Pursuing Intelligence: The Cost of Civilization

Transhumanism is the notion that through technology, humans can be artificially enhanced. The ultimate goal for many transhumanists is to merge humankind with technology to create the optimal human, one that does not age, fall ill, or contain any human qualities at all.

(http://kennywastevseverything.blogspot.com/2012/07/intrafamilial-dissonance-in-don.html)

In Don DeLillo’s White Noise, the protagonist, Jack Gladney, obsesses over death and is compelled to commit murder to obtain a drug called Dylar, a pill believed to alleviate the fear of death. In his normal routine life, Jack hardly displays any emotion or reaction. However, when confronted with death, he is struck with fear and awakens from his dream-state of indifference and placid consumerism.

How does White Noise relate to transhumanism? Both Jack and transhumanists strive for a miracle pill, a scientifically- and technologically-advanced treatment for the fear of human deficiencies. Francis Fukyama writes in “Transhumanism” that “[transhumanists] want nothing less than to liberate the human race from its biological constraints” (Fukuyama).

However, how can humans liberate themselves from their own biological constraints? Technology and information has to be produced by a human hand, and perfection does not exist in the human. If Singularity is to become the “sixth epoch in the evolution of patterns of information,” it is not too far removed from the human brain, which is the third epoch (Kurzweil). Technology that is manmade can never reach perfection because of the imperfect nature of the human hand.

Bill Joy writes, “The systems involved are complex, involving interaction among and feedback between many parts. Any changes to such a system will cascade in ways that are difficult to predict; this is especially true when human actions are involved” (Joy). And the “systems” that he is referring to are antibiotics and DDT, hardly the makings of a technological singularity. When and if technology does advance to artificially-intelligent, nanotech robots designed to alter our DNA, what kind of glitches will these man-made technologies have, and at what proportions will they affect us?

Perhaps this is the cost of civilization that Friedrich Nietzsche proposes. He writes in the context of Oedipus from “Oedipus the King,” but his theory is still applicable to all information and knowledge systems. he writes, “Indeed, the myth seems to wish to whisper to us that wisdom, and particularly Dionysian wisdom, is an unnatural abomination; that he who by means of his knowledge plunges nature into the abyss of destruction must also suffer the dissolution of nature in his own person” (Nietzsche). Nietzsche argues that because the means in which to gain wisdom is unnatural, he who obtains wisdom is unnatural, and in result, the wisdom-bearer will suffer.

(http://www.kurzweilai.net/six-epochs-of-life-mural-by-nick-mayer-inspired-by-ray-kurzweil)

Frighteningly, Ray Kurzweil’s theory, the “evolution of patterns of information,” describes a universe that operates on intelligence (Kurzweil). “Looking ahead several decades, the Singularity will begin with the fifth epoch. It will result from the merger of the vast knowledge embedded in our brains with the vastly greater capacity, speed, and knowledge-sharing ability of our technology” (Kurzweil). By the sixth epoch, “the universe will be transformed into exquisitely sublime forms of intelligence” (Kurzweil). Combine Kurzweil’s theory with Nietzsche’s theory on the cost of civilization and we are presented with a doomed world in which we either cease to exist or exist in a perpetually unnatural state which will lead to our destruction.

What that destruction will be is unclear. It will forever be unclear. Joy writes that “we have yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21^st-century technologies—robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology—pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before” (Joy). However, it is clear that transhumanists are putting our human essence at stake. The very fact that Kurzweil suggest that a “precise digital mechanism” is similar to DNA is evident that humans in the physical form will cease to exist down the transhumanist path. Still, the lack of a physical body is not the extinction of the human race. “Underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all posses a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin color, beauty, and even intelligence” (Fukuyama). Transhumanism puts our “human essence” at stake, and that is the greatest cost to civilization that will paid.

Works Cited

Fukuyama, Francis. “Transhumanism.” Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

Joy, Bill. “Why the future doesn’t need us.” Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

Kurzweil, Ray. “The Six Epochs.” Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy. Rpt. in “Sophocles, Oedipus the King—Some Interpretations. By Martin Reichert. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

The Metamorphosis of Jihad and McWorld

Over half a century ago, Marxist philosophers from the Frankfurt School, Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, wrote that the culture industry was negatively impacting our society. Not only does the industry eliminate consumers’ choices, but people passively consume mass-produced culture without critically questioning society. Their theory remains relevant today, especially when examining globalization. Globalization is not only the exchange of ideas and art but the penetration of markets. It is commonly believed that brands enter foreign markets because of foreign demand, but it seems to be the opposite. Brands create a foreign demand by entering foreign markets.

