Anthony Su- Week 10 Blog Post
I am going to give some personal opinion to our reading this week and the movie we watched earlier in class today.
[First, I want to discuss some views I have on last week's Smart Mobs though. - it is kind of related to this week (Networks, Interface Design, and Software Studies)
Smart Mobs, by Howard Reingold, was really intriguing. I did not even know what a Smart Mob was before I read this chapter of his novel, so the book really got me to know more about technological reality. Smart Mobs are essentially a huge group of people formed through the use of technology, particularly through the use of cell phones. They are ideologically charged, or else they would not be so strongly united. Reingold makes some plausible points about how Filipino president Joseph Estrada lost power because of a Smart Mob and the Battle of Seattle was also affected. These are realities of life; they are true events that happened. The fact that short message service (SMS) is relatively cheap compared to telephone voice calls also makes the thought of Smart Mobs possible almost anywhere. (With exceptions such as parts of Africa and the Middle East). However, what I find controversial is Reingold's argument that he briefly stated about Smart Mobs using non-violent tactics to get what they want. Smart Mobs are supposed to be a big group of people. They are intimidating. This provokes violence. I am pretty sure that Estrada was terrified when a million of Filipino citizens took him down from power. Sure, previous examples of Mobs, such as France's Fronde, may have been more violent, but Smart Mobs are very aggressive too. (As a side note, there are also examples of peaceful revolutions in the past, such as England's Glorious Revolution in 1686.) What differs between the Mobs of the past and the Smart Mobs modernly should be how they united initially, not how they are united or how ideologically charged they are. Smart Mobs use cell phones, the Mobs of the past did not. However, the way they confront the problem when they are united essentially is the same. The "fact" that Smart Mobs are non-violent should be reconsidered. Smart Mobs may just be a slight outgrowth of past Mobs because of the violence both types use, not something entirely different.]
OK, that was probably a bit long and is not the focus of this blog post. The reading from this week is the focus of my blog post: (note: I want to touch on the two readings this week and the movie we watched earlier today).
I admit that Alexander Galloway's The Exploit was difficult to understand. I will make a comment on the work though. In the introduction, Galloway stating that networks are not liberating is quite controversial. He argues that networks are not liberating because they are not easy to understand for many people. This seems plausible, but I believe that the type of network plays a big role in how liberating a network really is. For example, centralized network is not so liberating because one has to cross by the "center", which could be the government or some type of other authoritative figure, in order to contact someone else. The thought of needing to confront authority for access may deter someone from reaching another. Centralized networks are not liberating. Secondly, decentralized are not as extreme; liberating to some extent. There are some people you may contact without passing through the center, but there are some people who are only accessible in passing through the center. Finally, distributed networks are the most liberating. There is no such thing as the "center" in this type of network. Some people may have more access than others to other people, but distributed networks certainly make connections possible and thus are most liberating. It is just a generalization to say that networks are not liberating in general. (However, we do have some cases, like the Patriot Act, that serve to limit our liberty and freedom through the use of networks.) Overall, though, I am in accord with many of Galloway's points about America's unilateralism and unique standing among the world.
One strong thought I had about Matthew Fuller's work was about Google's dominance. I believe that Google dominance is a trend. This can be proven by many terms we hear in society ("Google it", "Look it up on Google", "Gmail", "Youtube"). Before Google's dominance, our society was certainly different. I remember many people even just four or five years before discussing teeoma.com (ask.com) and alltheweb.com. very frequently. I remember that alltheweb.com used to have some special features, such as video searches, that other search engines did not have. However, after checking back on that site a few years later, I found that many special search features were gone. The only search options in that site are now "web, news, pictures". It seems like the site got abandoned because of google, which is pretty sad to see. That brings me to think about another point. Are we moving towards technological monopoly? Many of us do use the same technological products, such as Microsoft Word, and Google. As how I see it, I believe that technology will be more and more unified under few creators. If there are standards of technology, all of society will be inclined to use it. Take for example, the format of a typed English paper. It is standard. Most people will not want to a program other than Microsoft Word or its equivalence of Macintosh computers because they are skeptical that other programs will not be able to produce the standard, or right, format.
Now, I just want to bring up a point about technology in the movie "Voices of a Distant Star". I agree that the movie certainly showed the limitations of technology, but I wonder what is the limit of technology? Can technology make something, like a message, travel faster than the speed of light? I actually find that the speed of light is a crucial threshold and I find it particularly relevant to the movie because it constantly mentioned "so and so light years away". I believe that once technology creates something that can travel faster than the speed of light (if possible), then our human race may indeed be prefect. We can also find intelligent life elsewhere and have the potential to meet it face to face. Or us the intelligent life elsewhere making quicker progress than us and will meet us unexpectedly? Technology can seem scary.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Nature vs. Technology
In today’s video “Voices from a Distant Star” a prevalent theme that is seen, is that of the struggle between nature and technology. The video takes place sometime in the future, and it shows a long distance relationship that takes place between different solar systems. When we see the young couple together they are fifteen, and Mikako is about to leave her boyfriend Noboru to fight the Tarsians. They only way for them to communicate is through text messages via their cell phones. As Mikako travels farther into space, it takes longer for the messages to reach each because of the differences in relative time. It takes a toll on the couple, emotionally, to not be able to communicate with each other but for every eight years of so. However towards the end, they learn to talk to each other in their thoughts. They have a deep connection that allows their thoughts to be received faster than their electronic messages.
Another example is seen when Mikako encounters the Tarsian who is at first portrayed to be very similar to her. Mikako is in her robot destroying the vegetation on this earth-like planet, when she finds “herself.” When she realizes that it is a Tarsian, she destroys it. She never really had a chance to talk to it, or realize why she was engaging in combat with it. She did so simply because the computer voice told her to do so. She has been trained to view them as the enemy without really knowing why.
The director of this video, is establishing the struggle between nature and technology as a means of communication. This takes place in a distant future, yet technology isn’t very different from how it is today. The characters use outdated cellphones to send text messages and the earth looks very similar to how it does today. Even the means of transportation are the same; a bike, bus, train. I don’t believe the director is so much trying to portray technology as a bad thing, as much as point out its limitations. In doing so, he shows that there are more effective, more natural, ways to get things done that don’t require technology.
Another example is seen when Mikako encounters the Tarsian who is at first portrayed to be very similar to her. Mikako is in her robot destroying the vegetation on this earth-like planet, when she finds “herself.” When she realizes that it is a Tarsian, she destroys it. She never really had a chance to talk to it, or realize why she was engaging in combat with it. She did so simply because the computer voice told her to do so. She has been trained to view them as the enemy without really knowing why.
The director of this video, is establishing the struggle between nature and technology as a means of communication. This takes place in a distant future, yet technology isn’t very different from how it is today. The characters use outdated cellphones to send text messages and the earth looks very similar to how it does today. Even the means of transportation are the same; a bike, bus, train. I don’t believe the director is so much trying to portray technology as a bad thing, as much as point out its limitations. In doing so, he shows that there are more effective, more natural, ways to get things done that don’t require technology.
Prolegomenon
Are internet protocols ruling the world? In Prolegomenon: We're Tired of Trees, Dutch author and activist Geert Lavink argues that while information networks are a large part of society and important, sovereign powers that control the state hold even more importance. However, the authors of the essay show networks are not under complete power of soveriegn rule because networks are not completely understood. They have certain non-human tendencies that cannot be controlled by people.
Is America a sovereign or network power? It is the President that makes decisions that affect the nations people, so it could be that America is a sovereign power under the rule of the government and its decisions. But it could also be argued that the white house must be working with other nations and therefore branching out through others, so as to form and rule through a network. The authors discuss these different possibilities, and ultimately end up with a new method of control, leaning more towards networks. The authors argue that the modern period is characterized by symmetrical political conflicts, for example between the Soviets and Americans, and also asymmetrical political conflicts such as with guerilla movements or terrorism. Symmetrical politics are waged by a centralized power, whereas asymmetrical politics struggle against the centralized powers. Now in the present day it is symmetrical again, but in the form of networks fighting networks.
Aoife Parkin
Is America a sovereign or network power? It is the President that makes decisions that affect the nations people, so it could be that America is a sovereign power under the rule of the government and its decisions. But it could also be argued that the white house must be working with other nations and therefore branching out through others, so as to form and rule through a network. The authors discuss these different possibilities, and ultimately end up with a new method of control, leaning more towards networks. The authors argue that the modern period is characterized by symmetrical political conflicts, for example between the Soviets and Americans, and also asymmetrical political conflicts such as with guerilla movements or terrorism. Symmetrical politics are waged by a centralized power, whereas asymmetrical politics struggle against the centralized powers. Now in the present day it is symmetrical again, but in the form of networks fighting networks.
