Reading Questions for Week of 2/6/05
Sorry this is a day late (and perhaps a dollar short...). I had a few things come up yesterday that kept me from posting.
Anyway, here is your new set of questions for the week. We'll discuss some in class, but I do want folks to chime in a bit more. Even if things aren't making sense, ask or say something....
1. Pacey's article in general: What are, in your opinion, the cultural aspects of technology related to writing for electronic communities? (Consider, if you need to, the diagram on p. 98).
2. Winner's article: Winner discusses on p. 104 the difference between "making" and "using." This is a distinction he carries throughout the article. Think about writing on computers -- how do we "make" writing versus how do we "use" writing in electronic environments?
3. Borgmann talks about Heidegger's idea of "dwelling." Heidegger argues elsewhere that we have to "dwell" in language before being able to use it. What does it mean to "dwell in language" and how does one "dwell in language" on a computer?
4. Haraway and Latour present the idea that there are humans and nonhumans in this new world of electronic communities. We perhaps are reaching the point that larger numbers of humans are blending with nonhuman elements. From your own experience, where do you see these intersections happening between the human and nonhuman, and based on Latour's diagram on p.189, where do you think society is at this point in the state of social/nonhuman relations?
5. David Harvey argues starting on p. 337 that we can see ourselves as architects of our worlds. Thinking of how people generate new personas, new identities, and new ways of thinking and being in online environments, read over Harvey's "universal rights" (pp.348-351) and discuss how online life might change these rights.
Anyway, here is your new set of questions for the week. We'll discuss some in class, but I do want folks to chime in a bit more. Even if things aren't making sense, ask or say something....
1. Pacey's article in general: What are, in your opinion, the cultural aspects of technology related to writing for electronic communities? (Consider, if you need to, the diagram on p. 98).
2. Winner's article: Winner discusses on p. 104 the difference between "making" and "using." This is a distinction he carries throughout the article. Think about writing on computers -- how do we "make" writing versus how do we "use" writing in electronic environments?
3. Borgmann talks about Heidegger's idea of "dwelling." Heidegger argues elsewhere that we have to "dwell" in language before being able to use it. What does it mean to "dwell in language" and how does one "dwell in language" on a computer?
4. Haraway and Latour present the idea that there are humans and nonhumans in this new world of electronic communities. We perhaps are reaching the point that larger numbers of humans are blending with nonhuman elements. From your own experience, where do you see these intersections happening between the human and nonhuman, and based on Latour's diagram on p.189, where do you think society is at this point in the state of social/nonhuman relations?
5. David Harvey argues starting on p. 337 that we can see ourselves as architects of our worlds. Thinking of how people generate new personas, new identities, and new ways of thinking and being in online environments, read over Harvey's "universal rights" (pp.348-351) and discuss how online life might change these rights.
posted by Diane Penrod at 2/06/2006
15 Comments:
1. I felt that the example mentioned in class about the uproar of electronic death notices on campus was a great illustration of how our culture affects the use of technology. The same words could be written in a letter as in an email, yet we’ve become so accustomed to the informality of email, that we can actually translate the same words differently.
2. I’m not sure I understand the concept fully. Winner’s essay describes “making” as the developing and maintaining of technology and that all others are “users,” meaning those who use the technology but in limited ways and not fully understanding it. At first I thought that the software developers were the “makers” and those using the software to write, the “users.” However, I felt that even though I’m not making or fully capable of understanding the computer programs, I’m still structuring and making sense out of the words. Can someone be a “maker” and a “user” at the same time concerning the same technology?
3. The definition of “dwell” is to reside. It seems that our language is a reflection of what we live. We write about things we know and do in our lives. The computer has become a huge part of our society’s everyday life. Millions use the computer to communicate and when we go to places like Myspace we can easily see that a new form of language has developed for computer users. We’ve created abbreviations for words and phrases that I’ve heard used in verbal language as well.
4. In class it was mentioned how today there are companies with customer support that is completely computerized, yet is programmed to make you feel that you are interacting with a person typing responses on a computer. I’ve been fooled by these programs into thinking that I was speaking to a person. The diagram on page 189 states that “the further we go, the less pure are the definitions of humans and nonhumans.” I was fooled in part because the computer responses were so humanlike and sincere. Technology is being programmed more and more with human characteristics and the more this happens, the more the definitions of human vs. non-human will blend.
5. A lot of Harvey’s rights correspond with our constitutional rights. Last week I saw a news piece on NBC10 that came to mind with this question. A twenty-four year old writer for the Dover Post was fired last week from his job for racially insensitive comments he made on his personal blog, from his personal computer. The writer contacted the American Civil Liberties Union asking them to represent him in a case against the Dover Post for violating his first amendment right, which is similar to Harvey’s right to difference. The American Civil Liberties Union would not take his case because the state of Delaware has a law that states that employers have a right to fire any employee at will.
