The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people's efficiency so that they have more leisure time.
Indeed, the world has witnessed an unprecedented technological advancement in the last century. The statement makes two claims. Firstly, that the main purpose of this technological progress must be to increase people’s efficiency; and secondly, that through this increased in efficiency people can afford more leisure. Both the claims, while true to some extent, cannot be substantiated in their entirety. While one of the aims of technological growth has been to increase the work efficiency of people, it’s not the sole purpose. Moreover, enhanced work efficiency not always results in more leisure.
Admittedly, technology reduces human efforts, increases the pace of people’s work and hence efficiency. This in turn provides more leisure. For example, progress in means of transportation save hours and even days in travelling. Or the advent of computers have drastically reduced the time required to do a plethora of tasks which were before extremely time consuming. The time so saved can indeed be utilized by people for leisure. For instance, before the rise of Google, assignments meant days of intense search in libraries and other knowledge resources for students. Now, online lectures, journal articles, encyclopedia, etc. can all be browsed on a laptop or smart phone. The saved time thus is used by many students for recreational activities available and intellectual pursuits. Similarly, by buying vegetables and groceries online, using glucometer to measure blood sugar instead of visiting pathology labs and so on helps elderly save ample time to spend for leisure activities. However, increased efficiency doesn’t always necessarily convert into leisure for everyone.
While, it is true that taking proper rest and leisure help increase work efficiency, the vice versa is not always true. The efficiency provided by technological progress has also placed greater demands on workers. Employers and client now ask for better productivity instead of allowing their employees to avail leisure. Working holidays, enhanced pay for extra time, employee logs, better connectivity, etc. have made sure that employees are available all the time. The increase in average work hours per week in US from 40 to 60 in last 50 years is enough to corroborate this fact. Furthermore, technological advancement has coincided with the increase in population and hence competition for survival. For homemakers, mixer grinders, washing machines, rice makers and myriad house appliances have greatly reduced the time required to complete daily chores. However, in many developing countries, women use this time for part-time earning by engaging in menial jobs like tailoring, toy making, etc.
The statement is also fallible in its assertion that primary goal of technological advancement is to increase people’s efficiency. Technology aims to serve humanity in different ways. It aims to unravel mysteries on nature by installation of large hadron collider at CERN, Switzerland. Multibillion research projects for clean water speak about technology’s role in fulfilling the most fundamental need of humans ‘water’. Technological research for renewable energy aims to tackle global climate change which threatens the future of the planet. The reprioritization of numerous international research groups across multiple disciplines towards finding a vaccine for COVID-19 virus during the current pandemic highlights the purpose of technological advancement for our very survival. Thus, contrary to the statement the role of technology should be much wider than merely increasing people’s efficiency.
In conclusion, technology indeed helps in increasing work efficiency of people thus providing free time to some groups. However, this increased efficiency not always translates into leisure for everyone due to higher demands for productivity and competition. Moreover, beyond increasing people’s efficiency, the role of technological advancement must be the general welfare of humanity and the planet.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-02-01 | mei_unavailable | 83 | view |
| 2023-10-26 | topeibisanmi@gmail.com | 58 | view |
| 2023-10-26 | topeibisanmi@gmail.com | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-26 | topeibisanmi@gmail.com | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-26 | topeibisanmi@gmail.com | 66 | view |
- Claim Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future Reason Much of the information that people assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate 70
- People s attitudes are determined more by their immediate situation or surroundings than by society as a whole 86
- Claim Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed Reason It is inappropriate and perhaps even cruel to use public resources to fund the arts when people s basic needs are not b 85
- The well being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority 80
- Claim While boredom is often expressed with a sense of self satisfaction it should really be a source of embarrassment Reason Boredom arises from a lack of imagination and self motivation 66
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1002, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...al jobs like tailoring, toy making, etc. The statement is also fallible in its as...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, similarly, so, thus, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 81.0 58.6224719101 138% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3429.0 2235.4752809 153% => OK
No of words: 598.0 442.535393258 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.73411371237 5.05705443957 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94510247834 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09487320843 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 329.0 215.323595506 153% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55016722408 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 1071.9 704.065955056 152% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 36.0 20.2370786517 178% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.4755706977 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.25 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6111111111 23.4991977007 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.52777777778 5.21951772744 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 26.0 10.2758426966 253% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.381217328565 0.243740707755 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0898842478248 0.0831039109588 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751623191967 0.0758088955206 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.229768782158 0.150359130593 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0444795334212 0.0667264976115 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.31 48.8420337079 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.66 12.1639044944 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 180.0 100.480337079 179% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1002, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...al jobs like tailoring, toy making, etc. The statement is also fallible in its as...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, similarly, so, thus, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 81.0 58.6224719101 138% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3429.0 2235.4752809 153% => OK
No of words: 598.0 442.535393258 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.73411371237 5.05705443957 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94510247834 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09487320843 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 329.0 215.323595506 153% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55016722408 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 1071.9 704.065955056 152% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 36.0 20.2370786517 178% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.4755706977 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.25 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6111111111 23.4991977007 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.52777777778 5.21951772744 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 26.0 10.2758426966 253% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.381217328565 0.243740707755 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0898842478248 0.0831039109588 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751623191967 0.0758088955206 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.229768782158 0.150359130593 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0444795334212 0.0667264976115 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.31 48.8420337079 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.66 12.1639044944 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 180.0 100.480337079 179% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.