The answer — according to an Institute for Human Ecology panel convened Sept. 17 at The Catholic University of America in Washington — is basically this: It depends.

There are "two big questions that hang over human life in digital reality right now," announced Ross Douthat, a media fellow with the institute and New York Times opinion columnist.

He was the evening's moderator and is the author of the forthcoming book "Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious" (Zondervan).

Social media and artificial intelligence

"Is social media dehumanizing us? Making us miserable; destroying our relationships; warping our intellectual lives; robbing us of creativity? And," Douthat asked, "is Artificial Intelligence replacing us?"

It's a paradox of both connection and disconnection.

With increased smartphone use — an estimated 69 percent of the global population, who also consume social media on their devices — come questions of authentic versus artificial community.

"It's actually become the vehicle through which we seek community," said Luke Burgis of Catholic University's Busch School of Business, where he is director of Programs & Projects at the Ciocca Center for Principled Entrepreneurship, and an assistant clinical professor of business.

"It extends us throughout the world; it puts us in dialogue with other people, through which we're constantly having our self — or our sense of self — mediated back to us. Every technology enhances some sense," he said, "to the diminishment of another."

While smartphones and social media are, Burgis said, enhancing our social sense and awareness, the communicative pace can be dizzying and dislocating.

"It's accelerated this kind of social sensory awareness that we have — but probably so fast that we have no idea what's happening."

Adjusting to the digital landscape

Jonathan Askonas, an assistant professor of politics at Catholic University, suggested that perhaps people simply need more time to adjust.

Qualifying that he opposes cellphone use by children and teens, he predicted that "once we've sort of overcome this initial narcissistic shock with the smartphone — once we've built the institutions and culture and norms around how we engage with this technology — its pro-social dimension will come to be seen more and more."

Ari Schulman, editor of The New Atlantis, a quarterly journal focused on the social, ethical, and political dimensions of modern science and technology, also cited the disrupting potential of the social media ecosystem.

"That dimension that was initially greeted as a new space of freedom, it's more like it was the dimension under us — what if the floor opened up, and just dropped out from under us?" he asked.

"That would be a new dimension as well — but it would totally unmoor us; it would rob us of all the context from which we can make sense of these kinds of contexts of social meaning," Schulman said. "I think that's the fundamental problem that we're facing here."

The decline of human connection

The smartphone era, Douthat said, isn't a transformation that's replacing workers, as happened in the Industrial Revolution. It's instead having a different effect.

"It's not creating this sort of massive economic dislocation; it's creating this massive social dislocation in which entire nations are ceasing to be capable of replacing themselves, seemingly."

Global fertility rates have been declining in all countries since 1950.

While admitting that opinion is "the doomer side of things," Douthat added that, optimistically, "the groups and peoples and cultures and families that make it through will have figured out these questions.

"You just won't make it through the next 75 years as a family or a society if you can't figure out how to get your kids to relate to one another in reality," he said, "because if you can't figure that out, they won't get married and have kids — and poof, you're gone."

Challenge to human creativity

The ascendancy of AI, Burgis said, issues a challenge to human creativity.

"I do think there's something to be said about doubling down on our human creative and artistic spirit — which I believe the AI can never replicate," declared Burgis.

"So sort of getting back to the kind of spiritual theology of creation, I think, is something that we'll probably hear a lot more about in the next few years."

Schulman noted that public reaction to AI-generated art is indeed frequently negative.

"There's already this kind of instinctive sense of dehumanization and flattening," he observed. "Everybody kind of knows this is going to hasten the decline of Hollywood."

Nonetheless, AI endlessly fascinates — but for a very basic reason, said Askonas.

"It's the thing that's most fascinating about any new technology — which is, what does it mean to be human? How does this reshape what it means to be human?" Read more

• Kimberley Heatherington writes for OSV News from Virginia.

In reality, it's about as much use as telling kids they could try using crossed fingers as contraception.

It has no relevance to the real conditions in which they will find themselves.

Parents know this.

They see the uselessness of lecturing Gen Z children that "the church's teaching on marriage between a man and a woman cannot be omitted" when, according to a recent US poll, nearly 40pc of their age group identify as LGBTQ+.

They recognise the futility of trying to insert Catholic morals into a conversation on sex when, by the time they are 12 years of age, 53pc of Irish boys and 23pc of girls have already accessed pornography online and will be using it as the basis for their own self-directed learning about the etiquette and norms surrounding sexuality in the digital age.