Benjamin R. Barber, in his book, Jihad vs. McWorld, claims that our world democracy is threatened by the clash and dialectic between Jihad and McWorld. He says, “Can it be that what Jihad and McWorld have in common is anarchy: the absence of common will and that conscious and collective human control under the guidance of law we call democracy?” (48). Jihad-McWorld dialectic is based upon the idea that each cannot survive without the other, and they exist by attacking and reinforcing each other (49).

In an article published on YaleGlobal Online, “Global Brands Contend With Appreciation for the Local,” Bryant Simon contends that fast-food brands such as McDonalds and Starbucks have contributed to the consumer resistance towards global brands and the revival of local establishments. Indications from our society would point to the consumers as being the Jihadists that Barber described and that their opposition is the conglomerates that Adorno and Horkheimer described.  However, do these two groups fit their roles exactly as these critical theorists described?

Is every consumer a Jihadist? In history, there have been groups that have made it a point to resist popular culture. The Amish are a present-day example of people who resist modernization. In a way, American colonists can be considered jihadist; although it was not their sole mission to do so, they resisted British mercantilism through successful boycotts and campaigns. A recent Jihadist group could easily be today’s ever-elusive hipsters. However, in being anti-mainstream, they have become mainstream. This point supports Adorno and Horkheimer’s theory, in that every sub-culture created becomes mainstream simply by being offered by the market. A niche market can become a global market.

What about the individuals who work in the culture industry? They are part of the McWorldian conglomerates, yet consume themselves. Can one individual belong to both McWorld and Jihad? Yes, it’s true that not one individual is responsible for controlling McWorld, or any aspect of a conglomerate. However, if someone is making executive decisions about a company’s business strategy, are they not becoming one of the higher officers in the army of McWorld? And at the same time, are they not people with material goods?

How does the duality of these individuals affect the dialectic? The Jihadists working for McWorld clearly reinforce McWorld. As consumers, they are familiar with what people need in their daily lives, what people are attracted to, and what will easily sell. By being introspective, they can contribute to the business strategy of McWorld and contribute to McWorld.

How the McWorldian job reinforces the Jihad-self remains less clear. Perhaps the job does not reinforce the Jihad-self, but rather, destroys it as Adorno and Horkheimer suggest. It certainly takes away their consumer-choice for the product that their McWorldian company produces.

But does it reinforce their conviction as a consumer for other products? Perhaps. Participants in local-farming and the demand for farm-to-table eateries have risen in the past decade. However, even the movement has a name, the sustainable growth movement, and is a popular new approach to food-consumption. By labeling it and campaigning for it, the movement has become an enterprise of McWorld.

Still, aspects of the sustainable growth movement remain Jihad. The movement that becomes popular through McDonalidization advocates for a Jihadist-attitude towards factory farming.

In class, we discussed how McWorld can be Jihad, and vice-versa. Therefore, I am convinced that everything and everyone has a McWorldian mechanism and a Jihadist perspective on choice. Just how Jihad and McWorld clash and threaten democracy, consumers and conglomerates fight for control of the markets and ultimately, destroy choice.

Works Cited

Barber, Benjamin. “Jihad vs. McWorld.” The Atlantic: n. pag. Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By

Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

Resisting Convergence

Online education may be the future of America’s youth. If implemented effectively, online education could save the domestic economy, training workers for specialized jobs through a low-cost delivery system.

However, for those of us who were brought up in a traditional education system, the benefits of online education are not so apparent. Yes, the efficiency and simplicity of the system will be useful for vocational training, but it remains unclear how the course and the delivery system used affect our preexisting pedagogies. We also wonder what new pedagogies will develop because of the introduction of E-learning and Web 2.0 applications.

Most students in college will agree that part of their education has moved online. NYU Classes and Blackboard are good examples of how parts of the classroom have migrated to the Internet. Teachers often request that individual reflections to readers be posted on “Forums” or “Discussion Pages”, readings can be posted in a “Resources” folder, and students can chat with each other through a site-hosted “Group Chat.” These applications become resources for students, not the whole of their education. However, if these applications were not forced upon the students through assignments, would they use them?