As mentioned in class, the government wants to confiscate Googles’ records to find out what people are searching for. This changes the right to being different and exploring “the differences in realms of culture.” If I know at anytime my searches are being monitored I would definitely think twice of searching certain topics.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
1. I may be off in making this connection, but after reading, reviewing, and reflecting on Pacey’s article, the cultural aspects of technology in relation to writing in electronic communities surround a number of areas, including ethics, values, and creativity, but are heavily grounded in awareness. Our culture has become a vulture in this sense. The more aware we become of a specific type of technology utilized in the writing realm, the more we want. We began to fean it and more importantly expect it. Take the evolution of computers. Start at the beginning, in the 80’s. Compare the capabilities or even simply compare the size of computers from then, to now. We now have portable lab tops, wireless Internet. We can take our tiny lab top, sit in a coffee shop, and surf the web. Because we can do this, we expect more. And because of this expectation, we will get it. 10 years from now, what will computers be like? Most likely we will have something better, that replaces computers, that can do 15 times more and fit in the palm of our hand.
2. Although my understanding on this is blurry, I got that by the terms used by Winner, in relation to writing on computers, when we say we “make” writing we refer to those engineers and inventors of computers, writing programs, and other devices that aide writers in developing written pieces. When we say we “use” writing in electronic environments we refer to the use of these resources-the computer, the programs, etc. the writer uses to construct a piece. Is this distinction between the two confused or misinterpreted?
3. When we dwell in language we are simply immersing ourselves in it. In order to understand and know language one needs to dwell in it, live in it, essentially surround oneself in it to truly understand its meaning. The computer enables us to dwell in language in a new way. A whole new language has emerged through the technology of computers-a more causal language and style of writing has been developed. Certain lingoes and acronyms are accredited to certain meanings. Take for example, a conversation on AIM. Someone who has not “dwelled” in the language would not understand, “LOL,” “a/s/l,” “omg” or “w/b.” In fact, one might take offense to this or be heavily confused because we do not talk this way..we only type this way.
4. The more technology becomes embedded in our daily lives, the more the notions of the “human” and “nonhuman” will be blurred. Human jobs are being replaced by computers on a daily basis. Sometimes this transformation is more of a hassle then its worth. I despise calling the movie theater to find what time a show is playing because I have to deal with a computer operator who cannot understand what I’m saying because I speak too fast or the phone breaks up, etc. It drives me nuts! I mean five years ago, I could call a movie theater and ask a REAL person what time a movie is playing without a hassle..now we do not have human contact. In fact, staying on the same topic, one can buy movie tickets offline and essentially go to a movie theater, pick up the tickets through a machine, and not have to converse much with other humans. Another replacement are “technological support emails” that are targeted to aide consumers who have problems with something purchased. When you have a question or need assistance you have two options- dealing with the computer operator using a telephone or receiving an instant, generic response via email from the computer. It’s coming to the point where it’s a hassle to get help. I mean, at this point, is it so far off to say that calling a hospital would have a similar situation?
1. Aside from a loose collection of "ethical codes" that have emerged through consensus, cultural aspects of technology on the surface seem concealed within the context of writing for elec. communities. Pacey mentions "tunnel vision" as part of background values -- this precisely relates to the (collective) embedded attitudes toward technology and writing online. With the zealous "belief in progress," we can observe the
continual shift by the masses toward new forms/techniques simply for their novelty, - rather than their improved utility - which results in abandoning old forms/methods to varying extents
(sometimes wholesale, as with MUDs/MOOs and eventually chat rooms). Retroactively the outdated methods are perceived as less efficient/useful/etc, though usually without conscious deliberation and debate.
Along with novelty, simplicity (ease of use) is a key factor in adoption, which results in trends toward forms/methods that require only adequate competence to use (rather than mastery or even adept understanding). Consequently, I perceive an overall mediocre mass use of online writing technologies; these circumstances translate to innovations emerging rarely and in isolation through the
hypotheses of individuals instead of widespread experimentation by the collective.
2. Although a seemingly arbitrary distinction, I would define "making" writing online as composing (either simultaneous or diachronic conceiving and typing) and publishing (including formatting, editing, and transmitting electronically in whatever network capacity) text. Traditionally, we would consider this our "using" writing to communicate.
Though we certainly communicate through text, we currently use writing both to create community (in Marx's and Wittgenstein's respective notions of producing our world/environment/conditions) and as a criterion/property for describing and discussing the social interactions of the online network (or, i.e. "The Internet," a label of which I'm not fond). A
clearer example: Winner notes how both Marx and Wittgenstein observe that "social activity is an ongoing process of world making" (111) -- recalling Marx's view of production-reproduction, we use writing to define the emerging online conditions/circumstances
(I resist saying "world" for many reasons).
