technoculture314-09

This article popped up on BBC online yesterday (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8182003.stm) and, for me, it's a perfect example of the challenges posed by 'televiolence'. What happens when humans are removed from the field of battle and operate warfare technology remotely, especially when the technology becomes "intelligent" enough to make its own decisions in reaction to what it encounters? The article refers to the problems of discriminating friend from foe and assessing "proportionality". But for me, it implicitly raises murkier questions still about ethical distancing and the question of further desensitizing military agencies to the violent consequences of warfare.

Kingsley Dennis and the thought provoking 2008 Pandora’s Box course reading presents a rambling set of riffs, the opening gambit outlining a US State Department 1976 accusation of Soviet communist ideology brainwashing by “mind zapping” or directing microwave radiation at American staff in the US embassy in Moscow since 1953. I thought this James Bond cold war whimsy incongruent with an alarmist evocation of humanity standing on the brink of psycho-tronic war.

The social input of quantum computing “quantum bits” qubits (self assembly) nanobiochip subatomic circuitry imbedded in computer networks enables telepathy for humans. Today; our physical biological antennae digital structures weave panoptic singularity and insouciant securitization of the self or asymmetrical arrays of order/authority versus guerrilla non compliance. In other words, dissolution of connectivity into embedded censor sensored zoned environments of surveillance and tracking identification.

Recombination of militarization of the civil sphere with technological determinism in cyberspace contextualizes a new killing field. This is no surprise and humankind will always be warmongers and can’t be helped. Transmitting sensory data directly into the brain or using magnetic fields to induce currents in brain tissue is as outmoded as Walter Freeman and his infamous ice pick otherwise the active denial system (ADS) would be quite good for breaking up civil disobedience such as riots. After approximately one hundred years of voluminous neuro-scientific progress in the psychical paradigm, it behoves one to take essential first steps to sleuth the faculty of your brain. Taking this reflexive precaution should dispel anxiety. Neuro-technology is the major technology of the future. I feel reasonable serenity being a part of a neural society.

I would argue we ourselves are more inert especially with the introduction of New-Media. This notion by Haraway (blog title) reiterates what was said by Hegel in our first lecture “the master and slave can never be one of pure fulfillment for the master”, conveying how the master becomes dependent on the slave and the slave learns more inevitably the master becomes lazy and the slave takes over to rule. This concept can be true if we acknowledge technology as the slave, the way in which we depend so heavily on technology has altered our social life so it is possible to worry about our social responsibilities a lot less because technology is so reliable.

This relates to all technology not just new media, I consider the way I drive my car I’ve become a form of cyborg as an extension of myself. The car is doing a whole lot more work than I am, and knowing that I have a car I'll re-shape my day incorporating the knowledge of how long it will take to get places. Also human and non-human entities joining on a broader more global level where technology such as email at first glance allows this computer democracy, where the individual seems to be empowered. Emailing allows us to be informed and educated through the internet giving us control in what we see and teach ourselves, this is the point where we as humans seem to be active. In retrospect technology like this is changes how we run our social life which also has links to Mcluhan’s the medium is the message in terms of it not being the technology that is important but the idea that technology allows us to re-shape our social interaction. The fact technology is here allows us to be more liberated in how we run our life. Taking it a step further by allowing ourselves to communicate with such ease like email or txt it breaks down our traditional social patterns of communication. Before txting was around I had no need for it at all but now it’s here I won’t be able to last a single day without it, personally if I run out of credit and have people txt me throughout the day without txting back I feel that may think I’m ignoring them. This can be reiterated to a broader sense with email messaging especially within business institutions, which can argue the notion we inevitably becoming a slaves to technology.

Today’s Lecture on cyborgs really interested me because it brought up many social issues that we face everyday.

I definitely think that everyone is a cyborg mainly because even something as simple as clothing is a technology and is an extension of our skin. May I go as far as saying that there maybe different levels of being cyborgs? Since new technologies are emerging so quickly, different people get on the band wagon at different times. My parents for example only use the computer for Skype, emails and card games. My brother and I use it for assignments, social networking and some puzzle games on Facebook (mainly on facebook because our anti virus stops us from downloading games and we are both inept so do not know how to get around that). I have friends that blog, use different software for graphic design etc. My main point is that we all have different levels of competency and different levels at which we allow technology to be a central part in our lives. Technological enthusiasts would integrate more technology in their lives and so be more like cyborgs. Shows like ‘Chuck’ showcase this where Chuck’s brain works as a supercomputer and a database of sensitive information.

Marshall McLuhan is a good theorist who explains technology as a medium and extension of the self. He does tend to be a technological determinist.

Another point of interest about cyborg theory is the effects of technology on our evolution. This maybe way out on a limb but evolution usually favoured the fittest and the weakest died off. In an age where almost every ailment can be treated, technology can make the ‘weakest’ more like cyborgs compared to the fittest (?). Every aspect of nature and the environment is affected by technology. Reserves are carefully designed to keep out certain pests to protect certain animals etc. Again, nature’s potential to evolve is being affected.