How many students use class-sponsored Group Chats? How many students have Blackboard downloaded as an app on their mobile phone? How many students download their readings to their portable devices, or even read required readings on a screen?

Let us explore a classroom that is void of technology. Some teachers request that students do not bring laptops to class, even though there are a plethora of sites and programs that make laptops a learning tool. Why do teachers resist technology in class?

In my first post, I explored human ambiguity towards technology. When addressing E-learning, perhaps humans have an unconscious fear of technological convergence. Our technology may have converged to make our laptops a learning tool, but our society hasn’t caught up to the idea that one machine can have multiple, often contradictory, purposes.

Our Internet habits alone demonstrate that we tend to appropriate a single task to each item. Why do we feel the need to have an E-mail, Facebook, and Twitter? One could argue that E-mail is for sending electronic letters, Facebook is for socializing with friends online, and Twitter is for sharing your second-to-second events. However, couldn’t any one of those sites serve all three purposes?

How about the use of Web 2.0 applications in class? When Professor Sarita Yardi and Professor Eva Kassens-Noor introduced Group Chat and Twitter, respectively, they found that the applications were useful in motivating students to collaborate outside of the classroom. However, Kassens-Noor found out that Tweets can only go so deep into critical thought, and Yardi found that sometimes, students’ chats digressed from anything class-related. Twitter and Group Chat have been ingrained in our minds as a social tool. When these applications substitute face-to-face discussion, the substance of discussion will become shallower, because these applications are used in our lives differently. Can we learn to use them as learning tools, or have we placed a fixed role on Twitter, Group Chat, and the like?

“Worship at the Altar of Convergence: A New Paradigm for Understanding Media Change” explains the “Black Box Fallacy,” and how it is believed that sometime in the future, every technological tool will be accessible through one “black box” (Jenkins, 14). However, we have the ability to access television, Internet, land-line calling, and gaming through one box, right now, if someone were to provide it. Game consoles like the Wii already connect to the Internet and play DVDs, and SmartTVs do the same tasks with voice activation. The technology that is already being produced is often one or two applications short of being the “black box.” So, why aren’t these black boxes mass-produced?

Perhaps the consumer is resisting convergence. We love the idea of putting separate technologies together into one box: take the Smart Phone. It’s our calendar, alarm clock, web browser, camera, etc. However, most people don’t even use their Smart Phone beyond the calling and web-browsing capabilities.

Perhaps the “black box” has not been mass-produced because there is a small economic demand for it. We already possess all of these separate technology pieces. Why would we go out and buy an expensive “black box” that does everything that we can already do? And what happens when each new version of the “black box” is developed. Will the public keep updating their system?

Perhaps it’s not even a choice for the consumer. Perhaps there is no demand for a “black box” because people do not realize that it is feasible. If a prototype is not revealed in tech conferences, how would the public know that it was possible? The absence of a prototype may be a deliberate move on behalf of tech companies and corporations. They see that there are many questions to answer about the availability and economic value of creating a “black box.” Why create the demand when you can’t promise the supply?

The convergence of our technology seems to have hit a roadblock, and it hit years ago. Each year, a new iPhone comes out, sells out, and the whole world is carrying it. However, we ask ourselves every year, what’s different? Every year, the iPhone disappoints, and Apple has resorted to touting its inner capabilities—faster processor, retina display, etc. Yet, every year people buy-in to the pseudo-innovation. And every year, developers fail to add a new application to our pre-existing technologies. It is not impossible to mix more applications into one technology. The consumer is the resisting force, in some ways. We have assigned rigid roles to our technologies. However, we should consider if the consumer is resisting because of an educated choice or because we don’t even know that we have a choice.

Works Cited

Jenkins, Henry. “Worship at the Altar of Convergence: A New Paradigm for Understanding Media 

Change.” Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

Is Society Overlooking the Bad Aspects of Gaming?

In order to determine if video games are beneficial or detrimental to children is next to impossible because of the multitude of variables. Games are divided into different sub-categories (sports, crime, educational, etc.),  different consoles (Wii, Xbox, smartphones, etc.), and different target audiences. Because of the variety of video games available, gaming has become a ubiquitous form of entertainment in our present-day culture. Our modern culture, as a whole, is becoming a gaming societies. However, the studies that have been conducted on the effects of gaming on people have been varied and have produced different, sometimes contradictory results.

