When my parents finally caved and got cable, I was overwhelmed with the endless TV-watching possibilities. The cartoons that I only got to watch on Saturdays were on every day of the week, there were plenty of movies to choose from and there were shows that I had only heard about, but had never seen. I didn’t think I would ever be bored again.

Of course, the novelty wore off, and I was left wondering why hundreds of channels didn’t feel like much more than the original nine. I was restless once again, and was greedy for anything new; I just wanted something I hadn’t seen before, in one way or another.

Apparently I wasn’t the only one who felt this way; cable networks were spewing one spin-off after another, coming up with more unusual and ridiculous reality shows. It was difficult to turn down “16 and Pregnant,” which followed teenage girls through their unplanned pregnancies, usually accompanied by an unqualified father and disgruntled parents. “Hoarders” seemed a bit unusual, but it also proved to be more popular than expected. And, perhaps most troubling, there was “I’m Pregnant and a Hoarder.” This was my breaking point. Why would anyone ever make this into a television show? How could we possibly be captivated by something so absurd and specific?

Then I remembered: this is exactly what I had asked for. It seems that the more that is available to us, the more we need to keep us entertained. The networks can try to keep up and cater to our never-ending needs for something new, but I don’t see how this cycle could ever resolve itself. Eventually, everything that has the potential to be made into a TV show will be, and then what? How will they keep us interested once every story line, every type of character and every premise has been exhausted? From where I’m standing, it’s starting to look like a race to the finish line.

The problem is that, as viewers, we can’t will ourselves to be more easily entertained. Anything less than the best we’ve ever seen will inevitably be disappointing. “The Office,” for example, has been one of my favorite shows ever since it started seven seasons ago. I liked its uncomfortable humor and the absence of a laugh track, and that each character was bizarre in their own way. But once I knew how good a show could be, I lost interest in many others, finding them less captivating in comparison. I immediately dropped all the silly high school dramas I had previously been infatuated with. I had lost all patience with the less-than-sincere actors, overdramatic plot lines and cheesy scripts.

To make television even more accessible, Netflix has added hundreds of shows that can be ordered or played instantly online. It brings TV watching to a new level, and tempts viewers to simply click the “play next” button to see episode after episode without commercial interruption. Netflix has explained their tactic for widespread viewing as such: “More recently, as streaming has become central to our business, we believe there may be an opportunity to change our focus from a household relationship to an individual relationship, since streaming is viewed on personal devices, such as phones, tablets and laptops, as well as on shared large screen televisions.”

Apparently the increasing number of devices that allow for instant streaming has also had an impact on the way that we view television.

Now that we are in our current technological age, we are almost always in a position in which we can watch TV. With so many options, the quality of our programming should be going upward instead of downward.

Emily McGovern is a Collegian columnist. She can be reached at [email protected].