3. I don't quite understand "dwelling in language"
(especially the "in" part) simplified to this question,
but I have some idea via Borgmann. He explains "focal things" as revealing (in the sense of de-naturalizing) devices' roles in our lives conspicuously, and he seems to discuss Heiddeger's "bridge" as a "focal thing" for Borgmann's purposes (albeit not clearly). Another key aspect is how "focal things" combine humans and devices in practices.
At first I would reply that computer-mediated language
practices are inconspicuous/unexamined, in our
unconscious (i.e. not self-reflective/self-aware) use of language. (Or, to answer the question directly - we can't "dwell in language" on a computer). However, because a computer displays the language we
use to communicate (in writing), this may serve to reveal the role of both language and computers as devices (in Borgmann's sense of a "focal thing"). Though he presents more organic/traditional examples (in running and home-cooked meals), I think that the computer could still function in this way: while we are currently immersed in digital media and technology that
we do not examine, the computer mirrors our langauge-use for us to "dwell in" (?).
4. It may seem like a simple or obvious example, but in considering Haraway's proposing a non-oppositional thinking (which it is, more so than an ontology), I realize that I can't analyze my act of writing by traditional categories of "natural" and "artificial" components. What is "natural" writing? As Latour would argue, writing has always been a "sociotechnical" combination -- now, though, by composing increasingly more with (through the use of) computers, I can't write without the "artifical" component; while many writers rely on spell-checking, I need to create, perceive, and reorganize an outline of my ideas before formulating the import of an essay, for example (let alone actually writing it).
As for Latour's stages concerning our current society, I skeptically acknowledge that we can observe his 9th level - "Networks of Power" - which may actually be a stretch to claim, as we do not yet witness a "seamless web" of the sociotechnical network. I agreed with his concepts in Level 10 up until the point of Latour's granting nonhumans (in this case, yeast) "speech," "intelligence," "fore-sight, self-control, and discipline" (183). Also, I'd like to believe it, but it seems unlikely/implausible that our society would grant nonhumans legal rights in the near future (as in his eleventh level).
5. At present, we are witnessing if not the execution than at least the indication of impending threats to several of the rights that Harvey lists in online contexts: the right to "critical commentary and dispute" (#5) are already impeded on increasing scales (see my prior post about "the blog police"). Every day, spyware/adware, virii/worms, and identity-theft hacks take away (#6) "the right to a decent and healthy living environment," "free from threats and dangers and unnecessary hazards" -- interestingly, the issue of decency was used in a major effort to censor the web almost ten years ago.
As Howard Rheingold predicted in Smart Mobs, the US government is auctioning portions of the electromagnetic spectrum (which can be utilized for WiFi signals). Last time I checked, the spectrum wasn't a commodity but more so a commons (Rheingold's argument) -- the right to "collective control of common property resources" is a joke in the age of digital/global capitalism...
1. Winner suggests that the philosophy of technology has never gained much steam because technology has been divided into two categories: “making” and “using” technology. I agree with this conventional view because I have always seen myself as the user—not really having to understand how to make the piece of technology work. I use the technology for the intended purpose and move on. However, I think this is what Winner is trying to say—technology is not gaining the power and examination of its foundations because the two categories are not merging, so the user sees himself or herself as not only the maker but also the user. When I built my website, I was both the maker and user—and because of this, understood this particular piece of technology more thoroughly. I think I also understood for the first time that it is important to be both the maker and user. I wanted to make words and sentences scroll across my screen and to do this I needed to know how to code. Being able to know more about the “how things work” made my website more effective and interesting to the audience.
How do we “make” writing versus “use” writing in electronic environments? I think both the making and using of writing in electronic environments are both important to the effectiveness of the writing community. For example, I constructed the writing on my website; however, I have to keep in mind how that information will be used in order to succeed in my intended purpose as a writer for electronic communities.
2. In class we discussed the diagram on page 98 and the technical, organizational, and cultural aspects of technology. The question, however, addresses what we think are the cultural aspects of technology related to writing? I am not sure if this is correct, but in my notes I wrote down that when writing with technology, we are dealing with a high-end audience. This does address the cultural aspect because when I send e-mails to parents I have to understand I am dealing with people who are also technologically savvy and educated people—so my writing has to be clear and precise. At a team leader meeting, we also discussed that parents are going to be on target and asking questions about students’ grades because of the availability of the grades on the computer. We are dealing with a group of parents who are the users and makers of technology.