“Video Game Playing and Academic Performance in College Students” by researchers at Southwestern Oklahoma State University and Oklahoma State University concludes that increased gaming and lower GPA scores are positively correlated,—more in males than in females—and the study shows less racial bias and a large group (671 participants) but regional bias (all participants attended college in the Midwestern United States). However, individuals, such as Dr. Christopher J. Ferguson, argue that researchers are over exaggerating the negative effects of video games, and he is not alone. Many researchers have found that video games can have positive effects on children’s education.

The varying and contradictory results of these experiments have confused the public. Are video games good or bad? And if video games are bad, why are they still an acceptable form of entertainment?

As a girl, I only have one perspective on video games. I asked myself, “Why do I play video games?” Rather, the question should be, “Why don’t I play video games?” This afternoon, in the name of “research,” I played Temple Run. The pace of the game and the little-effort interactive quality dissolved my initial reservations. However, after a couple rounds, I abruptly stopped playing. Why? I felt that I was becoming too absorbed into the game. Turning off the game was an instinctive reaction to the feeling of losing my footing in reality.

(http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/temple-run/id420009108?mt=8)

However, I can see the appeal and the possible “benefits” of the game. I was thinking faster, reacting faster, and it was improving my hand-eye coordination. (After playing for only five minutes.)

Still, my reaction to the game is puzzling. Is this a common reaction others have? Is it a phenomenon that only females experience, or do men react the same?

When I asked in my Writing I class why guys play games, one of the guys in my class answered, “It’s a pride thing.” Studies have shown that male adolescents who play video games regularly are more violent. Other studies claim that video games have positive effects on male adolescents, that games help develop problem-solving skills and improve visual reaction times.

Perhaps we are overlooking the negative effects. Our society places importance on thinking positively. We encourage ourselves and others to have a bright outlook on life, and we call those who look for the negative aspects of life cynics. There’s no question that games have a negative effect on users. Children could be doing something more educational, but because one study proved that games do help develop problem-solving skills and help kids be creative, people overlook the negative impacts.

“APlea for Caution: Violent Video Games, the Supreme Court, and the Role of Science” explores how the Comics Code Authority standards came to fruition. Certain members of the public claimed that comics were fostering violence and a lack of morality. Because of that, the US Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency adopted a code in 1954, which regulated the content in comic books and blurred the lines of acceptable free speech (Hall).

If comic books were censored because of its violent content, why aren’t present-day video games censored? Aren’t they fostering violence and a lack of morality? Even certain books are banned from public libraries because parents and community leaders have contested that the content is too controversial or inappropriate.

The video gaming industry has been fighting for the seal of approval for their games since the day it went on the market. The Wii console was developed because of the complaint that gaming was a sedentary activity. The Wii allows users to be interactive in a physical way.

Big Brain Academy and other purely education games were developed for other consoles. These games are sold right next to Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto, and because they are sold side-by-side, video games have become acceptable.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brain_Academy)

While I am not advocating the banning of video games, I am one of the many who are confused by the experts. Are there more pros than cons to video gaming, or vice versa? And if video gaming is bad, are we, as a society, willing to overlook the bad because of one good effect?

Works Cited

Day, Terri and Richard C.W. Hall and Ryan C.W. Hall. “A Plea for Caution: Violent Video Games, the Supreme Court, and the Role of Science.” Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

The Unconscious, Unnecessary Fear of Changing Technology

Humans are fearful and ambivalent about technology. In the 19^th century, a time before the age of computers and artificial intelligence, Mary Shelly wrote about the destructiveness of a man-made monster in Frankenstein. In Mary Shelly’s novel, the scientist responsible for making Frankenstein made him because he wanted to bring his dead mother back to life. Technology, in turn, has progressed to become ubiquitous in our lives. Our phones have become our personal assistants, our computers our teachers and scribes, and our TV has become our entertainers. Machines perform the tasks that we would have spent hours on or that we would have paid someone else to perform for us. Answering why humans are fearful about technology leads us to an existentialist question. Why is there a need for humans on the Earth if machines can replace us?  