They despair of the fruitlessness of framing sexuality as an expression and instrument of God's love when, in a few years' time, they will be waving their children off to third-level institutions where the rates of sexual harassment and assault are shockingly high.

There's not much that prayer can do to protect them then.

Social Democrat TD Gary Gannon wants to see access to secular, medically-based sex education guaranteed to every school-going child in the State, starting from primary.

Last week, he introduced a bill that would enshrine that right in law.

He is concerned sex education should not cast old shadows of shame over relationships that do not conform to the ones sanctioned by the church.

He wants a programme that provides "objective information, precisely because of religious teaching that places one form of relationship in a hierarchy over others".

Most Irish adults would probably agree sex education should be inclusive.

But in this regard, society and the dynamism of youth has already done a great deal of the work.

It's hard to imagine that teenagers today, confronted with much of the material in the Flourish programme, with its heteronormative message, would do anything other than laughing it off as a ridiculous relic from another age.

I finished my primary education in the early 1990s.

I was in an all-girls convent school and I still remember the collective mortification the day our headmistress, Sister Dominic, made an ill-judged attempt to enlighten us about the ways of the world before we headed off to the bright lights of secondary school.

She got a few sentences into her speech about the birds and the bees, but fell apart at the word "penis".

After a few failed attempts to say it, she turned bright red and ran out of the room.

But we can't afford to be blushing and running out of the room where sex education is concerned, especially given the challenges facing school-age children today as they approach adulthood.

A new Relationships and Sexuality Education programme is being drafted that places consent front and centre, which is welcome and much needed. Policy-makers, we are assured, are in the process of re-evaluating what we need sex education to achieve.

At the moment, the goal of risk reduction and sexual health means sex education programmes are concerned mostly with avoiding accidental pregnancy and sexually-transmitted disease.

But a more enlightened approach to sex education in schools would follow the Norwegian model and would not balk at the notion of addressing the importance of sex for pleasure and as an instrument of personal and relational well-being. Continue reading

The company's research shows that along with feeling their children's lives were becoming too complicated, many parents felt increased pressure to provide for their children and were disappointed about the impact digital devices were having on family life.

The study also showed that when it came to spending time as a family, the most likely activity, apart from eating together (43%), was to watch television (24%).

More than eight in ten (81%) of Kiwis surveyed thought that their own kids' childhood was more complicated than their own, with a quarter (24%) of parents saying their children were involved in some sort of after-school activity three or more days per week.

Parents also said they felt under more pressure to provide for their children than their own parents, with more than half (54%) saying this was the case.

Digital devices also came under fire with 69% of respondents saying that they were negatively impacting on the family. Parents said they were also confused about healthy food choices, with more than four in ten (42%) saying they weren't sure what constituted a healthy option.

Psychologist Sara Chatwin says the research shows that we could all look at finding new ways to "connect" with our loved ones.

Chatwin says it's understandable that with increases in living costs parents are feeling overwhelmed with the pressure to provide for their children.

The Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company is the trading name of two sister food companies (Australian Health and Nutrition Association Ltd and New Zealand Health Association Ltd).

Both are wholly owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Its flagship product is Weet-Bix, sold in the Australian and New Zealand breakfast cereal markets.

Source

• www.newsie.co.nz
• wikipedia.org
• Image: weetbix.co.nz

The emergence of writing, the move from scroll to codex, the printing press, the spread of literacy, the development of electronic media (radio, telephone, film, and television), and the subsequent rise of digital communication (social media, websites, digital publishing) provide obvious examples.

Yet, it distorts the history of religion and media to simply note that religious figures adopt new ways of expressing themselves.

They also resist media change, or alternatively, they adopt new forms of media which they imagine as mere containers for unchanging messages that support unchanging religious practice.

These anxieties and simplifications must be examined, for new media cultures encourage new ways of understanding ourselves and support particular forms of religious practice while making others seem less "natural."

Resistance to new media and its power is long established.

Jeremiah (chapter 36) reports that the prophet adopted the new form of the scroll to send a word of the Lord to King Jehoiakim, and that the king responds by feeding the scroll into the fire.

Tom Boomershine describes this as the first recorded act of religious resistance to new media and its power.

Judaism was formed in the era of scroll, and the Torah as scroll has a ritual function not replaced by the codex, in which pages are bound between covers.

Christians have also thought that the sacrality of the word is tied to its form.

The early church embraced the codex, the new media of its day, and later Christians wondered whether the word of God and the mission of the church were well served by changes to that form.

Printing made it possible to put vernacular translations of the Bible into the hands of lay people and required the church to ponder the implications of this change.