Aoife Parkin
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Technology and Politics & Technology and Society
In the reading of "Smart Mobs", I found particularly interesting the way technology has altered and improved the way people gather. More importantly, this more efficient gathering has led to direct political movements. We have come a long way since the word-of-mouth form of gathering. Now, for example, we can use social networking sites to create events and invite as many people as we want or we can send mass text messages to people we know, then it would spread to people they know and so on. Rheingold cites specific examples of how technology has gathered people to form political movements in recent years. He mentions a movement in the Phillipines that formed by means of text messages. This movement ousted the president with a non-violent demonstration in 2001. Then in Seattle, technology once again was responsible for the gathering of a protest. Rheingold said that this protest was an ad hoc alliance that was able to gather people from different affinity groups. I do not think that technology changes the purposes or goals of a protest; rather, it affects the means of gathering in a much more efficient and rapid manner to achieve those same goals.
I did not agree with the social networking programs that Rheingold mentioned in the reading. I think that those social networking programs take too much away from actual human interaction. I do not have a problem with social networking sites because I believe they are able to enhance the amount of communication within people, but with the other social networking programs mentioned I feel they inherently diminish the basis of human interactions because one no longer has to go out and meet anyone; technology pinpoints people for one. This takes away a lot from getting to know someone on a personal and intimate level. Besides, I think these social networking programs are creepy because of the ability for others to know exactly where you are at all times. I prefer human interaction that comes naturally and spontaneous, then I can build on these interactions with social networking sites.
Friday, October 23, 2009
"Smart" Mobs
Instantaneous communication has changed not only how people get information, but also how people get together to show their views, and document it. A mob can descend on an empty location, and give there message at a moments notice, and have it streamed on the web live so people everywhere can know what is going on. This instantaneity can have a greater impact and send a stronger message because people do not always know it is coming. In the case of a protest, when police know when and where there is going to be a protest, they get ready and do what they can to suppress it. However, when the Filipinos overthrew their government, the protest was spurred by a decision made by the government, and put into action on a moments notice. Nothing could be done to stop it, and because of this, it packed a punch and caused a huge change.
While smart mobs can form on an instant from mass text messages, once the mob is formed it is just as difficult to organize as an old fashioned mob. For example, when President Obama was elected people in Santa Cruz immediately rushed downtown in celebration. When the first people got there mass text messages were sent out, phone calls were made, and the streets soon became flooded with people. Because of how the mob was formed it was a smart mob. However, once a “smart mob” is formed it just becomes a mob where mob mentality rules. Similar to when Loren Carpenter did the test with two colored paddles in an auditorium, people still look to others for cues, and do things that they would not normally do themselves. One person would jump on a car in excitement then others would do the same. Even though it was a celebration, one could still sense that in a moment, with a small spark, the mob would erupt and something bad would happen. A chant would start from one person the people near them took up the chant. The chant would oscillate outwards, until another chant was started by another person and spread throughout the crowd. The large mob was a group because they were all there for the same reason; however, even though it was a “smart mob,” the group was split up into sections. Even with text messaging and other technological aides, people at one end had no idea what was going on at the other end of the celebration.
While “smart mobs” can form on an instants notice and therefore send a stronger message, a mob is still a large group of people run by mob mentality. They are able to use modern technology to their advantage, but unless it is a highly organized group of people, such as at the World Trade Organization protest in Seattle, nothing will prevent a “smart mob” from doing something stupid.
—Daniel Wagman
Power to the People
What I found particularly interesting in Howard Rheingold’s “Smart Mobs,” was how much power technology gives to the people. In countries such as the Philippines, where infrastructure is deteriorating, people living in the area were able to overcome such barriers with use of technology. The texting culture in the Philippines, for instance, is so strong that it “led to a national panic when a false rumor claimed that Pope John Paul II had died” (159). It just amazes me that in an area where roads, postal offices, and communication infrastructure is lacking, there is such a strong culture with technology. It almost seems wrong in a way that there cell phones are used so much. Instead of having money spent towards maintaining or repairing deteriorating infrastructure, it is going towards cell phones and newer technology. It almost seems like there is encouragement to further divide the rich and the poor. The rich will maintain living in comfortable conditions and will have better lives with technology. Whereas on the other hand, the poor are living uncomfortably and are just growing farther away from new technology. And with such an essential need for communication structures, it is a necessity to have well-maintained infrastructure so that overall living standards can improve. It really is amazing how technology can bring people together to overcome issues such as these.
In general, “Smart Mobs” expresses the power of the people. If a group of people don’t like a certain issue, or if they feel like communicating about something specific, they can do something about it. They come together collectively to protest a certain issue, they can also be effective if they use technology the right way. For example, when President Obama released the name of his running mate in the 2008 presidential election, he utilized the power of the people connected by technology and used texting to let the word out. This was a smart move as it helped him further connect with the American people and gather support for his campaign. Just using technology in general has been proving to have very powerful and impactful effects with communications between people.
-Brittany Judoprasetijo
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Intelligence and Technology
Howard Rheingold's “Smart Mobs: The Power of the Mobile Many” views the effects of new media on social organization. Superficially and without much speculation the author’s argument can be effortlessly rephrased: smart mobs are complex socially-built effects of new media; however, with the help of new media and social networking technologies and experiments Rheingold presents many more hybrid philosophical, technological and social-anthropologic concepts. One of these ideas is what I would like to explore in this post: technology and human intelligence. I would like to embellish upon the role of technology and human intelligence. It is very clear to view artificial intelligence as “the ability of computers to simulate human intelligence” (OED); however, it is less common to understand the human intelligence in terms of computers or new media at large and view the importance of newer new media in human intelligence advancement.
Assuming that we are here because of Darwinian evolution, Proto-humans, 2.5 million years ago, were the first Homo sapiens ancestors to use tools or technology – from then till now the connection between human beings and their technology – be it a laptop or a coffeemaker – remains perhaps stronger than ever. Rhiengold writes: “(1)The knowledge and technologies that triggered the jump from clan to tribe to nation to market to network all shared one characteristic: (2)They each amplified the way individual humans think and communicate, and magnified their ability to share what they know” (181). I would like to analyze this by breaking into two parts – the quotation is so numbered. There is no doubt that Human sustenance goes hand in hand with technology. With better spears earlier humans hunted better, with better computers we can run more complex calculations. However, many times we don’t realize that technology goes hand in hand with knowledge. This knowledge can be specified into two groups: knowledge which creates the new media and knowledge which humans need to use or maneuver the new media. In the second part the author states that it is this technology (and its knowledge backbone) that effectively enhances human cognition and knowledge. The sum of human cognitive abilities describes human intelligence; therefore, it is not illogical to say that the symbiotic relationship between existing knowledge and technology effectively augment and increase human intelligence. Through increased intelligence, new knowledge and newer new media is developed and the cycle continues.
Although I am not trying to argue the following paragraph, I think it is an interesting observation: Psychological tests reveal that average IQ of developed nations (confirmed) is increasing with time – assuming that the IQ measures a type of intelligence – intelligence is increasing with time. Logically, when we compare ourselves, our understanding, our social patterns with those of our ancestors we are technologically ahead. Taking the reverse route, because we are technologically more advanced, we have a greater knowledge base and greater cognitive abilities making us more intelligent.
This was one of the more fundamental realizations that I came across as I read this chapter. Although we are constantly comparing our intelligence to that of our technologies – we should not fail to consider that these technologies are an integral mechanism of our intelligence formation. Our technology almost serves as an output of our intelligence, and as we understand them better and improve them with newer knowledge we also improve our intelligence. Our present day experiment is the “computer-equipped human” and through this we measure, evaluate and improve our social intelligences.