The articles from Chapter 1 of Academic Writing, Real World Topics, all contain a certain tone of technophobia. Nicholas Carr’s essay explores how Web surfing has detrimental effects to our reading and focusing ability. In Henry Jenkins’ piece, he writes that “[e]veryone will survive [technological convergence] if everyone works together” (Jenkins). He suggests that the adaptation of technology is something we need to “survive.” Gary Small and Gigi Vorgan show evidence that the Internet is changing how our brain works. As the Internet is becoming more and more efficient, humans tend to question their own minds more. Which leads to the same question: Why is there a need for humans if machines can replace us? It is because of this question that humans are ambivalent towards technology. As technology advances, people seem more replaceable and irrelevant. We are all unconsciously becoming technophobes.

The definition of a phobia is: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation (Merriam-Webster). A phobia is also an anxiety disorder, a mental illness. So, while the need to ponder the existentialist question (mentioned above) is necessary and important, the fear of technology is not. Technology will always advance to the make our lives a little simpler. That does not mean that technology is replacing humans.

Carr researched Google in his article and writes that the company “seeks to develop ‘the perfect search engine’” that “’understands exactly what you mean and gives you back exactly what you want’” (Carr). Search engines eliminated the need for hours in the library. Now, what Google is trying to do is to eliminate the need for specificity in the wording humans use to search. The former is a technological advancement that humans can easily be in favor for. The hours that could have been spent in a library are now spent developing ideas and publishing thoughts. However, the fact that the search engine is now smarter than the searcher eliminates the need for the human researcher.  But what skill is being replaced? The thinking and deducing is still part of what the researcher does. Google will not offer a little section at the bottom of each article, explaining its reactions toward the text. The skill being lost is the ability to be specific in a search. This skill is useful, but not necessary. Google is working towards artificial intelligence, but it is not replacing the cognitive role of the researcher.

People will always be at the center of any technological revolution because the very idea of convergence centers around consumers’ demands. Jenkins says that “[c]onsumption has become a collective process” (Jenkins, 4). He also writes that “[c]orporations—and even individuals within corporate media—still exert greater power than any individual consumer or even the aggregate of consumers” (Jenkins). This statement is misleading. Yes, corporations make decisions on the convergence of technology. They make decisions on how to present the public with information through the media, Internet, etc., but the consumer is always in control. A successful corporation makes decisions based on consumers’ wants and needs, and it is in their economic interest to do so. The study of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) exists solely to examine the public’s reaction towards new and existing technology. In class, we realized that Apple, as well as other companies, are aware of the “ambivalent relationship between…users and their device,” and they are working to repackage their products to reiterate that humans control the technology (Blythe).

In Carr’s essay, he mentions the claims of Joseph Weizenbaum who observed that the “use of timekeeping instruments” changed our biological functions (Carr). Our brain now tells us when to eat according to what time of the day it, rather than the message our stomach send to our brains (Carr). It is true, the invention of timekeeping instruments has led humans to keep daily schedules. Newer technology also changes our daily habits. For example, the iPad has replaced my nightly routine of reading for pleasure. However, the change in habits is not necessarily for the worst, and it remains to be proven that lifestyle changes lead to significant biological changes. Carr, Small, and Vorgan use the plasticity of the brain as part of their arguments. Therefore, if “digital natives” suddenly decided to quit technology, their brains would adapt to the lack of technology.

While there are many other elements of technology that factor in people’s fear of technology, the few factors mentioned are often hyped up by the media. Technology will adapt, but it will adapt to the needs of humans. It will replace human tasks, but it has not yet replaced human thought. Just as it is natural for humans to philosophize and contemplate over existentialist questions, it is in human nature to overdramatize, especially fears.

Works Cited

Blythe, Mark and Paul Cairns. “Critical Methods and UserGenerated Content: The iPhone on YouTube.” Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid.” The Atlantic: n. pag. Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

Jenkins, Henry. “Worship at the Altar of Convergence: A NewParadigm for Understanding Media Change.” Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

Merriam-Webster. “Phobia.” Merriam-Webster. N.p. n.d. Web 16 Sept. 2012. <http://www.merrriamwebster.com/dictionary/phobia>

Small, Gary and Gigi Vorgan. “Meet your iBrain: How the Technologies that have become Part of our Daily Lives are Changing the Way we Think.” Rpt. in Academic Writing, Real World Topics. By Michael Rectenwald and Lisa Carl. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. PDF file.

image: http://www.karlonia.com/2007/06/05/causes-of-technophobia-why-some-people-refuse-to-learn-about-computers/