We saw similar struggles in explorations of whether the word of God could be expressed through film and television, in debates about the value and challenges of Bible apps, and in discussions of whether Christian community can be sustained in digital spaces and through social media.

While some Christians distrust new media, others embrace media change without considering the way that their faith claims and practices will change in new media cultures.

They imagine new media as the arrival of increasingly sophisticated amplifiers allowing an unchanging message to reach ever larger and more distant audiences.

But in fact, different media make possible quite different ways of thinking and relating. Continue reading

Image: Amazon

It wants the students to have the confidence to select the areas in which their interests lie; and with the skills required to take their learning further in these areas.

So three years ago the school employed a digital technology teacher.

Since then Rebecca Ronald has put in place an innovative programme for her students.

She has also been supporting other teachers in their use of digital technology.

"I can't possibly teach the girls everything they need to know about technology - it would be out of date the following day."

"Instead we work on developing skills such as confidence to experiment and problem-solve, enjoying the process of learning and welcoming mistakes or false starts."

In an interview published last year Ronald said despite an increase in computing at primary level, a large chunk of secondary school students have missed out.

In 2016, her year 12 computing class had 12 students. "The idea that it is a career option and what it looks like for many of these kids is just way off in the distance," Ronald says.

"Most have no idea of what a job in IT would look like."

"Computing would just open so many more doors to options in a future that right now we have no idea will look like."

At Marist College the students are introduced to role models in the tech industry, and it is made very clear becoming a programmer or designer are achievable goals.

"By showing the girls these role models are learners just like themselves, and by encouraging students to ‘be the teacher' and to share their discoveries with others in the school community (including teachers), we allow them to develop a sense of self-efficacy and confidence we hope will stay with them throughout their lives."

Source

• nz.educationhq.com
• mediadesignschool.com
• Image: stuff.co.nz

Trolling and other antisocial behaviors are widespread online. They can even be found in devout Catholic circles, though outright trollery and the "culture of hate" are perhaps more easily recognized and avoided than a more subtle but related phenomenon: what might be called a culture of wrath, of rage.

Wrath is one of the seven capital sins. Not all anger amounts to the sin of wrath; there is such a thing as righteous anger, as Jesus' own example demonstrates.

For those of us who are not Jesus, though, righteous anger easily slides into the unrighteous kind — and the more we are provoked to anger and outrage, the likelier it is that we will do so.

How much we are provoked to anger and outrage — how much mental energy we give to topics that we find outrageous, scandalous and offensive — is thus an important concern. If there is one biblical exhortation most commonly transgressed on social media by otherwise sincere believers, I suspect it is these well-known, well-loved words of St. Paul:

"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things" (Philippians 4:8).

These words mustn't be taken too absolutely. There is a place for naming and resisting evil, for alerting and warning others of danger, for outrage, for righteous anger. St. Paul does not mean that dishonorable, unjust, impure things, things worthy of condemnation rather than praise, shouldnever be thought of.

We cannot take Paul's words seriously, though, without taking stock of just how much of our attention and energy we give to thinking about dishonorable, unjust, impure things that are worthy of condemnation, as opposed to honorable, just, pure things that are worthy of praise. Continue reading

Sources

• The Catholic World Report article by Deacon Steven D. Greydanus, a veteran film critic and creator of DecentFilms.com.
• Image: The Wrap

A recent NY Times commentary, "The Art of Condolence" by author Bruce Feiler, wades into these choppy waters of shifting cultural expectations.

Penned after Feiler's own mighty struggle to write a condolence letter upon the death of a teenager in his community, in the essay Feiler reflects upon the condolence letter genre, and then shares seven helpful tips.

The tips seem quite reasonable, actually, but I was struck instead by the framing of the piece.

In the introduction, Feiler notes, "But these days, as Facebooking, Snapchatting or simply ignoring friends has become fashionable, the rules of expressing sympathy have become muddied at best, and concealed in an onslaught of emoji at worst.

"Sorry about Mom. Sad face, sad face, crying face, heart, heart, unicorn."

I take the point, I suppose, that changing patterns of communication are requiring new decisions about what's most appropriate when.

And, Feiler's sixth tip addresses the issue in a general way: "Facebook is not enough."

Of course it isn't.

Two things seem missing in Feiler's quick pass at digital grieving (by the way, a group I'm working with may present some related research down the line).

First, the strength of the relationship with the person mourning matters enormously.

If the grieving party is a close friend, or grieving because of a close friend or relative of mine, of course I will write a hand-written note of condolence. But Facebook and other social media tools extend network relationships well beyond what was possible in the past.