Assuming that we are here because of Darwinian evolution, Proto-humans, 2.5 million years ago, were the first Homo sapiens ancestors to use tools or technology – from then till now the connection between human beings and their technology – be it a laptop or a coffeemaker – remains perhaps stronger than ever. Rhiengold writes: “(1)The knowledge and technologies that triggered the jump from clan to tribe to nation to market to network all shared one characteristic: (2)They each amplified the way individual humans think and communicate, and magnified their ability to share what they know” (181). I would like to analyze this by breaking into two parts – the quotation is so numbered. There is no doubt that Human sustenance goes hand in hand with technology. With better spears earlier humans hunted better, with better computers we can run more complex calculations. However, many times we don’t realize that technology goes hand in hand with knowledge. This knowledge can be specified into two groups: knowledge which creates the new media and knowledge which humans need to use or maneuver the new media. In the second part the author states that it is this technology (and its knowledge backbone) that effectively enhances human cognition and knowledge. The sum of human cognitive abilities describes human intelligence; therefore, it is not illogical to say that the symbiotic relationship between existing knowledge and technology effectively augment and increase human intelligence. Through increased intelligence, new knowledge and newer new media is developed and the cycle continues.
Although I am not trying to argue the following paragraph, I think it is an interesting observation: Psychological tests reveal that average IQ of developed nations (confirmed) is increasing with time – assuming that the IQ measures a type of intelligence – intelligence is increasing with time. Logically, when we compare ourselves, our understanding, our social patterns with those of our ancestors we are technologically ahead. Taking the reverse route, because we are technologically more advanced, we have a greater knowledge base and greater cognitive abilities making us more intelligent.
This was one of the more fundamental realizations that I came across as I read this chapter. Although we are constantly comparing our intelligence to that of our technologies – we should not fail to consider that these technologies are an integral mechanism of our intelligence formation. Our technology almost serves as an output of our intelligence, and as we understand them better and improve them with newer knowledge we also improve our intelligence. Our present day experiment is the “computer-equipped human” and through this we measure, evaluate and improve our social intelligences.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Suffocating technology
When I read Bruce Sterling’s “Maneki Neko,” I found it interesting how Tsuyoshi’s brother is leaning away from the new society that heavily relies on technology. As it is stated in the beginning of the story, Tsuyoshi’s brother cannot stand his profession. Although a career is just a career, it is consuming his life and Tsuyoshi’s brother sees more cons than pros to it. The more technology improves, the more stress it seems to put on our lives. As we progress into the future, technology will just continue to be more immersed into our lives. Take the telephone for example. In the past, people would use payphones and pagers were the mobile means of telecommunications. Slowly, cellular phones came about and only a limited number of people were able to afford such bulky and inefficient devices. However, over time, cell phones have slimmed down in size, and have been more affordable so that more people have the opportunity to purchase them. Nowadays, instead of just the simple function of calling, cell phones can do much much more. They allow people to listen to music on the go, text others, and take pictures and videos. With the texting feature, it just becomes so much easier to communicate with others. If a person want to send someone a message without wasting much time or effort, texting make it so easy to do so. Because of its effectiveness, many people have adopted texting as a major means of communicating with others. This just raises the value of having a cell phone.
The point is, everyone is moving towards relying on technology so much. Imagine a day without a cell phone. It’s almost as if you got a part of you cut off from the rest of the world because it’s just that much harder for you to communicate with others as it is for others to communicate with you. We are all just becoming so dependent on technology.
But that can also be a restraint on our lives. In the story, the pokkecon acts like some sort of robot that’s controlled by some sort of central artificial intelligence that somehow has access and control to every single person with a pokkecon. It’s like some artificial brain can track us all down and dictates us our every move. How then can we enjoy and live life? With that, I would rather live a life free of technology so I am not burdened. It’s no wonder Tsuyoshi’s brother opts for the “sacred place in the mountains,” where it is soothing to be free of technology. There, he is probably living life the way he wants to be. If technology gets to that point where it becomes way too immersed in life, I would want to run away to that sacred place in the mountains too.
- Brittany Judoprasetijo
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Entertaining, but a bit off
The first thing that grabbed my attention in Bruce Sterling's Maneki Neko was Sterling's use of the word pasokon. Because I know Japanese, it was clear to me that pasokon is Japanese for computer, but why would Sterling use the Japanese word for a book targeted towards an English speaking audience? In the short piece there were tons of instances where Japanese culture bits were thrown in, many seemed off to me due to my Japanese background. Talking about how Japanese business operates, monks, and Tsuyoshi's breakfast of "raw egg and miso soup" (3), Sterling is clearly and purposefully making the setting important, maybe trying to disconnect the readers from the characters. In just the first couple pages, various cultural things seem to be horrible off.
First of all, many Japanese people know that monks don't protect people from technology, and most monks are monks as a job to make money in Japan. My former Japanese teacher was friends with a Buddhist monk that drove a fast sport convertible, and my mother used to be friends with a guy that held an after school job to chant for Buddhist memorial ceremonies, simply for the money. Moving to the country to live with an older population would be just as effective to escape city life as to join a monastery. Second, to me, seeing that Tsuyoshi was eating just raw egg and miso soup for breakfast is pretty weird. Not because I don't eat raw eggs or miso soup, but because it is not normal for a Japanese person to eat a plain raw egg and miso soup for breakfast. Japanese people tend to eat raw or nearly raw eggs in with other foods, such as natto or curry, not by themselves Tsuyoshi also would have probably has rice with it, too. Again Sterling uses Japanese by calling Tsuyoshi's PDA a pokkecon, which in this day and age has been completely replaced by cellphones. Of course he wouldn't have known this in 1999 when the book was published, however, it is still confusing as to why he would purposefully use the Japanese word for terms except to make the reader feel more separate from the culture of the setting.
When Sterling brings up the maneki neko in the story, he gives a short description that includes bringing good fortune, but fails to assert its cultural role as a good luck charm to bring good business, maybe again to make the reader feel less knowledgeable about the culture. Although what the maneki neko is does not affect the story, using it in the title and leaving it as a somewhat mysterious object again makes the reader further away from this exotic and unknown culture that Sterling creates. Sterling continues to barrage the reader with various things written in ways to be less familiar to an American audience. The dialect from Osaka, meishi, Roppongi, yakuza, etc., a bunch of unfamiliar terms to an average American, are left as dangling terms that leaves the reader distant from the characters.
Sure, the story might really be about trolling in real life through Internet social networks by taking advantage of the obligatory nature of gifting, however, Sterling should try to avoid building up the importance of the setting being in Japan if he cannot represent the culture more accurately. Although the great majority of readers would not be able to tell the awkwardness in the small details, much of the text felt forced due to the poor representation of Japanese culture. Making Tsuyoshi eat things like a raw egg rather than donuts or use a pokkecon instead of a PDA alienates the reader to make the weird interactions between the characters more believable, even if the overall culture described in the story is far from the norm in Japan.
-Joshua Ziesmer
First of all, many Japanese people know that monks don't protect people from technology, and most monks are monks as a job to make money in Japan. My former Japanese teacher was friends with a Buddhist monk that drove a fast sport convertible, and my mother used to be friends with a guy that held an after school job to chant for Buddhist memorial ceremonies, simply for the money. Moving to the country to live with an older population would be just as effective to escape city life as to join a monastery. Second, to me, seeing that Tsuyoshi was eating just raw egg and miso soup for breakfast is pretty weird. Not because I don't eat raw eggs or miso soup, but because it is not normal for a Japanese person to eat a plain raw egg and miso soup for breakfast. Japanese people tend to eat raw or nearly raw eggs in with other foods, such as natto or curry, not by themselves Tsuyoshi also would have probably has rice with it, too. Again Sterling uses Japanese by calling Tsuyoshi's PDA a pokkecon, which in this day and age has been completely replaced by cellphones. Of course he wouldn't have known this in 1999 when the book was published, however, it is still confusing as to why he would purposefully use the Japanese word for terms except to make the reader feel more separate from the culture of the setting.
When Sterling brings up the maneki neko in the story, he gives a short description that includes bringing good fortune, but fails to assert its cultural role as a good luck charm to bring good business, maybe again to make the reader feel less knowledgeable about the culture. Although what the maneki neko is does not affect the story, using it in the title and leaving it as a somewhat mysterious object again makes the reader further away from this exotic and unknown culture that Sterling creates. Sterling continues to barrage the reader with various things written in ways to be less familiar to an American audience. The dialect from Osaka, meishi, Roppongi, yakuza, etc., a bunch of unfamiliar terms to an average American, are left as dangling terms that leaves the reader distant from the characters.
