A place for thoughts.
May 5, 2012 Leave a comment
In this recording I reference back to one of the first posts on this website. I decided to create a recording as a way to revisit the ideas that I’d addressed at that point and consider them in a new light.
If you like, you can also download the MP3 here.
April 20, 2012 Leave a comment
In this episode of The Todaycast I consider the pros and cons of the Internet hive mind and how the theory of the concept could be implemented into politics. In no way am I pretending to identify the subtle complexities of how it could or could not work as an instant replacement for our current system, nor am I ignoring the inevitable problems it would face. What I set out to do was to identify an an interesting idea that could be greatly expanded upon.
www.twschofield.com
www.joshwoodward.com
MP3 (128kbs): bit.ly/ITTkal
April 13, 2012 Leave a comment
The first episode of the new release of The Todaycast. I decided to open the show by sharing some thoughts I have regarding on humanity and how we link our thoughts on what it is to be human with our own ethical code. How do we inflict our own morality upon others and how does it impact upon how we view them as humans?
www.twschofield.com
www.joshwoodward.com
MP3 (128kbs): http://bit.ly/IFIqcv
September 24, 2011 1 Comment
Outside of a Biological definition, what is it to be human? Transhumanists argue that at some point in the next two centuries (or as little as the next eighty years) technology will have affected our existence as a species to such an extent that we will no longer be able to consider ourselves ‘human’. We will instead become a ‘post-human’ – defined not just by our physical existence as changed by technology, but also by our emotional well-being. That is to say, Transhumanists argue that technology will not merely be vital in a medical sense, be it as a life-saving tool or performance-enhancing additions to our bodies (cybernetic implants, artificial eyes, ears etc.), but that it will provide a stable basis for human happiness itself.
The post-human, to the transhumanists is a species so well defined from mankind as it exists in its purest biological sense that it must be considered to be a new stage in evolution. Transhumanism it must be said, whilst not considered to be a ‘quack’ theory does not constitute a part of the modern scientific or philosophical manner of thought. It is however, a concept that makes a certain degree of sense. Regardless of the predictions’ various potential accuracies, Transhumanism proposes a number of intriguing questions regarding what it is to be human at all.
We have long considered a species to be defined as a stage in an evolutionary chain. However for the most part the process of identifying an evolutionary stage has been entirely retroactive. That is, it is somewhat easier (apologies to those who recognise that it is in fact, not an easy process at all) to look back several thousand years and identify the progressive flow of genetic changes in species long since recognised. However, just how challenging might it be to do so in the present. At what point do you consider a species as a whole and think, “Hang on, you’re different to how you were a couple of years ago”. It is simply that evolution is a painstakingly slow process, explaining why exactly it is always identified long after it first begins. However, it is extremely unfashionable to consider what it is to be ‘human’ in terms of science. Science itself has never been trendier, and it can apply to any other animal on the planet, and yet as a society we find it somewhat repulsive and/or ridiculous to compare ourselves to fish, or dogs. We have morality! We have ethics and higher brain function! What does any of this actually mean?
It might all simply be considered to be an upshot of the fundamental desire to identify via difference. Every time we see something we determine it not by what it is, but by what it is not in comparison to ourselves. Whilst we can attach certain values these values never become individual to the object, but attached and reapplied to all similar objects. That is to say, if we see a lamp, we recognise it by the stereotyped qualities of the properties other lamps possess. We determine the first ever lamp we see, by determining what it is not. When identity is considered in this way, the origin of all prejudice becomes strikingly clear. It is only too easy to attach the properties of an object, or indeed a person, to all ‘similar’ objects or persons. We determine the identity of what an object is not in fact by what it is to us, but by what it is not. Thus, robots might looks like humans, act like humans – but they will never be humans. They can possess all the properties of a human, but we do not determine by what something ‘is’, but by what it ‘is not’. And what a robot is not, is human.
This sounds like a paradox, as arguing that something that is ‘not’, in fact ‘can be’, if we only identify using the opposite method to that which we always do, seems absurd. Indeed, even that very sentence seemed absurd, challenging to write, and no doubt impossible to follow. However, the fact remains that we identify via stereotypes, and we form stereotypes by determining differences. A man will never be a fish. A fish might kill its own children, or all the other fish in its tank (As mine did this week. Never buy Paradise fish.), but for a man to kill everyone in his house is simply inhuman. It is the behaviour of a fish, not of a man! This is a prime example – we identify a murderer by stating what he is not.
There is perhaps only one common example opposing this linguistic approach to life. That example is the word ‘evil’. What is it to be evil? Evil is quite simply a state we apply to those who act outside of our stereotyped identity which we apply to humans. Humans do not mindlessly kill others (or so it is comforting for us to think). And yet, looking at a man who has done so, we can identify that he is not a fish, or a dog or a tree. And yet he does not fit our stereotype. Thus, he is ‘evil’ – the sub-layer of humans who step outside of the rest of society’s ability to comprehend within their own understanding as a species.
