an advanced standard of living, technology is most certainly required if the demands are to be met. I find this a quandary that I am not able to resolve with a unstudied opinion.
Human behavior manipulates the technology. Obviously, it is a mix of the two. I remember teaching with little to no technology--no copy machines, no computers, and report cards were filled out manually. What a supreme waste of time! The advent of computers, smart boards, and all the other things like powerpoint have made my job easier and made my creativity increase exponentially. Therefore, both are important and both are integrated. But, without human behavior and potential, technology couldn't have come this far.
Post 3 gets this one right. The real issue has to do with the nature of the work being done. Of course, for some jobs, technology is much better. If you need something mechanical done repetitively and just right, a machine is better. For anything that needs any sort of creativity or flexibility, people are better.
It completely depends on the type of job that needs to be done. If it is something monotonous and automated, something technological might do fine. But if it's something that requires judgment, style, or artistry, you're going to need a human being.
In addition, one has to take into consideration the nature of the business. A automobile factory lends itself to technology much more than an insurance agency. Some businesses will always rely on the human touch more than others.
A business always has workers, but it could not compete without technology. For example, my family owns a restaurant. It is a labor intensive business with waiters and cooks, but it uses a lot of labor saving technology. The cooks cut carrots with a knife, but the bookkeepers calculate the profits, wages, and taxes with a computer. Without the computer, we would have more bookkeepers than cooks.
I'm kind of split between the two because If you have more technology, things are pretty efficient and quick. While if you have more labor, there's more jobs for people. If I ran a business myself, I would probably have more technology due to the fact that it is efficient like I mentioned before, and you wouldn't require as many workers which means less wage to pay.