Sure, the story might really be about trolling in real life through Internet social networks by taking advantage of the obligatory nature of gifting, however, Sterling should try to avoid building up the importance of the setting being in Japan if he cannot represent the culture more accurately. Although the great majority of readers would not be able to tell the awkwardness in the small details, much of the text felt forced due to the poor representation of Japanese culture. Making Tsuyoshi eat things like a raw egg rather than donuts or use a pokkecon instead of a PDA alienates the reader to make the weird interactions between the characters more believable, even if the overall culture described in the story is far from the norm in Japan.
-Joshua Ziesmer
Revolution and Technology
Revolution is an overwhelmingly loaded term. It is employed to depict uprisings, resistance, war, and a vast shift in societal rules. The Russian Revolution, the American Revolution, the Golden Revolution: all everlasting landmarks in time that emphasize the connotations of revolutions. To technological determinists, new worlds of technological solutions are to fortify this definition of revolution to its utmost potential. Raymond Williams and Langdon Winner both refute the idea that the access of technology will produce a lasting shift in societal view and structure. This repudiation is valid. But as they argue against such possibilities as being simplistic in view, it is also naïve to completely disclaim that society is unquestionably altered by technological advancements and brings the possibility of democratization, a less imbalanced class system, and an abundance of information.
Raymond Williams asserts that society causes technological advancements instead of the other argument, that technology causes societal advancements. For example, in his article The Technology and the Society, Williams claims that “it was the development of the railways, themselves a response to the development of an industrial system and related growth of cities” (Willaims 294). Though railways had direct associations with the need for mobility and transportation of goods, it can be viewed in reverse. Railways catapulted the industrial age to be more economically efficient which, in turn, sponsors the growth of industry as a whole. He also concludes that motions pictures were necessary in that “new separations of families and with new internal and external migrations, it became more centrally necessary as a form of maintaining…. Certain personal connections”(297) But a new division in the household is formed as teenagers flock to cinemas to watch the latest feature with their buddies instead of spending time cuddled around the fire conversing with their family. Thus, to see societal needs as a catalyst to technological advancements or to view society norms molded by technology, is to not hold enough substance in the argument. Technology creates mechanisms for progression, and through that progression individuals devise new methods of technology.
Similar to William’s ideals, Langdon Winner refuses to accept technological progression as a new revolution that will inevitably lead society to universal cures in all forms. To suggest that technology will generate a “drastic upheaval, one that people out to welcome as good news”(Winner 589) is too severe of a foreseeable future. Although his position is valid in that the access of technology will not bring a more democratized nation that is leveled in its justice, the use of technology can convey this prospect forefront. For example, North Korea is completely immersed in technological deprivation in that they would be flabbergasted to find that more than one television can be in one household. Visitors to the country are taken in one bus, secured by government officials to make sure information such as this is not leaked. They are not nearly as exposed to the advancements as we are and our utilization of the function of the technology are completely different as well. North Korea is not democratized in the least sense, lead by a totalitarian dictator. If the use of television were otherwise used to bring actual information other than what the government approved, perhaps North Korea would have a more difficult time keeping its citizens under its reign. Technology doesn’t make this point certain, yet it undeniably increases the means in which democracy can happen.
Both Winner and Williams argue against the most extremist views of technological determinism but there is an intermediate analysis. Technology, by no means can perform modification in society single-handedly; it takes the will of a nation or a group to create change. Advancements make the means which create change easier, faster, and more efficient. Technology does not define society or its future, but neither does society define technology. Both intertwine to create a web of cooperation between individuals and the tools they use.
Raymond Williams asserts that society causes technological advancements instead of the other argument, that technology causes societal advancements. For example, in his article The Technology and the Society, Williams claims that “it was the development of the railways, themselves a response to the development of an industrial system and related growth of cities” (Willaims 294). Though railways had direct associations with the need for mobility and transportation of goods, it can be viewed in reverse. Railways catapulted the industrial age to be more economically efficient which, in turn, sponsors the growth of industry as a whole. He also concludes that motions pictures were necessary in that “new separations of families and with new internal and external migrations, it became more centrally necessary as a form of maintaining…. Certain personal connections”(297) But a new division in the household is formed as teenagers flock to cinemas to watch the latest feature with their buddies instead of spending time cuddled around the fire conversing with their family. Thus, to see societal needs as a catalyst to technological advancements or to view society norms molded by technology, is to not hold enough substance in the argument. Technology creates mechanisms for progression, and through that progression individuals devise new methods of technology.
Similar to William’s ideals, Langdon Winner refuses to accept technological progression as a new revolution that will inevitably lead society to universal cures in all forms. To suggest that technology will generate a “drastic upheaval, one that people out to welcome as good news”(Winner 589) is too severe of a foreseeable future. Although his position is valid in that the access of technology will not bring a more democratized nation that is leveled in its justice, the use of technology can convey this prospect forefront. For example, North Korea is completely immersed in technological deprivation in that they would be flabbergasted to find that more than one television can be in one household. Visitors to the country are taken in one bus, secured by government officials to make sure information such as this is not leaked. They are not nearly as exposed to the advancements as we are and our utilization of the function of the technology are completely different as well. North Korea is not democratized in the least sense, lead by a totalitarian dictator. If the use of television were otherwise used to bring actual information other than what the government approved, perhaps North Korea would have a more difficult time keeping its citizens under its reign. Technology doesn’t make this point certain, yet it undeniably increases the means in which democracy can happen.
Both Winner and Williams argue against the most extremist views of technological determinism but there is an intermediate analysis. Technology, by no means can perform modification in society single-handedly; it takes the will of a nation or a group to create change. Advancements make the means which create change easier, faster, and more efficient. Technology does not define society or its future, but neither does society define technology. Both intertwine to create a web of cooperation between individuals and the tools they use.
Dystopia and Debunking Reflection
In this piece, Langdon Winner talks about the so – called “computer revolution” with its many different names. He talks about how a utopian society is expected in the near future from the new developments of technology. Basically some people think that the computer revolution will cure all illnesses and fix all things wrong with the world. As this idea sounds very pleasant and desirable, a computer revolution can’t fix the world. All problems in the world have been caused over the years and through different events and won’t just disappear.
Inequalities have always been present in the hierarchical pyramid of society. People are usually compared based in their socioeconomic status and the computer revolution can’t fix this injustice. Just because people will all have access to the same information doesn’t mean that all of them will take advantage of that information. People expect for democracy to be created online and encompass everyone in the world under a united cyber democracy type thing but there are many limits to this idea. Limits such as people having different needs, values, and different ways of life and can’t all be represented in one huge government which also seems sort of like a dictatorship.
Back to the computer revolution; Winner writes about mythinformation which is the thought that “a widespread use of computers and communications systems, along with access to electronic information, will automatically produce a better world for humanity.” The possibilities of computers and technology are vast but aiding people against all evil is just too far out there. The computer and internet have definitely made the world a smaller place but social change is many changes away. That’s just what I think as society changes slowly as the world and social norms change every day. Freedom would be restricted in some ways as everyone would live the same and therefore major societal changes would have to take place. To make one group of people happy might make another group mad and therefore and equilibrium of freedom and happiness would have to be compromised upon. The computer revolution may be progressing but a realistic effect should be expected and total world unity because of the revolution shouldn’t be expected any time in the near future. A better world for democracy can be created slowly through many political, economical and societal changes but it shouldn’t depend solely on the computer revolution.
- Gagan
Inequalities have always been present in the hierarchical pyramid of society. People are usually compared based in their socioeconomic status and the computer revolution can’t fix this injustice. Just because people will all have access to the same information doesn’t mean that all of them will take advantage of that information. People expect for democracy to be created online and encompass everyone in the world under a united cyber democracy type thing but there are many limits to this idea. Limits such as people having different needs, values, and different ways of life and can’t all be represented in one huge government which also seems sort of like a dictatorship.
Back to the computer revolution; Winner writes about mythinformation which is the thought that “a widespread use of computers and communications systems, along with access to electronic information, will automatically produce a better world for humanity.” The possibilities of computers and technology are vast but aiding people against all evil is just too far out there. The computer and internet have definitely made the world a smaller place but social change is many changes away. That’s just what I think as society changes slowly as the world and social norms change every day. Freedom would be restricted in some ways as everyone would live the same and therefore major societal changes would have to take place. To make one group of people happy might make another group mad and therefore and equilibrium of freedom and happiness would have to be compromised upon. The computer revolution may be progressing but a realistic effect should be expected and total world unity because of the revolution shouldn’t be expected any time in the near future. A better world for democracy can be created slowly through many political, economical and societal changes but it shouldn’t depend solely on the computer revolution.
