[Recap: The 'evolution' angle] Television is a thing of the past. Do you agree?

This essay is quite similar to a previously-discussed essay:

The book has no place in modern society. Discuss.

Here’s an excerpt from a post that dealt with the abovementioned question on books:

Stand: There is a place

Counter-argument: Some argue that books have no place due to the rise of alternatives to books (e-books, the internet, etc.) which have edged books out.

Rebuttal: Thanks to the internet, the traditional book might no longer have a place in our libraries (or in Borders). However, the very fact that e-books are on the rise shows that there still is a place for books because e-books are, after all, books too. While there may not be a place for the traditional book, there certainly is a place – and a growing one at that – for the evolved descendent of the paperback: e-books in one’s Kindle or iPad.

Conclusion: Therefore, though traditional books might have lost their place, the book certainly has not, for it has merely evolved and adapted to fill a new “ecological niche” in society.

 

Applying this approach to the question on whether TVs are a thing of the past, one could argue:

Television is a thing of the past. Do you agree?

Stand: Not a thing of the past

Counter-argument: Some argue that television is a thing of the past due to the rise of alternatives to televisions (internet TV, YouTube, online streaming of full episodes, alternative forms of entertainment such as computer games, etc.) which have edged out television.

Rebuttal: Thanks to internet television, the traditional notion of a television in one’s living room might be a thing of the past. However, the very fact that there is a rising demand for internet television, with iTunes and Megavideo charging low rates to stream and download full episodes, shows that television is not a thing of the past because internet television is, after all, television too. While the traditional concept of a television in the living room might be a thing of the past, the evolved descendants of the television – internet television viewed on our laptops, iPads and even smartphones – are certainly a thing of the present, and likely future too.

Conclusion: Therefore, though traditional notions of the television might be a thing of the past, the overarching concept of a television certainly has not, for it has merely evolved and adapted to fill a new “ecological niche” in society.

-

A similar “the television-has-evolved” angle could also consider the following:

• While people might turn to alternative forms of entertainment such as Playstation games and the Wii, these new forms of entertainment need to be hooked up to our “old-fashioned” televisions. Thus, even if we do not watch broadcast programmes on TV as much, this doesn’t mean that we don’t use the TV for other purposes.
• TV developers are well aware of the competition from the internet, and are adding functions to your standard living room TV set – new models can now be used to surf the internet as well, TiVo was developed to allow people to watch programmes at their conveneince, etc.
• TV developers are upgrading TVs to make the viewing experience unlike anything one can currently experience from a lowly laptop – 3D televisions, LED televisions, HD televisions, large screens (far larger than a laptop), compatibility with fancy home theatre systems.
• Large, ultra-thin, high-end televisions being hung on one’s wall as a status symbol

Generic counter-argument #2 (evolution)

A lot of the time, we assume that things don’t evolve. This may result in us making statements like:

“Globalisation results in the loss of local cultures, and the Westernisation of many indigenous cultures”

“Technology has killed the simple pleasures of life because we now prefer to spend time on the computer to taking a stroll in the park”

“The media is destroying our moral values”

“The rise of e-books shows how the book has no place in modern society”

However, if we consider that the concepts above – culture, simple pleasures of life or moral values – are not static and that they evolve, we might argue that technically, globalisation doesn’t cause cultures to disappear, they merely evolve (as they always have). Similarly, as a concept, simple pleasures haven’t disappeared, it’s just that their nature has changed. Where we once might have seen a walk in the park as a simple pleasure, we now redefine our simple pleasures as things like lying in bed while listening to our iPods. Likewise for moral values – the concept of having moral values hasn’t vanished, it’s just that our moral values might have evolved with the times (as they always have). With e-books, technically, the very presence of e-books shows that there still is a place for the book – just in an evolved form.

Task

Go through past-year GCE A level essay questions, and identify concepts where this argument applies.

Climate change is shrinking sheep

“But it’s too early to say if, in 100 years, we will have chihuahuas herding pocket-sized sheep.”

- Professor Tim Coulson

I’ve now got that image in my head, and find it most amusing.

(skills tip: humour/use of amusing imagery in essays helps!)

On a more serious note, the full story (and the more relevant details) can be found here.

 

–

Background information:

The study of Soay sheep in St Kilda is an excellent example of a highly detailed scientific study. Basically, the team of scientists have been able to study pretty much everything about the factors affecting the population dynamics of these sheep (and they’ve got fancy mathematical models and tonnes and tonnes of data to support their work). And they’ve been studying these sheep for a long time (since 1985, to be specific).

So how is this useful/relevant?

The study of  Soay sheep on St Kilda is a great example of a highly detailed, data-heavy, long-term scientific study (arguments against the conclusions of some scientific studies, particularly those that seek to study complex patterns that change over time,  include that they are often short-term and that there’s no follow-up).

So this (in my opinion) provides a solid example to support ideas associated with this study (including the continual addition to scientific knowledge, usefulness of long-term studies, the possibility of effectively studying difficult areas (e.g. climate change)).

Of course, it’s possible I’m biased – the key scientist involved in this study was my university lecturer, so I know a lot more about the study (and am more convinced about the greatness of it) than someone who has only a casual understanding and knowledge of this study.

But even then, I still maintain that it’s a great example – at least, in this case, one of the better climate change conclusions I’ve come across, in terms of providing tangible, hard evidence of the effects of climate change on organisms.