I remembered the movie Minority Report when Luke talked about telepresence and televeillance. Mainly because people are accused of crimes before they have been committed. I haven’t watched the movie so am just making assumptions here. I think the concept is scary because it would be easy to set people up for crimes and accusing some one of horrible acts before they occur would cause a fracturing of the self on a whole other level.

First of all, the trouble I have with the term 'cyborg' is that when I hear it, my mind immediately links it with something that, while a hybrid of man and machine, is ultimately more machine than human. This sort of links to what I really want to talk about in regards to our lecture today...

Firstly the question was raised 'why do we want our robots to be so human'? Luke then talked about the disappearing 'interface' of technology and how more and more technology is becoming something that is an extension of our human selves ("encasing ourselves in technology"). He used great examples like the iPod shoes and Wii. While he was explaining this I couldn't help but think that our desire to make robots like humans could be argued as a means of removing a certain 'interface' between ourselves and such technology. As I mentioned earlier, when I think cyborg, I think machine first, human second. For me when looking visually at technology and machinery (in a very literal sense such as metal, nuts, bolts, flashing lights and the like) this machine-aesthetic automatically distances me from it, it feels extremely foreign, in interacting with it I feel (for lack of a better word) 'fearful' of it. Perhaps creating robots in a human form is a way of closing this 'distance' we as humans feel with machines. By giving robots human characteristics they immediately become approachable, we 'fear' them less. Ultimately, in my opnion it is the removal of a particular sort of interface as these robots (machines) now seem to be extensions and reflections of ourselves.

If we move away from robots and think about technology in general, you could push this idea even further and suggest that the need to shape technology to familiar human characteristics or human form is so important that new technology and media is consumed on the basis of its human representation over the technical abilities of the machine. Think about things such as televisions, computers, iPods for example. There is a growing need to make these sorts of technologies slimmer, more lightweight - compare what makes these technologies desirable with our cultural ideas of what a desirable human form is...similarities? While technology in this way is not neccessarily physically reflective of a human being, their design and appearance is based on cultural notions of the human form. The question I guess is does that make these technologies cyborgs?

Think about it...

In regards to today's lecture on Cyborgs, I don't think its as frightening and disturbing as people might think. Of course, the extremists' view points of the Extropians are a bit over the top, but isn't that the whole point of being an "extremist"? that being extreme on almost anything in the world may create some sort of disturbance for somebody.

I think that cyborg is just a way of life now. its how our society is shaped and we have adapted rather well to it. People are always going to be afraid of new things, not just new technology, but anything that isn't familiar with their surroundings, but we learn to adapt to it, we learn to use it in a way that will benefit us. such as laser eye surgery that can cure our eye sights, special medical equipments that can help to save our lives, and digital prosthetics that can help a person to walk again, these are all healthy examples of how we have adapted to these new technologies and used them to our benefits.

I often wonder, if all "new technologies" such as TV, computer, internet, cell phone, electricity etc were all taken away, would we still be able to "function"? how long would it take for us to adapt to a society without these technologies? it didn't take long for these technologies to merge into our lives, but will it take longer for us to learn to live without it?

not sure if I've made much sense or just confused everyone..but yeah, its just some of my thoughts..

With relation to some of the information that was presented in lectures and tutorials on gender; it got me thinking. Some elements of communication are lost and gained by in the online world and and some elements are also gained. This is also apparent in texting. An element which could be lost (maybe others would disagree) is that of conveying tone in digital communication. One finds it increasingly harder to express tone of voice and ofcourse body language in texts. A simple exclaimation mark does not have the same effect as stressing a point or yelling at a person during a face-to-face conversation. It is through this that a sense of ambiguity is created partially due to the fact that the persons facial expressions or voice is not present to be studied by the receiver. This leads to sometimes people not fully understanding what the sender truely meant in their texts. Such as 'You're funny' is almost impossible to differenciate in text communication yet in a face-to-face conversation it is much easier to understand the context based on the senders supposed 'truth-value' in the voice or the sarcasm. This is also relevant to things such as email or online chat amongst others.
Now to Gender, i havent done extensive research in this area obviously but i would like to mention some things which i have noticed amongst the texting and online interaction of my friends. With many of my male friends, the texts or online chats (very rare) seem to be directed at instructions or information texts. Such as what time i can meet them, If they are coming to class etc. So the texts and responses are very short and informative, much like the new craze of 'Tweets'. However with many of my female friends the texts received are often much longer almost reaching the 160 character limit and tend to include information and as well as 'culture' or 'well-being' texts to ask how i am, When i am able to see them etc. The texts from the female friends seem to be more open ended and question like. However whilst writing this i have just realised that there is only a one-way overlapping in that i respond to my female friends texts often as i would to my male friends with one word responses and information (Intrestingly this often angers them) However i do not respond to my male friends in the way my female friends text me. So even though there is two genders texting me, the response is always solo gendered and not catered for both genders.