So, if a friend of a friend's cousin who I met at a party once three years ago posts a Facebook update upon a death in the family, it wouldn't actually be appropriate to send a hand-written note.

In that case, using Facebook as a communication platform seems fine. Continue reading

• Adam J. Copeland teaches practical theology, listens to NPR, drinks scotch, devours sharp cheddar, and tries to ask great questions.

After school, she logs on to Study Ladder. She nails the homework fairly quickly, but it doesn't take long for me to hear the annoying accent of the ever-perky DanTDM.

She can't help herself. She'd play Minecraft online all day if we let her. Hey, she's a kid, and kids need supervision. So do teenagers.

This week our Minister of Education dropped a hell of a clanger. Hekia Parata announced that students would soon have the option of signing up to an "accredited online learning provider" instead of turning up to school. According to the minister, it's time for New Zealand kids to "move into the digital age."

Newsflash. They already are. It's everywhere. Unavoidable. You're soaking in it.

Cyber-schools. Stay-at-home-online-learning. COOL — community of online learning — is the hip new acronym.

I can see the appeal. Avoiding the Auckland motorway would be cool. As a person who works from home (and most parents don't), I can imagine me and my child bonding after a late breakfast, and then shuffling off to our respective computers, still in our PJs. We could have lunch together and go for little walks down the beach, in between her virtual math and cyber science.

Yeah, right.

Much as I love my daughter, I've got stuff to do. And while there are definitely parents more useless than me, I wouldn't be much chop even as a supervisor. When a lot of grown-ups aren't that hot at "self-pacing," you can't expect teenagers to be.

My mum is a digi-kuia. But even she reckons we need to get kids off devices, that school isn't just about the academics. She's got a point. Continue reading

• Moana Maniapoto — Ngati Tuwharetoa / Tuhourangi / Ngati Pikiao | MNZM — is an Auckland-based singer-songwriter and documentary maker

On a recent Monday morning, Clare Harper's cousin sent her a picture of herself for "Selfie Monday" via Snapchat, a texting and image-sharing service that deletes pictures soon after they are sent.

Harper, 18, responded with a selfie of her own, except instead of posing to capture her best angle as her cousin had done, she contorted her face into something between silly and scary.

With the photo she texted, "This is what I think of selfies."

Still in her pajamas and not yet out of bed, Harper was already receiving images from friends.

She was also being given the opportunity to take and share photos of herself.

Selfies, pictures taken of oneself usually with a smartphone and then shared over a social media app, are just what she and her peers do, she says.

They generally don't give it a second thought.

"If you want to have a normal Facebook page, you're going to have pictures of yourself on it," she says.

Anything otherwise would be weird.

She's nonchalant, unassuming.

It's not that there's much pressure to post pictures, she assures. It's just the norm.

On the one hand, having a profile picture helps friends to know they're connecting to the right person on social networking sites.

On the other hand, especially if you're female, that picture had better look good.

"What you look like is what's defining you. It's like you're defined by how pretty you are. This is me because this is what I look like," Harper says. Continue reading

Source

• Meghan Murphy-Gill in U.S.Catholic

Meghan Murphy-Gill is a writer living in Chicago.

Born into the digital age and exposed to technology and the internet very early, this generation of kids are effectively guinea pigs in the lab of life.

How - and when - will we know how much is too much for developing minds?

"The proliferation of cell phones, social media and apps among kids has changed the way they interact each other and content online," says ThirdParent co-founder Rob Zidar.

Thirdparent specializes in internet safety for kids, and Zidar adamantly believes early over exposure can be detrimental.

"Kids are exposed to content created by or intended for older audiences," Zidar continues.

"Kids are also interacting with social media at an earlier age. Tweens are being introduced to sites like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat and can feel pressure to become active on those sites.

They witness things like cyberbullying or posting inappropriate selfies at an earlier age than parents might think, and in some cases they feel a pressure to ‘fit in' and emulate those actions."

"Irregular immaturity"

What this is creating is ‘irregular maturity' in children.

With the availability of pretty much everything at the light touch of a finger on a portable device, parents are missing opportunities to help their children understand the world they are accessing.

There tends to be a technology disconnect.

Parents, who didn't grow up with the tech they are using and handing to their children, trust their kids with technology that has a very thin line.

When that line is crossed, it can create patterns of obsessive behavior that can lure even the most well-educated child into a harmful relationship. Continue reading

Source

• Curtis Silver, The Next Web

According to Geekdad, Curtis Silver writes all over the internet.