Monday, March 16, 2009

essay: Plurk Technovolution

The use of Plurk in this class has allowed for a very different interaction between students and the professor. Over the course of the last few months we have experimented and eventually adapted to this new technology, and while it could be argued that this sort of microblog is the culmination of technology dating back since the invention of the telephone, we have made it our own in one short quarter. It has become almost second nature, I plurk over dinner, or have it running while I do school work, it demands so little commitment, allows full control of how I will interact with others, and with just 140 characters I can share just about anything. The speed of change is amazing, and as I look back at my plurks during the quarter I can see the evolution of how I use plurk, and how it has changed my perception of new forms of communication.

The organic nature of technology is a concept that we have seen in several of the texts including “Ribofunk” and “Postsingular”. By adapting to users and situations, being constantly refined with each generation, technology is a perfect example of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”. Just as the nannites of “Postsingular” helped create a more perfect nanobot in the orphids, each new form of technology is partly responsible for the development of future generations. As subsequent generations become more and more efficient, and change at an increasing pace. We may soon be experiencing a reality like the one illustrated in “Ribofunk” in which humans, at least in their natural state, are unable to keep up with technology and completely inadequate as masters of technology. Man made inventions have surpassed our ability to process information, and may soon prove more fit than the human species altogether. As robots are designed that can mimic human physical abilities, can learn behavior, and program future generations of robots, there becomes less need to have humans around. Like the plot of so many sci-fi movies, we cannot deny the rules of nature, and the potential that technology may soon own us – if it doesn’t already.

The idea that robots will some day rule the world is not a new one. They may keep us for our enrgy, like in the Matrix, or for our creativity like in Postsingular, or maybe more of a novelty to learn about our nature as in Ribofunk. These scenarios all imply that we have something that grants us entitlement to keep surviving. Yet, what this is part of the natural progression and humans were just a stepping stone, the catalyst for real change. I would like to agree that we have some inherent value, but do we keep old computers around because without them we would not have the iPhone? No, they are played out, they have no more use to us.

So does this mean that humans are going to become obsolete? Is this really a problem? Perhaps if we looked at technology we would see a hint at true self-preservation. The machines have no worry about the next version replacing them, they are used to their capacity and when that is no longer enough they secede to a superior replacement. What do we have to glean from this? I think if we could stop looking ahead we could realize that there is still a great deal that we need to realize in our abilities. I have been frustrated by a widespread discontent, and while we may not be able to ignore what is happening in the future, there is so much happening in the present that we are not aware of. It is only when we are aware of where we are that we can formulate a clear picture of where we are going. If we are truly aware of why we have fear, and hate, if we can learn to care for our selves, and for each other, to see our overuse of resources, and the state of the world every day, then perhaps we can come to terms with why we are heading in a direction that makes us seem obsolete. Maybe we can even steer the course of humanity it in a direction that illustrates why we are not expendable.

Technology has changed the human world a great deal, and as it accelerates we must adapt our behavior. As an illustration of how adaptable humans really are, I think that technology allows us to explore our tremendous potential. In comparison to all other living things, we have an exceptional ability to adapt to just about anything. Trees and bugs, whales and crocodiles, these things have changed so little in thousands of years, because they have found their niche. Evolution made them fit a certain purpose and adaptation made them masters in their respective roles. It would seem that we are approaching a point at which we will either find our role or destroy ourselves trying to make the role fit us. Whether our future will end like a happy sci-fi movie ending or a sad one, it certainly has the makings for one hell of a movie (better yet if we can learn kung fu by downloading it).

2 comments:

  1. Your post brought to mind my conception of how the progression of technology alters our definitions of humanity. We've come a long way from Plato, but the minds that have progressed are, genetically speaking, nearly identical. If anything, it has been the technology around us that has reshaped our knowledge and understanding of our place of the universe.

    For instance: during the mechanical+industrial revolutions of the 19th and 20th century, the focus was on humans as tool-users; we walked upright and used our opposable thumbs to create advanced tools to kill prey, sow crops, and build homes + granaries.

    Now one of the predominant lines of thinking in terms of human evolution is our social development + communication technologies (Miller, Jolly, Zimmer, et al). Does this not parallel the information+technology explosion of the late 20th-early 21st century?

    If technologies (religious, political, communicative, etc.) shape our ideas and conceptions of humanity, what happens when these technologies define human life as expendable (or to use your phrase, obsolete)? I am thinking here specifically of the holocaust & the military mechanisms of the two World Wars.

    Advanced technologies like nanotechnology aren't necessary to reach this point because it's already been reached. This informs a lot of the confrontations with nihilism+meaninglessness found in the filth + the ticket that exploded.

    I'm done with trying to come up with blanket definitions of humanity. I'm more interested in the individual and their ideological and philosophical liberation. There is so much out there that wants to define your life to suit the limited purposes of a given agenda: including this class, including plurk, including your own limited ego perspective. Who to trust? Perhaps that, outside you, that gives your life meaning + significance.

    And if that's technology, plurk, etc. then all the better. I'm just not sure yet. Good post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm putting up a seperate blog for these, but I think I have to quote you for my next essay.

    I really appreciate your presence in the class, and as I read your blog with a more critical eye I can't help but to think I was being too shy to not actually talk with you in/after class.

    It is my first digital relationship, I think it may always feel a little empty.

    ReplyDelete