3. The idea of having to “dwell” in language before using it—especially with language on the computer makes sense. To dwell in language means to read it, immerse oneself in it, and to try to use it within that discourse community. When reading my students’ short stories, some of the writers captured conversations between characters that were writing on the IM—how different that language was! If I were writing in this community, I would definitely have to “dwell” in this language before fully understanding and writing to audiences. Also, because I am fairly new to creating and participating in blogs and wikis, I have been “dwelling” in other blogs and wikis to get a sense of how to effectively write in these electronic communities. When entering into a new electronic community or new discourse community, one must always dwell to start to understand the language and culture of that community—how else do you become part of any community without first “dwelling”?
4. This response pertains to some of the questions posted for the first week of class—Hans Jonas’s article about technology as a “species of power” and the danger of linking writing with technology. A student teacher created a profile on MySpace.com and included some revealing information about her personal life as well as linking some of her previous students to the friend list on the site. These actions as a beginning teacher are dangerous to her future. I am thinking about the final cause from Heidegger—the effect—this information will have in her trying to find a job. Furthermore, she is losing that professional status and respect with former students and possible administrators. Young students/people entering the teaching profession do not realize the power, permanence, and public danger of writing and technology!
1). The cultural aspects of technology is of particular interest to me. I feel that technology seperates cultures, as it does generations. Technology distinguishes that haves from the have nots and it is just another tool that seperates our society.
I am not a "gadget girl", nor is my husband. Yet, most of my friends are gadget obsessed. Is it because we are of hispanic descent? When I think of my parents, they do not have the Internet and just got a microwave two years ago. Then, I think about my mother-in-law who does not have a cell phone and thinks on-line banking is going to "lose" her money.
Cultures, from a ethnicity perspective, approach technology from a different position. Most non-American cultures take great pride in doing things "by hand" and/or homemade. So, I wonder if cultures will have to lose a sense of their ethnicity in order to fully accept technology.
2). I don't really have a well-thought out statement fo the making vs. using writing. I find the concept fascinating, yet I'm not sure I can eloquently create a thought surrounding this concept.
3). To dwell in language on the computer is to live it, breathe it and make it part of your existence. I find that in order to fully understand something I have to bury myself in it. I typically do not read owner's manuals when I get a new piece of technology. I find that I learn best when I work with it, play with it and use it on a regular basis. I think the same applies with language on the computer. With text messaging and IMing, the only way one is really ever going to pick it up and fully grasp it is to dwell in it and use it regularly.
4). I think we need to be cautious of the nonhuman aspects of technology. Part of me fears that we as a society will become so reliant on technology that the nonhuman will begin to dominate our existence. With cloning, GPS, microchips, etc. we are heading down a road that we may be unprepared for. This thought goes back to week one's idea of guidelines. Do guidelines exist for the interaction of humans and nonhumans in societal relations?
5). Our rights are being compromised on a daily basis. Harvey's rights are and will continue to be affected by the online world. With the emergence of new technology will we really have a decent and healthy living environment? Do we really have this now? Is it healthy to work non-stop and never take a true vacation because you are always available via cell phone or Blackberry? Aren't there already studies linking cell phone usage to increased risk of cancer? What about the right to political association? Would I be fired from my job, working for a Catholic hospital, if I hosted and widely promoted a website on abortion? Is there really integrity of the human body if small children are getting pornography popups while trying to look at the White House website (e.g., www.whitehouse.com vs. www.whitehouse.gov)? Laslty, with increased technology will we continue to see a decrease in direct laborers. Why pay a human to do it when we can get a piece of technology to do the same job?
1. I think that we all bring different aspects to the table so to speak and when trying to talk on the internet, those aspects of our cultures may not be evident, obvious or understood. I think that to communicate effectively, you need to understand those differences.
2. I was along the same wavelength as Allison with this one. I thought that Winner was saying that "making" the technology was about the codes and programs that go into the technology, whereas "using" technology refers to application and manipulation of that programming. I know very little about how I make writing because to me I just hit a bunch of keys to assemble my thoughts, but I use it to communicate the message that those symbols represent.
3. I think dwelling in language refers to your comfort with that language. To comfortably communicate in any language, online or other, you need to be understand the basics of the language and be able to use the "rules" that apply in that language.
4.I think just the fact that humans depend so much on technology to function emphasizes the nonhuman qualities growing in all of us. Particularly observing for my thesis, students give up quickly when they get frustrated doing something as a result of their lessened attention span. Or when the server goes down the night before a test is due and students don't know what to do - the thought of going to the libary and flipping through some journals never even enters their mind because their laptop usually does all of the skimming for them. I think that all of these qualities and the growing dependence on IPods and cell phones and the next new gadget brings us closer to nonhuman everyday. And until doing some of this reading, I didn't realize the profound effects that could have on society. I wonder if other people would feel the same way if they really knew what these texts are telling us.
