As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoni

The author contends that be merely dependent on technology for solving every problem would degrade peoples’ own ability of thinking. Some people agree with this point of view, while others opine that technology would not have any wrecking effect on people ability of thinking. In what fallows, the main reasons posited by both groups are first discussed and then my own position would be delineated.

Those people who argue that dependence on technology would have fatal effect on peoples’ thinking manner seem to have one chief reason for this position. The reason is that, more and more dependence on technology would prevent people to utilize their ability of thinking to solve the problem, which would be lead to some lethargic and lazy mind during the decades. People would not relay on their ability of thinking for solving their problem. It means, if technology would not be available for a solution people will not be able to tackle that problem by themselves because of lacking self-convince. This group opine that technology would not be beneficial for people rather it would have so moral impacts on peoples’ life. Surveying on architectural styles, since medieval period until now, would illustrate this groups’ ideas to some extent. Pantheon of Rome and Cathedral museum of Florence and Persepolis of Iran are just some of peoples’ art facts without utilizing technology during their performance; while nowadays, with high rate improvement in technology our architectural style is just going to be wrecked, and buildings are converting to little boxes.

As was stated already, some other people believe that technology would not deteriorate peoples’ ability of thinking, and it would assist people to accomplish their activities in an easier manner and even in lesser time. They opine that technology is just an instrument for human which would extent the domain for them to make their concepts more practical. For example, the robots, which are applied in huge factories instead of people, would not prevent them from thinking, instead it would prepare people a suitable condition to just devote their time and energy for more significant duties, or washing dishes or clothes with machines instead of hand, transporting by automobile or airplanes instead of horse or buggy will not decay peoples’ thinking. Technology could be identified just as an instrument for people to accomplish their excessive activities in lesser time and in more qualified manner.

For my point of view, I should say, although the statement of the first group who has proved improvement of technology has been prevented people to relay on their own ability of thinking seems logical at first, and the example of regression of our architectural styles during the decades is an undeniable fact, I agree more with the latter group, who are opine that technology, which is defined just as an instrument, would never deteriorate peoples’ ability of thinking; in converse, it would be so influential to convert peoples’ hypothesizes in various fields into a pragmatic solution in a rationale way.