September 15, 2011 1 Comment
A few weeks ago the topic of Facebook came up on my weekly podcast (www.thinkstuffpodcast.com), and how it has come to not only dominate the internet (see 4chan’s Facebook login fiasco), but even cereal boxes. Facebook has become the annoying background buzz of the modern technological world. It has reached a state of true transcendental ‘deitification’, from which it shall never be knocked. This is of course, total nonsense. It’s only too easy to forget the precursor to Facebook – Myspace. And before that, Friendster. And before that, Hi-5. And somewhere limping alongside them all, Bebo. Latest of the bunch is Google+, perhaps the first of its ilk to receive anything like the amount of hype it has been faced with before even its public release. Google+ is still invite-only, and yet is only too quick to boast its user base of over 20 million. It took Facebook decades in relative comparison to reach those numbers. However, does it really mean anything?
Facebook should perhaps have first been challenged by Twitter, except it never was because what Twitter offers is not a social network in the same sense. The basis of Facebook is that one must be ‘friended’ with people in order to hear what they have to say. Therefore, it’s only realistically usable with people to whom you are already acquainted. Twitter, on the other hand offers a far more public approach in that one might choose to follow their favourite celebrities’ public announcements. Afterall, who doesn’t want to hear what William Shatner is eating for breakfast? As a service however, Twitter offers little else. The ability to search public tweets, and follow rumours in real-time, but nothing of the applications, photo albums or fan pages. None of this has detracted from Twitter’s success, however – and given its nature as a different type of networking it has not really caused much competition for Facebook.
Google+ however, offers a merge of both Facebook and Twitter. You can follow individuals just the same as on Twitter, and yet despite Google+ being built somewhat piecemeal, it certainly looks as though it will boast just as many features as Facebook. What Google+ offers is a dangerous combination for Facebook – Twitter is casual and fun, and if it maintained anything like Facebook’s functionality it would be a dark day for Mark Zuckerberg. If any company could be relied on to grind Facebook into the dust it is of course, Google – the incomparable internet giant. It’s obvious that Facebook has never been phased by Twitter, because they’ve made no efforts to match their services. However, now that Google+ is rearing it’s ugly head, Facebook has rushed out a new feature – “Subscribers”. It’s a fairly half-baked attempt as a function that is fundamentally the same as a Twitter’s money-maker. Common sense maybe, but it reaks of Myspace’s embarassing attempts to match up to Facebook two years ago- the rushed implementation of ‘applications’, the yet-unfinished over-complicated, user-unfriendly interface that eventually truly killed Myspace off. For the first time in its existence, Facebook is behind the game, and is suddenly fumbling in the dark to catch up. Could this be the step towards a tumble for Facebook? Hopefully, because I’m sick of seeing a Facebook logo on my Corn Flakes box every morning.
September 12, 2011 Leave a comment
In previous entries I’ve written about how laws are formed around society’s need to protect life. This need to protect life can be followed through from a basic understanding to the legal ramifications fostered in every day society. But how might this stance be affecting society on the biological level? Why might this even be relevant, you ask? Technology becomes more and more advanced day by day, at a seemingly exponential level. Only in the last forty years have we seen typewriters dwindle away, and they already seem like a distant memory. With the development of e-books, the word no longer even needs to be printed in order to be read by the masses. How then, have these technological advances affected our view on our own humanity, and more importantly, how might they continue to affect us?
Although studies are somewhat inconclusive (mainly due to confusion regarding the vast amount of potential causes and variables) it is generally believed that miscarriage rates are at an all-time high, and have been steadily increasing for a number of years. Is it possible that as a race we are forcing ourselves to become genetically weaker? When this notion is approached from the coldest, most logical angle it seems challenging to argue against it. The theory of Darwinian evolution that society as a whole generally accepts demonstrates how the strong survive, and the weak perish. It can even be said that the genetically weakest are required to die in order to remove the weaker genetic links from the human gene pool as a whole. This is how evolution occurs, over thousands of years – the continuous removal of weaker genetic material and the prevalence of stronger links. Since the birth of Socialism, it has become an attractive concept to insist of upon ‘total equality’ of all humans. This is of course, the polar opposite to that proposed by evolution. However, we prefer to think of ourselves not as ‘animals’ but as humans, a species with something to offer, and achieve. In reality, the dark truth of this fact is that we are forced into believing that every tragic death should be avoided at all costs, and a single life should be saved in any scenario. The ‘innocent’ person who has lost their life without being at moral or legal fault is no longer a scientific phenomenon, but a travesty. Death has become unnatural to us. This is not to say that there is anything attractive to be found in considering the ‘greater good’ of an individual’s death, and indeed such an approach will no doubt seem abhorrent to many people, although this does little other than demonstrate the opinions suggested earlier in this paragraph.