- Gagan
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Technology and Society
Raymond Williams, in his article The Technology and the Society, brings up several good points about technology. He uses television to point out that technology can have multiple effects on our lives, even effects that we do not think about. He discusses how television had several different effects, like that it altered the way news was spread and it had direct effects on our family and cultural life. He also brings up the point that not only did the television alter our lives, but it also had a direct effect on history. Williams then goes on to talk about the history of television as a technology and the history of the uses of television.
Williams points out that there are two different views on television. One is that if the television had not been invented, then certain events would never have occurred. The other view is that if television had not been invented, then we would still be doing the same thing, just through different means. While both of these views are valid, I would have to agree with the latter. I think that even if the television had not been invented, we would find another way to keep ourselves entertained. For starters we would still have the radio, which would provide us with almost everything the television provides us with. It also depends on how we define the television. If we define it as the broadcasting that we see when we turn on the television, then the computer would have taken its place as the main means to our entertainment. If we define the television as the screen or the image that is projected to us, then we would probably still rely on books, newspapers, and the radio for entertainment.
Depending on how we defined television, if we choose the screen definition then this would greatly alter other technologies. For instance, we would have no computers, no iPods, etc. Pretty much anything with a screen would not exist. This would create an entirely different society than we know, since we rely on our computers and everything else for so many things these days. The television has definitely altered our lives and will continue to alter the lives of everyone for as long as there is cable being produced or something being made with a screen.
Williams points out that there are two different views on television. One is that if the television had not been invented, then certain events would never have occurred. The other view is that if television had not been invented, then we would still be doing the same thing, just through different means. While both of these views are valid, I would have to agree with the latter. I think that even if the television had not been invented, we would find another way to keep ourselves entertained. For starters we would still have the radio, which would provide us with almost everything the television provides us with. It also depends on how we define the television. If we define it as the broadcasting that we see when we turn on the television, then the computer would have taken its place as the main means to our entertainment. If we define the television as the screen or the image that is projected to us, then we would probably still rely on books, newspapers, and the radio for entertainment.
Depending on how we defined television, if we choose the screen definition then this would greatly alter other technologies. For instance, we would have no computers, no iPods, etc. Pretty much anything with a screen would not exist. This would create an entirely different society than we know, since we rely on our computers and everything else for so many things these days. The television has definitely altered our lives and will continue to alter the lives of everyone for as long as there is cable being produced or something being made with a screen.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Dystopianism and Computer Romanticism
Computer romanticism, the idolization of computer technology and belief of its strictly positive effect on society, has become a very large aspect of today’s culture. With computer technology being a considerable part of everyday life, people have come to love, without question, the power and simplicity that technology has provided us. People have felt this way for a seemingly good reason; just look at all technology has provided us, and, further, what it is capable of providing. In his article “Mythinformation,” Langdon Winner provides the reader with some of these “amazing” technological possibilities, before he approaches his dystopian viewpoint. “Professionals in widely separate fields¾doctors, lawyers, corporate managers, and scientists¾comment on the changes computers have brought to their work. Home consumers give testimonials explaining how personal computers are helping educate their children, prepare their income tax forms, and file their recipes.” (Winner 589.) So then what is the problem? Everyone appears to be happy. Children are learning, adults can keep things organized, and professionals are now able to work more efficiently. The problem lies within how blindly society has begun to accept new technologies as just a new way of life and do not question the negative effects that could come about such a strong reliance. This follows closely along the idea of technological determinism, presented in “The Technology and the Society,” by Raymond Williams. Technological determinism is a concept that states, “technology is the primary force that controls how individuals and society change.” (Winston) If this truly is the case, then our society is helpless to change, as we are, at this point, incapable of stopping the advancement of technology.
With most people thinking solely of the positive effects of recent technology, Winner’s beliefs almost appear blasphemous to the reader the first time through. Winner begins by touching base on how advances in technology, though seemingly an enhancement for nearly all citizens, is actually just a way for the already powerful and rich to maintain their positions above the rest of the population. Winner goes even further to say that these technological advances provide a “threat to privacy,” are beginning to remove all social aspects of human life, and will potentially restructure political order. Technological dystopianism, the idea that new technology can have a negative effect on society and create worse living conditions, is a grim topic that does need to be discussed. Being a technological utopist myself, it is difficult to address this side of the spectrum, for it causes doubt on a technology that only seemed to have a positive side. The negative ideas that Winner brings forth are all valid points; new technology is not perfect and it can and will be used for the wrong reasons. To say that the computer revolution will be influenced by “the absent mind” (Winner 597) seems to be going a bit far. Every aspect of life has its positives and its negatives, these cannot be avoided, but it is important to weigh the pros and the cons to determine whether or not such a technology should be used. With respect to Langdon Winner’s viewpoint, recent technologies, specifically the computer and the internet, appear to be more advantageous than not.
Justin Japinga
Friday, October 9, 2009
“Collective Intelligence” Reflections
While I share Levy’s passion for freedom, as well as his vision that the cyberspace is a crucial driving force and a very useful and powerful tool for the development of globalization that is definitely taking place, I do have some problems with some of the points he presented in “Collective Intelligence: A Civilisation”.
(Just a side note before I start: this is going to be a very long post and I appreciate the patience of anyone who manages to trek through it to the end!)
Let’s start by saying that I am amused by Levy’s way of structuring the article. He talks about three aspects for the development of collective intelligence: cyberdemocracy (power), information capitalism (wealth), and grace (arts/spirituality). As Levy himself states, “the structure which is the slowest to change and the hardest to move is that which relates to power”, followed by “the intermediary layer, that of wealth”, and the arts and spirituality layer is the easiest to change. Yet it is very interesting that the three topics are arranged not from the easiest to the most difficult, but the exact opposite. Of course, this can be explained by the fact that cyberdemocracy is the most significant point Levy wants to make, but let us look at the first sentence under the Theory of Information Capitalism section: “Once peace and one worldwide, democratic law has been established, then…” It thus suggests that cyberdemocracy has to take place first; information capitalism and grace can then follow. As the power layer is the slowest to change and hardest to move among all three layers, needing it to develop first means extreme difficulty for any development of collective intelligence. Since a stable political environment is the foundation for economy and culture development, it makes sense that cyberdemocracy needs to happen first. To me this paradox raises doubt over the possibility of cyberdemocracy.
Speaking of cyberdemocracy: it is definitely the boldest idea among all three, and as the boldest it is naturally the most significant and the one that I have the most problems with.
The biggest problem I have with Levy’s cyberdemocracy idea is his claim that peace can be achieved by having one worldwide government. Some of the conflicts in the world are driven by differences between people. Religion is a big one, and the word culture can be thrown in here as well. People with different beliefs and values do not agree with each other. And people are actually very stubborn when it comes to religion and culture so it is very unlikely that the worldwide government can do much to eliminate religious and cultural differences. As a result, the worldwide government simply will not be able to bring world peace.
Another question is who will control this worldwide government. It is democracy, which means election, and since it is a worldwide government, I assume that everyone in the world will be eligible to vote and be voted (of course there would be an age limit or some other limit to define who is “educated” and “mature” enough). But as I mentioned before, people have different ideas and values. Not just on religion, but ideas and values regarding various issues. Two problems result: the first being how difficult and chaotic the election can be. Think about how many different groups of people one needs to target for votes. It is crazy enough even if it is just within one nation, but worldwide? Maybe campaign staff should become the highest-paid job. Of course one can target some particular groups, and ideally, the final government will comprise of people with different stances and represent all of the different voices. But this is the second problem: how is that going to help us reach harmony? Having all voices in the government will only lead to disagreement, which will then lead to stalemate. Ultimately the worldwide government is simply dysfunctional.
I do realize that the worldwide government Levy envisions is different from the governments we have today. In fact, Levy proposes that governments should be like corporations, and not just any corporation, but those that operate via the Internet (“cyberdemocracy…requires that public administration…follow the example of e-commerce enterprises”). He envisions a government that is “transparent”, “accessible night and day”, and “consider us as citizens to be served rather than as subjects to be administered”. He suggests that e-governments are indeed like this or at least moving in this direction. I would like to know more about the e-governments that he is talking about, but I personally believe that wherever there is power, there is going to be manipulation. While such manipulations will be more difficult in the cyberspace as it is indeed a more transparent environment, it is not impossible for those bent on the pursuit of power (and isn’t that basically everyone) to find a way.
