Quay lại Advanced (Grades 10-12) English (UK) – Conversation

Whether Technology Is Making People More Human

Tiếng Anh kịch bản nói

Hollie

A lively British English speaker with a friendly, natural tone.

28 years · female

Practise talking about "Whether Technology Is Making People More Human" with Hollie, your AI speaking avatar. Speak out loud, get instant feedback, and build confidence for your Trinity GESE Grade 10-12 speaking exam.

Start free AI practice

Cuộc hội thoại

What makes whether technology is making people more human an important subject to discuss?

Câu trả lời hay:

The question matters because technology now shapes ordinary human habits, not just practical tasks. Phones, algorithms and messaging apps can help people stay close, learn quickly and express themselves. They can also make patience, memory and face-to-face attention weaker. For me, the issue is not whether technology is good or bad in general. It is whether it helps people become more thoughtful, connected and responsible. If a tool saves time but reduces empathy, something human may be lost. If it gives people a voice or access they never had before, it can make life more human. The same device can deepen life or flatten it, depending on design and use.

How has this issue changed in recent years?

Câu trả lời hay:

In recent years, technology has moved from being a separate tool to being part of the background of life. In the past, people went online for particular tasks. Now many people carry work, entertainment, friendship and news in the same device all day. The consequence is that technology influences not only what people do, but how they wait, concentrate and relate to others. A person may feel connected to hundreds of people while struggling to be fully present with one person nearby. That change makes the question more serious than a simple debate about screen time. It is really a debate about attention, presence and the quality of relationships.

Do you think people usually discuss this issue in a fair way?

Câu trả lời hay:

The debate is rarely even-handed, because it is often divided between enthusiasm and panic. Some people talk as if every new technology is progress and resistance is old-fashioned. Others describe technology as if it automatically destroys attention, childhood or community. Both views are too simple. A fair discussion should ask which technology, used by whom, for what purpose and under what pressure. A medical app, a classroom tablet, a dating platform and an attention-grabbing feed do not raise the same questions. Treating them all the same makes the debate less useful. The moral judgement should fit the actual use, not the word technology.

What would be a sensible way for society to respond?

Câu trả lời hay:

A sensible response would be to design technology around human wellbeing, not only engagement or speed. Platforms could make privacy clearer, reduce manipulative design and give users more control over recommendations and notifications. The benefit is that people would not have to rely only on self-control against systems designed to capture attention. The risk is that regulation may become too slow or too general for fast-changing technology. Even so, basic principles such as transparency, consent and protection for children should not be optional. Design choices shape human behaviour, so they need public scrutiny. Responsibility should sit with platforms as well as users.

How might your view change in the future?

Câu trả lời hay:

My position could shift if evidence showed that technology improves empathy and relationships more than I expect. For example, if long-term studies showed that online communities reduce loneliness, help people practise communication and support vulnerable groups without major harm, I would become more optimistic. I would still ask who benefits and who is left out. Technology can look positive for confident users while isolating others. Evidence would need to show not only more contact, but deeper connection, better trust and healthier attention. Quantity of interaction is not the same as human quality. Evidence should show whether people feel known, not only whether they are contacted.