Questions for Discussion 12/13/06
I didn't know how else to post this so I hope everyone sees it!
1) Part III opens furthering Winner's earlier idea of "making" and "using" where technology is concerned. "The crucial ethical issue with technology is not whether we can make or use something but whether we should make or use something." Do you think that line has already been crossed? Where do you think the lines needs to be drawn?
2) Jonas believes the changed nature of human action has changed the nature of politics and ethics. He asserts this based on the "new dimension of ethical relevence for which there is no precedent in the standards of traditional ehtics." Do you agree that new ethical guidelines need to take the place of traditional ethics in the age of growing and changing technology?
3) McGinn's essay seems to capsulate the idea that government can not keep up with technology and they are attempting to do so to preserve our natural resources. He thinks in the coming years Americans will experience a downfall in our quality of life. Do you think, as a nation, we would be willing to sacrifice future technology to save our resources?
4) Tribe compares internet gateways to bookstores saying that the government does not hold that bookstore liable or monitor what is sold on their shelves, therefore the internet gateway is not liable and also not monitored for what is on their bulletins. If neither is liable for content and they seem equals in this explanation, why is so much more expected of online information? Or, is more expected at all? DO you think there needs to be a more watchful eye on one or the other?
5)Tribe also goes on to discuss the First Amendment as it applies to online content. On page 266 he asserts that written viruses and other online dangers are not protected under free speech. What is your opinion on how the first amendment applies to the internet?
1) Culturally, I see there being more of a difference between generations than I do between different ethnicities when it comes to technology. I’m 24 and most of my friends use technology to a great extent. Still, I’m always surprised to see the difference in someone who is only two or three years younger than me. That age group seems to be totally immersed in technology. However, my mother is actually afraid of computers and all those hackers that are out to “get her.” There’s such a vast difference between people just a few years apart. As a result, you don’t see the older generation represented in electronic communities nearly as much as today’s youth.
2) I’m not sure I fully understand the wording of the question, but I’ll try. I agree with what has been said above me about the meanings of “making” and “using” technology. He’s saying that the way technology or even the writing itself is made, has a great effect on its use by everyday people who may or may not understand how these things were made in the first place. People’s perceptions on how these technologies are made can alter writing as well.
3) Dwelling in language means to experience it first hand before trying to utilize it. I’m taking a class now where we examine different ways of speaking the same language. For example, I have no idea what half the things in this book mean. But as I spend more and more time reading, it begins to make more sense. (slowly) If I went up to a group of kids at a rap concert who were speaking in a form of hip-hop slang, I wouldn’t understand a word, much less be able to speak it. However, if I started hanging around with them on a regular basis, it would all start to make sense.
This applies to computers as well. You can’t just jump in an expect others to understand you. You have to take the time and read e-mails, IM conversations, message board postings, blog entries and all the different things the internet has to offer before you can expect to utilize those tools.
4) So far, I see the blending happening at basic levels and increasing everyday. For example, many websites have programs where you can type in questions about technical assistance and the computer itself will find you answers. Another example, when I called to activate my new credit card, I didn’t talk to a person. Instead, I punched in a few numbers on my phone and their computer system did all the work. Machines do a lot of the basic work that we used to need people for.
I’m not sure exactly where we are on the scale, but I think we’re getting close to giving almost all of our power away. Every day, we let machines do more thinking for us than we had allowed the day before. Will we go too far and unknowingly give over total control? Is there a line that has to be drawn somewhere and if so, where do we draw it?
5) I think a lot of these could be changed. There have been many attempts of censorship, what people write on their blogs and message boards can and have been used against them. People can steal your identity and/or spy on you. The internet allows you to experiment with new ideas and to let your voice be heard, but that seems to come at a price as everyone has access and can use your own words against you.
This is Bill again, still waiting on his password...
1. Though I may be reading this question wrong, Pacey’s article seemed to focus a great deal on cultures/people having a narrowed view of a technology or task. Similarly, we all usually focus on the aspects of a technology that will benefit us in the short run. When you begin to see the needs and uses of technology for other people/cultures, we begin to widen our perception, but this rarely happens because many people never really attempt to gain new perception unless absolutely necessary.
Similarly with writing technologies, as a college student I see the uses for writing tools as I can utilize them. I have not thought of how a blog can be best utilized by a Hungarian steel worker or a Siberian caribou herder because I have not been forced/motivated to look through their lenses. But each writing technology holds different potential for different people.
3. To dwell in a language means to know more then how to construct fluent thoughts and small talk in well-written sentences; it means to have a complete working knowledge of how to craft effective and clever messages to the appropriate parties.