Levy speaks of the cyberspace being a public sphere that is “more rich, open and transparent than the press or television”. The problem is that the Internet can be controlled even though it may be more difficult to control than the press or the television, and there are plenty examples of governments and corporations exerting controls on the Internet.
After all, is a worldwide government necessary? At one point in the article Levy seems to contradict his idea of universal government by saying “it is the town or metropolitan area which constitutes our true living capsule and place of interaction”. Perhaps his reasoning is that cyberspace is turning the world into a town. I think in some aspects the world is becoming a town – or global village, the official term for this phenomenon. Instant communication, connection, sharing information and transferring files with others thousands of miles away: in such aspects the world is becoming a village. But there is more than speedy communication that we should consider. I have seen an interesting lecture on how the Internet is shaping our way of doing things. The lecturer (sadly I can’t remember his name) proposes that the Internet is not connecting everyone into one collective group, but rather creating what he calls “tribes”. The idea is that the Internet is actually a way for people with similar interests to come together and form communities that are much like the tribes in ancient times. Except that the tribes are not defined or confined by geographical locations, but rather by common interests, characteristics or values the members share. The lecturer also suggested that tribe is the newest model for making an impact in the world, replacing the marketing/advertisement model, which replaced the manufacturing model. Whether this is true or not is up for closer examination, but one thing is certain: the Internet does not unite. It connects, but unite is different. Yet in order to have a functioning global government, just connect is not enough, unite is what is needed. Ironically, as the Internet provides connection, the world actually become less united as a whole because people utilize the connection provided by the Internet to find and join smaller circles. We can communicate with each other all we want (and the Internet helps tremendously in that) but we have different values, beliefs, opinions and viewpoints that will remain different no matter how much communication we have, because we actually want to belong to smaller communities of a shared set of values, beliefs or interests. Internet cannot kill locality, it redefines it. Locality is no longer physical or geographical; it's interest- or value-based. But it works just the same as it is separation or segregation from a global community. Therefore a world government is simply not going to work.
Let us move on to information capitalism. Here Levy proposes that “the ultimate source of wealth” is “the intelligence and collective creativity of groups of humans” and “general prosperity will be brought about by the free association of those who produce ideas; true wealth is not material, goods, money”. But it is a materialistic world out there, and when the word “wealth” is mentioned it is automatically linked with money, money, and more money. Levy is trying to argue that intelligence is the real wealth, but as great and beautiful as that sounds (and I am not saying that the idea is wrong), actual money is still needed to buy bread and pay for a roof over the head. Levy also promotes the free sharing of information, which further underlines that while he considers those who are intelligent and creative to be the most prosperous, his definition of prosperity is not associated with actual money and thus not associated with the material life. He speaks, rather, about one’s usefulness towards the collective intelligence of humanity. In that sense, he is absolutely correct – the cyberspace does help to create wealth for the entire humanity by promoting the sharing of information and the intelligence and creativity behind the information.
I do not have strong ideas on the grace section so I am going to leave that section along. But before I close my post I want to make one more point. Let us take a step back and look at the claims Levy made before either cyberdemocracy or information capitalism (or grace, for that matter) is mentioned. Levy constructed a set of premises before going into the discussion of the three layers, among which is a claim regarding human nature: we learn everything that is possible to learn. He also claims that the cyberspace will aid this desire to learn.
Cyberspace does help us obtain information; it provides a vast amount of information that is unavailable to us otherwise. We can, indeed, find everything and anything the Internet. But does information equal to knowledge? Everyone can contribute to information on the Internet, and all sorts of information gets published. It is thus not necessarily a blessing to have all the information available on the Internet right in front of us because there is the danger of false information. To defend Levy’s position, he is probably imagining a cyberspace where everyone is responsible, so maybe in his vision the information on the “Internet” is all reliable. But as of today Net netruality and reliability is only a dream, just like cyberdemocracy and information capitalism are only dreams as well.
Levy does realize his ideas are just dreams. Of course he does not use the word dream but the word “imagination” but really they are the same. Levy says that if we all dream the same dream, we can, and we will, create that dream world and turn imagination into reality. Sadly, I believe that getting everyone to have the same dream is simply impossible, even if we have the powerful Internet to aid us. Because here is my claim regarding human nature: we are all innately selfish, and even though we contribute to a collective intelligence, we still like to have our own little world where we get to be the one and the only.
(Just a side note before I start: this is going to be a very long post and I appreciate the patience of anyone who manages to trek through it to the end!)
Let’s start by saying that I am amused by Levy’s way of structuring the article. He talks about three aspects for the development of collective intelligence: cyberdemocracy (power), information capitalism (wealth), and grace (arts/spirituality). As Levy himself states, “the structure which is the slowest to change and the hardest to move is that which relates to power”, followed by “the intermediary layer, that of wealth”, and the arts and spirituality layer is the easiest to change. Yet it is very interesting that the three topics are arranged not from the easiest to the most difficult, but the exact opposite. Of course, this can be explained by the fact that cyberdemocracy is the most significant point Levy wants to make, but let us look at the first sentence under the Theory of Information Capitalism section: “Once peace and one worldwide, democratic law has been established, then…” It thus suggests that cyberdemocracy has to take place first; information capitalism and grace can then follow. As the power layer is the slowest to change and hardest to move among all three layers, needing it to develop first means extreme difficulty for any development of collective intelligence. Since a stable political environment is the foundation for economy and culture development, it makes sense that cyberdemocracy needs to happen first. To me this paradox raises doubt over the possibility of cyberdemocracy.
Speaking of cyberdemocracy: it is definitely the boldest idea among all three, and as the boldest it is naturally the most significant and the one that I have the most problems with.
The biggest problem I have with Levy’s cyberdemocracy idea is his claim that peace can be achieved by having one worldwide government. Some of the conflicts in the world are driven by differences between people. Religion is a big one, and the word culture can be thrown in here as well. People with different beliefs and values do not agree with each other. And people are actually very stubborn when it comes to religion and culture so it is very unlikely that the worldwide government can do much to eliminate religious and cultural differences. As a result, the worldwide government simply will not be able to bring world peace.
Another question is who will control this worldwide government. It is democracy, which means election, and since it is a worldwide government, I assume that everyone in the world will be eligible to vote and be voted (of course there would be an age limit or some other limit to define who is “educated” and “mature” enough). But as I mentioned before, people have different ideas and values. Not just on religion, but ideas and values regarding various issues. Two problems result: the first being how difficult and chaotic the election can be. Think about how many different groups of people one needs to target for votes. It is crazy enough even if it is just within one nation, but worldwide? Maybe campaign staff should become the highest-paid job. Of course one can target some particular groups, and ideally, the final government will comprise of people with different stances and represent all of the different voices. But this is the second problem: how is that going to help us reach harmony? Having all voices in the government will only lead to disagreement, which will then lead to stalemate. Ultimately the worldwide government is simply dysfunctional.
I do realize that the worldwide government Levy envisions is different from the governments we have today. In fact, Levy proposes that governments should be like corporations, and not just any corporation, but those that operate via the Internet (“cyberdemocracy…requires that public administration…follow the example of e-commerce enterprises”). He envisions a government that is “transparent”, “accessible night and day”, and “consider us as citizens to be served rather than as subjects to be administered”. He suggests that e-governments are indeed like this or at least moving in this direction. I would like to know more about the e-governments that he is talking about, but I personally believe that wherever there is power, there is going to be manipulation. While such manipulations will be more difficult in the cyberspace as it is indeed a more transparent environment, it is not impossible for those bent on the pursuit of power (and isn’t that basically everyone) to find a way.
Levy speaks of the cyberspace being a public sphere that is “more rich, open and transparent than the press or television”. The problem is that the Internet can be controlled even though it may be more difficult to control than the press or the television, and there are plenty examples of governments and corporations exerting controls on the Internet.