So how does our belief that every ‘innocent’ death is a travesty affect our genetic position as a species? In reality it seems rather simple. In a world where we have the technology to save lives and to maintain lives that would otherwise have no chance of surviving, we are effectively forcing evolution to grind to a halt. We are using technology to prevent mankind’s gene pool from trimming itself through natural selection. That is not to say we are effectively stopping the process entirely, but our actions are in effect, weakening ourselves as a species. It cannot be said that on an individual basis, it is wrong to save a single life. If a member of my family were to fall dangerously ill and they could be saved, my initial thought would not be for the greater good of mankind, but for their own health. But of course, this is obvious and it is representative of the world in which we now live that a great number of these lives can in fact be saved. The fact of the matter is we may never come to see the potentially dangerous ramifications of the stance which we now take with regards to the importance of life, and of sustaining life at all costs. If we do come to witness (or indeed recognise) the upshot of the seemingly inevitable decisions we have made as a society, it seems unlikely to be any time soon. Evolution is a notoriously challenging process to track, due in part to its completely non-linear progression. A ‘partial lack’ of evolution therefore seems virtually impossible to demonstrate scientifically. It can of course be demonstrated repeatedly, easily, and somewhat soul-numbingly on daytime television.
September 3, 2011 Leave a comment
In the last blog entry I considered how a nanny state can be formed as a hyper-realisation in law of a basic principle – that life must be protected. The most basic example of this is perhaps murder as an illegal past time. The average serial killer becomes a social pariah upon his exposure to society at large, as his actions are deemed ‘inhuman’. That is, as protecting human life is the basic principle of law, the governing body of our society, destroying human life becomes inherently unnatural. Could this be thought of as the case simply because we would rather think of death itself as unnatural?
Huge attempts are made on a daily basis to save and extend life. It is seen as a tremendous breakthrough when a single new surgical method allows one person to live, as such a method might be reapplied to others. It might be said that the most important thing in one’s life is life itself. At what point though, does life become ‘unnatural’? What does nature even have to do with life? We tend to use nature to define that which is acceptable to us, and set it apart from that which disturbs us. Unfortunately this is a fundamentally flawed system as we are also fond of completely overlooking our own subjectivity. Once something is deemed ‘unnatural’ it is condemned to a far greater degree than if the individual finds it appalling. Labelling an activity or object as unnatural is perhaps in itself an action indicative of group conformity. Therefore, upon labelling something unnatural, we are at once encouraging others to do the same. This practice might be summarised as society’s ‘moral’ equivalent to the lynch mob. To take an overused example and overuse it a little more, the history of the gay community fits this bill very well. Homosexuality was only ever outlawed as unnatural by those who themselves were heterosexual, but of course this is the case. A heterosexual outlawing a homosexual as unnatural is no different to a man outlawing women as unnatural, because he himself is not one. Such is the nature of subjectivity, and it is far too easily forgotten about. To suggest that a woman is unnatural is of course ridiculous, and yet following on from the exact same logic, there are far greater numbers of people who would claim that homosexuality is unnatural.
To backtrack, how exactly does this notion of naturalness fit in with our concept of what it is to be alive? Let’s rephrase the question – how far is it acceptable to go to save a life? What is the value of a single life? This is a notion explored by many authors and philosophers over the years (one such novel being The Unit by Ninni Holmqvist - http://www.amazon.com/Unit-Ninni-Holmqvist/dp/1590513134). At what point does life become unnatural? When one no longer has any grasp of senses or mind? Perhaps more important to ask is just what exactly this ‘quality of life’ is we’re constantly told about. Who decides whether one has an acceptable quality of life when as individuals there are still those of us acting under the mentality that anything different to said individual is unnatural? Surely this would imply that any person with a quality of life deemed below that individual would be themselves, unnatural?
August 31, 2011 Leave a comment
How capable is the average individual of caring for themselves? This simple question seems to form a significant basis of our society. ‘Why do we have laws?’ – to protect citizens. This simple answer begs the question, how capable are we of protecting ourselves without interference from ‘above’? Anarchy is no viable alternative to a nanny-state but just how far can laws be taken before they are simply interference? This is a question that has sat with me since watching the following video:
No bad will intended, but it’s hard not to question why anyone in full grasp of their senses would act in such a manner. It is perhaps only an acceptable question to ask when one considers that this is by no means an isolated incident. Deaths on train tracks are by no means common, but near misses are certainly no longer rare. In the UK, and many other countries it is illegal to walk on train tracks at least partially for this exact reason.