Relating to computers, I dwell regularly in English but certainly variations arise between my speech, my papers, my email, and my texting (instant messenger). Knowledge of slang, sentence construction, and other unique aspects are involved in dwelling.
4. The intersections of the human and nonhuman, increasing steadily, hold great promise and great danger to the court. Automated chat help offered by many big companies, computerized telemarketers, and cognitive super computers given the ability to reason (not as much science fiction as one would hope) have all breached the frontier of uniquely human activity. Where will it grow disastrous (because we’re too curious to stop before disaster)?
Based on the graph, I would have to say we’re at the ninth state of networks of power because (and this is a guess) we have not yet reached a point of clear and utter dependence on the nonhuman (though it’s pretty close). We can still survive with a decrease of the symbiosis we now share, but it wouldn’t be pretty.
5. Along with great advancement, online life has developed loop holes, new situations, and greater problems to the society. We have a magnificent space in which we have no idea the limit of the potential. Who is to say what may be developed in the days ahead?
Online life has no clear parameters as of yet and so we have little hard rules on what one’s rights are within the space. Sure the government keeps on top of illegal action, but even there the web is so huge that it’s impossible to get all the crime.
Rights such as right to privacy becomes a question of “what is really private?” or “when is it appropriate to release private information?” Other things such as freedom of speech hold a limitless notion of where things will go. Who really knows what lies ahead?
Discussion Questions for 2/20
1) Considering how “generalized surveillance” has led to (our) “disciplinary society,” (365) what are some instances in which we can observe the effect of Panopticism – a “state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” (360) – at present? (Within the current context of the Patriot Act and wiretapping in the U.S., recall Foucault’s point about how the Panoptic discipline-mechanism operates separate from law (370) and the ostensible limits on power.)
--or--
Bentham imagined “a network of mechanisms” throughout society in place of the prison (364) -- what can we conclude about how we elect to use network technologies that are potentially (and often essentially) Panoptic, while others employ similar devices and methods for counter and inverse surveillance?
(See also the idea of sous-veillance)
2) Elliott mentions Kramer’s label of “cosmetic psychopharmacology” (376) regarding the recent trend in medication (e.g. Prozac). With the combination of the capitalist healthcare industry and our consumerist society, will ethical issues influence/affect our attitudes and uses of enhancement treatments/technology? Can ethics even play a significant role (in opposing enhancement tech.) when “cultural complicity” (374) and “authenticity” (377) are ideological critiques in the first place?
3) Here is a link to the ELIZA program that Joseph Wiezenbaum developed in the 1966, a primitive A.I. simulation of a Rogerian therapist. The Jabberwacky chatterbots named “George” and “Joan” yield much more interesting and more fluid conversations.
From reading both the Dreyfus brothers’ skeptical criticism and Kurzweil’s idealistic view, will A.I. remain limited even as “expert systems” (407-8), or will progress eventually result in A.I. having self-awareness and spirituality (393)? How do you predict A.I. will develop, and more importantly, how will it function in (or as part of) our society? Can we reasonably presume that the future will be neither utopic nor dystopic (a la The Matrix) regarding this issue?
4) Our relationships with Artificial Intelligence may be significant in future years (more like those depicted by the film A.I.), but presently we don’t regard the computer as a “subjective” agent who “does things to us” (423), for example. Despite publishing this article in 2002 (source), which ideas of Turkle’s seem outdated and/or irrelevant, not necessarily due to time but more so our current socio-techno trends and views?
(Some readers may even question/challenge Turkle’s ideas fundamentally, on the basis of her employing a theory (psychoanalysis) that seems obsolete for this context, after all. I gave her an honest read, but is there anything applicable to “computer culture” that we can salvage?)
5) Outside of his scientific context, how does Ihde’s idea of “technoconstruction” (485, plus Kaplan’s intro on 432) apply to our uses of technology (mainly personal computers) regarding writing, information, media, communication, community, society, etc. (i.e. within a social sciences/humanities context instead)? Could his term be a useful label for a digital/network paradigm or episteme (knowledge/way of thinking) in our present age?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Here is my reflection on Jen's questions from last week.