After all, is a worldwide government necessary? At one point in the article Levy seems to contradict his idea of universal government by saying “it is the town or metropolitan area which constitutes our true living capsule and place of interaction”. Perhaps his reasoning is that cyberspace is turning the world into a town. I think in some aspects the world is becoming a town – or global village, the official term for this phenomenon. Instant communication, connection, sharing information and transferring files with others thousands of miles away: in such aspects the world is becoming a village. But there is more than speedy communication that we should consider. I have seen an interesting lecture on how the Internet is shaping our way of doing things. The lecturer (sadly I can’t remember his name) proposes that the Internet is not connecting everyone into one collective group, but rather creating what he calls “tribes”. The idea is that the Internet is actually a way for people with similar interests to come together and form communities that are much like the tribes in ancient times. Except that the tribes are not defined or confined by geographical locations, but rather by common interests, characteristics or values the members share. The lecturer also suggested that tribe is the newest model for making an impact in the world, replacing the marketing/advertisement model, which replaced the manufacturing model. Whether this is true or not is up for closer examination, but one thing is certain: the Internet does not unite. It connects, but unite is different. Yet in order to have a functioning global government, just connect is not enough, unite is what is needed. Ironically, as the Internet provides connection, the world actually become less united as a whole because people utilize the connection provided by the Internet to find and join smaller circles. We can communicate with each other all we want (and the Internet helps tremendously in that) but we have different values, beliefs, opinions and viewpoints that will remain different no matter how much communication we have, because we actually want to belong to smaller communities of a shared set of values, beliefs or interests. Internet cannot kill locality, it redefines it. Locality is no longer physical or geographical; it's interest- or value-based. But it works just the same as it is separation or segregation from a global community. Therefore a world government is simply not going to work.
Let us move on to information capitalism. Here Levy proposes that “the ultimate source of wealth” is “the intelligence and collective creativity of groups of humans” and “general prosperity will be brought about by the free association of those who produce ideas; true wealth is not material, goods, money”. But it is a materialistic world out there, and when the word “wealth” is mentioned it is automatically linked with money, money, and more money. Levy is trying to argue that intelligence is the real wealth, but as great and beautiful as that sounds (and I am not saying that the idea is wrong), actual money is still needed to buy bread and pay for a roof over the head. Levy also promotes the free sharing of information, which further underlines that while he considers those who are intelligent and creative to be the most prosperous, his definition of prosperity is not associated with actual money and thus not associated with the material life. He speaks, rather, about one’s usefulness towards the collective intelligence of humanity. In that sense, he is absolutely correct – the cyberspace does help to create wealth for the entire humanity by promoting the sharing of information and the intelligence and creativity behind the information.
I do not have strong ideas on the grace section so I am going to leave that section along. But before I close my post I want to make one more point. Let us take a step back and look at the claims Levy made before either cyberdemocracy or information capitalism (or grace, for that matter) is mentioned. Levy constructed a set of premises before going into the discussion of the three layers, among which is a claim regarding human nature: we learn everything that is possible to learn. He also claims that the cyberspace will aid this desire to learn.
Cyberspace does help us obtain information; it provides a vast amount of information that is unavailable to us otherwise. We can, indeed, find everything and anything the Internet. But does information equal to knowledge? Everyone can contribute to information on the Internet, and all sorts of information gets published. It is thus not necessarily a blessing to have all the information available on the Internet right in front of us because there is the danger of false information. To defend Levy’s position, he is probably imagining a cyberspace where everyone is responsible, so maybe in his vision the information on the “Internet” is all reliable. But as of today Net netruality and reliability is only a dream, just like cyberdemocracy and information capitalism are only dreams as well.
Levy does realize his ideas are just dreams. Of course he does not use the word dream but the word “imagination” but really they are the same. Levy says that if we all dream the same dream, we can, and we will, create that dream world and turn imagination into reality. Sadly, I believe that getting everyone to have the same dream is simply impossible, even if we have the powerful Internet to aid us. Because here is my claim regarding human nature: we are all innately selfish, and even though we contribute to a collective intelligence, we still like to have our own little world where we get to be the one and the only.
Air - fantasy or science? Does it matter?
I am actually going to do my post on "Collective Intelligence" and I think I will post it in about an hour, but I just really want to make some comments on Air following our discussion in class regarding whether Air is more “fantasy” or “science”, and the questions “does how real the science of Air is really matter?”
To answer that question, I think we should answer another question first and the question is – does it hinder the delineation of the author’s messages if we take Air as totally unrealistic? From what I heard in class, most of us agree that it doesn’t; we can still grasp the social commentary in the novel even if we take it as a fantasy novel. Therefore someone (sorry I can’t remember your name, I’ve tried recalling it for the last thirty minutes to no avail) proposes that the author should make Air just that – a fantasy novel. The author should not try to justify the science at all. But I think that the author should try to justify the science. Because I believe the author’s ultimate purpose is to comment on our society, not the society in the novel (which is fictional). The various parallels and links between the society in the novel and our society show that while Ryman is writing about some fictional society, he really wants to say things regarding the society we are living in today. The reason he tries to give us some science in the novel is thus to make his case of urgency and connection. Guaranteed his science does not stand on solid ground and is not realistic, but that is not the point. The point is that merely suggesting Air to be based on actual science helps to serve Ryman’s purpose. So instead of dissecting how “un-science” Air is, we as readers should accept and get by with the idea that Air is science-based and thus feel the urgency of all the real points the novel is trying to make.
Some may then say that Ryman should make Air more scientific: if he really wants to make the connection between the Air world and our world, why not make it totally, completely, one-hundred percent believable? But there is a reason for Ryman to render the Air world unfamiliar, foreign, distant, and yes, somewhat fantasy-like. I think I mentioned, in an earlier class discussion, my reason for this claim: to distance the readers from the Air world helps the readers see the world more clearly and objectively. And as it is our society that Ryman is trying to comment on, he wants to distance our society from us. Thus he creates a fictional world that appears to be foreign and unfamiliar to readers upon first glances, but of course if readers dig deeper they can see the connections and parallels. As we conceive Air to be something that is not our real life, we can judge it more objectively and comprehensively than we would if we were asked to judge our society, because then we inevitably have to start with a personal perspective, and this perspective is more often than not shaded by some sort of bias, albeit very unintentionally. This is not to say that we cannot judge our society objectively; it is possible to do so. It's just much harder. To help the readers easily gain an objective – or at least, a new – point of view, Ryman creates unfamiliarity and distance between the Air world and our world.
So I think that while we can go on debating about how realistic Air is, to grasp the main ideas of the novel we really need to accept what Ryman tells us in terms of how realistic Air is: it’s not something that will happen in our life (at least in some time), and it’s possible that Ryman himself does not think it could (ever) happen, but it is somehow science-based (and just exactly what that “somehow” is does NOT matter) so it could happen. That’s the premise Ryman gives, and it’s the best premise for this book because it serves to help convey his ideas. Therefore the best thing for us to do as readers is perhaps to just go along with it, and go examine the real contents and main points of the novel.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
I just read the piece on collective intelligence and I am intrigued but also noticed some potential problems. Pierre talks about how democracy is going to be expanded to the point where everyone can vote over the Internet and form mini centralized governments inside of each community that would constitute larger governments. These larger governments would then possibly construct one centralized government that would determine the best laws and policies for the whole human race. This would have an advantage to our current form of democracy because it would bind all actions of one country (assuming there are still countries in this futuristic view) with the reaction or consequences to the rest of the world. For example, America is content to accept low priced and generalized goods but is unable to produce most of these goods at these low prices. This has caused companies to set up in third world countries to supply the cheap labor to supply these goods. In the future Pierre describes, the central government will not only have to deal with the need for goods but will also have to deal with the poor working conditions and the meager few cent wages for the people in these undeveloped parts of the world. In that sense this future, this will bring the world together and hopefully achieve a greater common good.
I also see some down sides to the proposal of unified and easily accessed democracy. Democracy is designed for people who are intelligent enough to distinguish and decide between what they want and what society needs. Everyone wants poverty, global warming and problems in health care fixed, but how many of those people actually want to pay to have those problems fixed? When was the last time there was a strike to rally the people to raise taxes so the government could fund hospitals or schools? Combining the vote of the whole world to make laws would boil down to who has the largest population to determine who gets what they want. This would benefit a particular group while possibly hindering the rest of the people. This actually ties into the second problem I would like to address, the division of who gets to vote on specific issues. Stanford should not get a vote on our student government and I should not be able to vote on how laws governing some foreign country I have no affiliation to. Everyone should have a say in a government designed to benefit all of mankind, but it would be extremely difficult to determine a law that would apply to everyone everywhere. It is hard to picture this future working.
This started as a comment but I got a little carried away. I do like the concept of an expanded democracy, but I am a weary on how this government will establish. The idea of a collected intelligence that is based on democracy, theology and information provides an in depth look at the future of global interactions and the impacts they will have on everyday people. This will hopefully be the biases for a new and more efficient interaction between people and government and will allow for a united front for the human race.
Kevin Campbell
I also see some down sides to the proposal of unified and easily accessed democracy. Democracy is designed for people who are intelligent enough to distinguish and decide between what they want and what society needs. Everyone wants poverty, global warming and problems in health care fixed, but how many of those people actually want to pay to have those problems fixed? When was the last time there was a strike to rally the people to raise taxes so the government could fund hospitals or schools? Combining the vote of the whole world to make laws would boil down to who has the largest population to determine who gets what they want. This would benefit a particular group while possibly hindering the rest of the people. This actually ties into the second problem I would like to address, the division of who gets to vote on specific issues. Stanford should not get a vote on our student government and I should not be able to vote on how laws governing some foreign country I have no affiliation to. Everyone should have a say in a government designed to benefit all of mankind, but it would be extremely difficult to determine a law that would apply to everyone everywhere. It is hard to picture this future working.
This started as a comment but I got a little carried away. I do like the concept of an expanded democracy, but I am a weary on how this government will establish. The idea of a collected intelligence that is based on democracy, theology and information provides an in depth look at the future of global interactions and the impacts they will have on everyday people. This will hopefully be the biases for a new and more efficient interaction between people and government and will allow for a united front for the human race.
Kevin Campbell
Funny Rhetoric picture; "Argumentative Hierarchy"
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
I found this picture on a science blog once, and thought it was amusingly related to this course. (This isn't my blog post though, it can be found further down)
Air and Schizophrenia/Multiple Personality Disorder
One of the passages in the book which struck me as very climactic and which provided good examples of Airs' variety of strange effects and "features" was the passage between pages 192 and 196, in which Mae battles her body's possession by Old Mrs. Tung. We spoke shortly about this passage in class, but I would like to provide a more elaborate comparison. While speaking to an intelligent desk providing a lesson about the "U.N. format" and politics around Air, Mae is suddenly "possessed" by the soul of Old Mrs. Tung. During a battle of minds, where Mae desperately tries to regain control over her body, Old Mrs. Tung and Mae exhange dialogue using the only media available - Mae's voice and body.
The effect created, namely, that two voices are spoken through only Mae, instantly reminded me of schizophrenia and/or multiple personality disorder. People with these mental diseases, especially schizophrenia, have been observed to "demonstrate [...] disorganized and unusual thinking and speech." (Wikipedia) To draw an analogy, Air emulates the effects (such as "word salad") of these conditions through the sci-fi qualities of Air. To me, this helps to provide a solid reference frame in reality, as to comprehend the extent of Mae's and Old Mrs. Tung's situation. This "tool" of metaphors is very often employed by science fiction stories, and I think Geoff Ryman creates an interesting new use of the tool . A lot of sci-fi terms we take for granted today do actually have analogy-driven roots - such as "shield," "ship" and "(star)gate."
Without previous references to word salads uttered by schizophreniacs and from other sources, I would have had lots of trouble making sense of this passage. The idea here is that the concept that two souls or minds may exist in one single body has already been introduced to me. Without such an introduction, this passage in particular would be difficult to comprehend. For example, I would have considered the sentence fragment "Someone answered Mae aloud" (pg. 192) very confusing or some kind of play of words (which, it in some sense is, but it is a plot device rather than a linguistic method.)
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
About the craziness
I had a thought toward the end of class about the style of the book and the strange things Ryman included in the book. I see the book as broken up into three parts so far. In the first part, Ryman introduced Air which was strange but, I think, a reasonable thing for this type of book. In the second part, things go nuts with Mae's stomach baby and a talking dog. The third part that we read for today was like the beginning with nothing completely unfathomable happening.
Part of the change has to do with setting. The first and third parts take place in Mae's village and the second part mainly takes place in a different town and in the lab. Regardless of how realistic everything is, I think the changes are meant to suggest something about how people in different positions vary in their use of the technologies that become available to them. Mae and some of the villagers are using Air for business and to preserve the history of the Eloi. The government and Mr. Tunch's goals are much more questionable and bizarre.
-Rolando
Part of the change has to do with setting. The first and third parts take place in Mae's village and the second part mainly takes place in a different town and in the lab. Regardless of how realistic everything is, I think the changes are meant to suggest something about how people in different positions vary in their use of the technologies that become available to them. Mae and some of the villagers are using Air for business and to preserve the history of the Eloi. The government and Mr. Tunch's goals are much more questionable and bizarre.
-Rolando
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Just to Clarify...
In response to questions raised regarding my view on the whole patriarchy thing, I just want to clarify that what I wrote in the blog entry was purely an observation about the similarity between King Lear, A Thousand Acres, and Air. I had no intention whatsoever to start a grand debate about whether it would be good or not good to go back to a complete patriarchal society.
Best,
Huiling P.
Best,
Huiling P.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Shakespeare, Smiley, Air Style
I was never a fan of science fictions. All the mad talks about aliens, robot conspiracies, fancy technological inventions, humanities being reduced to a lesser state and so on only gave me the impression that the author is over paranoid if not nuts. But Ryman’s Air was a bit different. To be honest, when my exhausted self attempted to do the assigned reading at eleven o'clock at night, the technical details of the air system naturally blurred and slipped away as soon as the words finished passing through my brain. For the most part, the twisted relationships between the heroine, Mae, and her fellow villagers kept me reading. Yet, even just casually skimming the text, I could not help but notice a striking similarity between the storyline, and after further pondering, even the theme, in Geoff Ryman's Air and that of Jane Smiley's adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear, A Thousand Acres.
First of all, both stories have similar settings. Air took place in a rural village bordering the Middle East and the village’s primary source of living comes from farming; A Thousand Acres, similarly, took place in a remote farming town. Mae and Ginny are both farm wives and obviously non-traditional ones too. Mae and Ginny were never happy with the institutions in which they lived and the system around which everything works. But their lack of exposures to new ideas and things kept them safely boxed in the accepted social norm. However, as drastic changes get brought about, and things get set off at the chaotic end, Mae and Ginny gains freedom to pursue what their heart truly desires. Under the veneer protection of change, Mae and Ginny have affairs outside of their marriage and expand their participation in “men’s business.” But they both neglected a very important thing: the chaos brought about by the change is a chain reaction, it does not stop at any point. The discovery of Mae’s affair with Mr. Ken and Mr. Shen’s constant opposition against her school to teach Air were examples of never-ending chaos.
Now, recall the source of crisis in King Lear, the King’s family, system, and everything in the kingdom falls apart when he divides his land among his daughters, which equates introducing female dominance into a patriarchic world. Air seems to be on the same track too. As Air is introduced to the folks in Kizulda, people change and bad things start happening. Friends become enemies and some individuals (Mrs. Ken) even go as far as committing suicide in resisting the change. And perhaps, as is implied in both King Lear and A Thousand Acres, changes are not good. So is Ryman trying to deliver a message that extreme technological development will in the end doom us all? That, may just be the question we readers shall ponder as we continue our reading for this book.
Huiling Pan
Oct. 2, 2009
First of all, both stories have similar settings. Air took place in a rural village bordering the Middle East and the village’s primary source of living comes from farming; A Thousand Acres, similarly, took place in a remote farming town. Mae and Ginny are both farm wives and obviously non-traditional ones too. Mae and Ginny were never happy with the institutions in which they lived and the system around which everything works. But their lack of exposures to new ideas and things kept them safely boxed in the accepted social norm. However, as drastic changes get brought about, and things get set off at the chaotic end, Mae and Ginny gains freedom to pursue what their heart truly desires. Under the veneer protection of change, Mae and Ginny have affairs outside of their marriage and expand their participation in “men’s business.” But they both neglected a very important thing: the chaos brought about by the change is a chain reaction, it does not stop at any point. The discovery of Mae’s affair with Mr. Ken and Mr. Shen’s constant opposition against her school to teach Air were examples of never-ending chaos.
Now, recall the source of crisis in King Lear, the King’s family, system, and everything in the kingdom falls apart when he divides his land among his daughters, which equates introducing female dominance into a patriarchic world. Air seems to be on the same track too. As Air is introduced to the folks in Kizulda, people change and bad things start happening. Friends become enemies and some individuals (Mrs. Ken) even go as far as committing suicide in resisting the change. And perhaps, as is implied in both King Lear and A Thousand Acres, changes are not good. So is Ryman trying to deliver a message that extreme technological development will in the end doom us all? That, may just be the question we readers shall ponder as we continue our reading for this book.
Huiling Pan
Oct. 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)