1. We CAN make things, but SHOULD we has been a reoccurring question posed in regards to technology and innovation. I feel in today’s society there has been a cross in lines of what is truly appropriate from this stance. The growth in our technological world is most often times beneficial but appropriateness becomes a question many times in dealing with “technological advances.” Some technological advances offered from my personal stance, are truly unnecessary. For example, one can change any and all aspects of his or her appearance. Essentially, a person can show a picture of someone they desire to look like to a surgeon and within hours physically become that desire. Technology has enabled us the power to physically become anything we want. With this, within the world wide web, what one can do is endless-shop, pay bills, rent movies, “attend church…” Some of these capabilities are highly beneficial but others are simply inappropriate. I feel it is inappropriate that one can get his or her graduate degree online-for this education received is credited as my masters degree will be, but the educational experience and “developed graduate” most definitely cannot be compared to the education received and the type of scholar developed at a non-virtual institute. But most disturbing (for lack of better words) is that a couple can “get married” online… I found this actually quite humorous. A couple can get married in a click by going to iROM.org. The website actually reads, “For dating couples, get married virtually right here at iROM.org!” I decided I truly wanted to see how this works so I did it using the groom name “frog” and bride name “face.” It took one minute to fill in the names, emails, and location. There is not a consensus or way to control who “gets married,” and although it is not legal, I feel it is without doubt inappropriate. Simultaneously, (again revisiting the issue of human/non-human), after “married,” an email was sent to me, reading the following…
Dear Frog and Face
Via this email, we pronounce you husband and wife. Regardless of your race, language or faith, from this day forward, you will feel no rain, for each of you will be shelter for the other. You will feel no cold, for each of you will be warmth to the other. There will be no loneliness, for each of you will be companion to the other. From this day, you are two persons, with only one life before you. Your hopes and dreams are now intermingled, and you will strive for harmony through compromise and forgiveness.
May beauty surround both of you in the journey ahead and through all the years. May happiness be your companion and your days together be full of tenderness, commitment and understanding.
Congratulations and thank you for registering your marriage with us. Although this email document has no legal significance, we hope you will treat it with respect, print it out, and hang it in an honored place at home.
Please note that this marriage is indissoluble and regardless of the direction your relationship takes after this day, this marriage will be a permanent record of your life's most romantic moment, beautifully engraved in history. In other words, there is no such thing as divorce at iROM.org, and your commitment is forever.
Now that you have registered your marriage, You might also wish to invite your friends to view your iROM Marriage Registration at http://www.irom.org/list.php?MonthWedded=200601#5c40b0a7. Simply email them this link and let them share the joy with you.
Signed,
Ministry of Love iROM.org
This right here, MORE THAN draws the line….What is next, online funerals?
2. As human action changes, ethics needs to most definitely reflect this alteration. Human nature changes because of techne. As we change and grow as a society appropriate changes from the moralistic and ethical stance need to honor this change. I feel this change must be continuous, evolving simultaneously with technological advances, appropriately aiding the current society. New ethical guidelines need to replace traditional ethics to correlate with the technological society existing. A society cannot fully grow if change does occur on all levels.
3. Society has become DEPENDENT on its current technology. To most, the quality of life IS shaped by these advances. The mindset of our current society is focused more on technology than natural resources. This is especially true for younger generations and will most definitely impact our future. Most children are found inside on the computer, watching television, talking on cell phones, or playing with Ipods or videogames during their free time, instead of engaging in outdoor activities. Because of this current mindset, I do not feel we, as a society, would be willing to sacrifice technology to save natural resources. It poses the questions could technology replace natural resources? We are coming to the point where we’d be okay with using technology to create a bubble that gives us fresh air, than actually breath it outdoors. I mean we are already okay with swimming in a “wave pool” than an actual ocean…
4. Although both are distinguished as “equally liable,” because the Internet enables the power to post anything for essentially the world to view without approval (to say the least) much more is expected of online information without question. What one can purchase or read at a bookstore has been approved, thus accrediting the information. Accuracy, accountability, and reliability correlate with these expectations. Those crediting characteristics are questionable in the online community.
5. As stated in the first amendment, each individual has the right to speak freely, until one’s speech violates the right of another. Because this right exists in all aspects of life for an American, this applies to free speech via the World Wide Web. I do not see much difference as this right is applied to the online community. Isn’t the freedom to say what one wants essentially the same whether it is spoken in words, heard through listening or written in text, read on a screen?
In Response to Jen's questions
1. The discussion of the atom bomb in last week’s class is a great example of how technology has been ethically misused. It was a form of technology made for mass destruction and it was used for mass destruction. For me, weapons of mass destruction cross the line, no matter who are using them and making them.
As for “drawling the line,” that is one though question. Right now, we have counties using the technology to make weapons of mass destruction and countries fighting to stop the use of this technology. The United Nations tries to regulate the misuse of this technology, but it is clear that this is not always an easy job. With every new form of technology, there will always be those who will misuse it. We can only regulate technology the best we can. We are a world made up of different governments and it will not be easy to come to agreement on how technology is regulated.
2. New technology brings the ability to do things never done before and of course society will need new ethical guidelines. If the ability to create the gender of your child before conception became mainstream, then a huge imbalance of men vs. women could occur. I can only image how frustrating it would be for a young man to find a girlfriend if boys outnumbered girls ten to one. Two hundred years ago, the notion of picking your child’s gender would have been unheard of and there would be no need to create any regulations or restrictions for use of such technology.
3. I think others feel the same way as McGinn and are trying to adapt today’s technology in attempt to avoid such a downfall in quality of life. Steps are being taken now, to lessen and maybe even do away with the need for oil products. Wille Nelson, has a chain of diesel fuel alternate stations called “BioWille,” which use a vegetable based substitute. He even runs his tour bus on it.
I think that the debate to sacrifice technological advancements for natural resources become ugly. We are already seeing the beginnings of such, with the debate of oil drilling in the preserved areas of Alaska. I would hope a happy medium could be reached and that scientists can see that we need to alter today’s technology to avoid a downfall in our quality of life.
4. I don’t believe that there are any more expectations for the internet to regulate content than bookstores. It is a perception that has come about because the internet has not followed the same social guidelines that bookstores have. For instance, if a bookstore owner chose to intermingle adult themed items on the same shelf as children’s books than there would be a public outcry. On the other hand, adult themed material could easily pop up when searching for a children’s themed website and we have no way of knowing who put it there. The difference is that the bookstore owner is available for public scrutiny and the internet entrepreneur is virtually unknown. I would like to see some regulations on the internet’s content. I want to know that I can search topics online and not be duped into entering an unsavory site. I would be outraged if the local bookstore sent sexually explicit mail to my home and then I was told in order for it to stop I would have to upgrade my mail service to include content blocker. This sounds absurd, but it is how the internet works. I do not agree that a bookstore and the internet can be considered equals.
5. Allowing written computer viruses protection under the first amendment would lead to the destruction of the Internet. Complete freedom of Speech does not exist. There are stipulations. Writing a virus is no different than committing a terroristic threat.
In response to Jen's questions ...
1). I believe to a certain extent technology has already crossed the line. Even thinking about my own job and how technology has changed and/or influenced the way that I work over the past 4 years. I have never been one to go to the cafeteria to eat lunch. I am a loner and would prefer to sit at my desk, eat my lunch and surf the net for my allotted 45 minute break. When I first started at my job, I could do this with ease. In the last year or so, my company has implemented access controls to limit our internet use and emails. In a sense, we now have "big brother" watching us. What scares me is, I know the people in the IS department ... some are creepy and have made borderline sexual harassment comments to me. So, to think that these same individuals are checking out the websites I visit and also reviewing emails that I receive is a little bit borderline. I understand why my company has implemented these controls, but part of me feels like I am not trusted and that my "privacy" is being violated.
To think that this is only the beginning of what future technology holds. So, in response to Jen's question, just because we can make it does not mean that we should. I can think of tons of things that are made today that should not be made and I think about all the destruction and harm these things (bombs, child porn, herione, etc.) cause, do we really need something as powerful as technology thrown into the mix.
2). Yes, I do agree that we need to restablish/revamp our ethical guidelines - and not have these guidlines limited to just technology. Not to sounds ultra-conservative, but I am concerned with the lack of ethics and moral values in today's society. Technology has allowed us to do more, manipulate items at a quicker pace and create things like viruses that can paralize our internet society. Without some type of guidelines, I fear where we may end up. The challenge is, what can we establish that relates to today and future technologies? To think how our government was established with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, do we have the foresight to create new guidelines for technology that will last as long as these documents have?
3). That depends of what you determine as resources? I believe we should sacrifice technology to preserve core things like our personal time, our family life and the luxury of "disappearing" on vacation or taking a personal day without having a cell phone ringing, a pager beeping or a blackberry buzzing. We are already a bunch of robots who are slaves to technology - can you imagine what it is going to be like years from now? I had always heard that technology helps to make our lives easier and to a certain degree, I agree. But at the same time, if technolofy is a tool that we use to simplify life, why I am working harder and longer hours? Why is it that my company tries to contact me - even when I have a day off.
I would hate to see us lose natural resources like trees, open waters and simple things like a garden because of technology, but even worse, I 'd hate to see us lose out on life and what it means to live because of technology.
4.) I am not a fan of censorship at any level. I am enraged when I see that I school or library is banning a certain book. Our lives are controlled on so many different levels - do we realy need controls on the internet? Sure, I can understand that the internet is a powerful tool and that children could have access to information that is not age appropriate, but I believe that the parents need to set internet limits, not the government. I would hate to see such a wonderful medium become compromised because of restrictions. Can we have one thing be free?
5). Tough question given my previous posting ... I guess that's why we all need anti-virus, internet security systems. Can I say "no comment" since I fear that I may contradict my previous post :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home