It is fact that laws protect individuals, and that a lawless society is not one that the overwhelming majority of people desire. However, in what way are laws designed to protect people? Drug laws are perhaps an interesting example. Drugs are illegal because they can cause enormous damage to individuals. It is true however, that smoking and alcohol can also cause enormous damage, and despite the monumental campaigns regarding both of these ‘social drugs’ neither are illegal. Indeed, alcohol is so engrained in our society that it incorporates a facet of it. Why then, shouldn’t cocaine? The immediate, simple answer is of course that cocaine is seen as far more addictive and far more damaging than alcohol. In what manner then, are drugs damaging? If they are merely damaging to the individual, why should they be illegal? As human beings in a democratic society we are supposed to be in control of a certain degree of ‘freedom’ in our lives. We are more than within our rights in modern to society to commit suicide – yet we are not allowed to ’cause damage’ to ourselves by the use of certain drugs.
This is, of course a particularly blinkered perspective of the issue. The fact remains that drugs do not merely cause damage to the individual but to society as a whole. From this standpoint spawns the description of laws as ‘protecting the people’, rather than merely ‘protecting the individual’. That is, one person choosing to risk their own health and the well-being of others by the use of heavy drugs might be compared to the same individual choosing to drive their car at 200mph down a high street. This is a difficult analogy to challenge, assuming that one accepts the premise that drugs harm society as a whole. However, traffic laws themselves contain certain inconsistencies even with this approach to the law. In relatively recent years being a passenger of a car without a seatbelt fastened was made illegal. This law protects not only the individual, but others as well. Whilst a seatbelt may well save the individual’s life in the case of a crash, it also prevents the passenger or driver being flung through the wind shield and into a pedestrian or another car. As such, the seatbelt law can be identified as protecting society as a whole, much as the drug law. However, within the last few months a law has been passed in America stating that it is illegal to ride a motorbike without a helmet. Indeed, many might recall the irony-filled reports of the rider killed in a protest against the law as a result of not wearing his helmet. That said, and the irony overlooked – it was entirely his choice to ride without the helmet regardless of his death. He was aware of the risks, and he caused no damage to others. In a somewhat twisted way, a terrible accident though it was – the crash fit perfectly into the ethos of the protest. The fact of the matter is that helmets cannot be considered in the same manner as seatbelts. They protect no one but the rider. Indeed, if a rider was flung from a bike into a pedestrian, they are more likely to cause a greater degree of damage whilst wearing a helmet than not doing. Why then, would this law be passed? Are we really reaching the point in societies where it is the responsibility of the state to take control of our safety out of our own hands and insist we live life in a certain manner in order to protect us? It seems to be the case that in the eyes of the masses, the masses themselves are incapable.
August 29, 2011 Leave a comment
In the climate of current technology, the boundaries between a PC and every other kind of computing interface seem well defined, significant and perhaps more importantly, growing. We stumbled across an interesting topic in this week’s episode of Think Stuff Podcast - the future of the PC. The office computer has a long and confusing past which, when considered blurs the boundaries that seem so concrete in today’s technologically rooted society. Whilst the first recognisable, programmable computer was built nearly 80 years ago, the PC served no place in businesses for another 15 years. Indeed, the first Apple machines themselves didn’t appear for a further 30 years. What then, drives a divide between the Apple Mac, and the PC? The answer is ‘very little’. It’s impossible to define a difference from a PC in terms of its hardware, as no specific brand or make of hardware must be used for a computer to be defined as a PC. As such, the ‘Mac vs. PC’ argument becomes somewhat redundant, because Macs themselves are in essence PCs. However, Apple being one of the most fast-paced businesses in the technology world today would perhaps have little trouble dropping the Mac as their universal image. With the move towards tablet computing, it might even be said to have already begun.
With the significant step-down of HP, one must question the place of Apple. HP served as the leading manufacturer of PCs worldwide. Within a single night of their announced manufacturing cease, PC sales dropped worldwide by 2%, with a further 4% decrease in America alone. You could be forgiven for identifying this blow as a benefit to Apple, when considering the already tedious ‘Mac vs. PC’ marketing of both Apple and Microsoft. If however, we take the Mac to be in the same boat as the PC given that they are of a given, intrinsically similar build the stepping down of HP might be seen to spell out a change in the winds that can affect Apple no less than any other computer manufacturer or label. Thus comes into play the tablet. Apple have made their fortune on creating technology that is at once a fusion of functionality and fashion, at the loss of more technical customisation. You might be able to upgrade any aspect of your dusty desktop computer, but it will never have the shiny veneer of the Mac. The same can of course be said in reverse. The iPad then, was perhaps somewhat lost on a large audience as yet another product blending into Apple’s ‘clothing line’. However, the recent rise of tablet computing in general might be seen to be of far greater significance than a mere fashion statement. When considered alongside the emergence of Cloud technology, the hints as to the direction of computing start to become clear. How could laptops and desktops ever be replaced by something as simple as a tablet? It’s by no means incomprehensible that the programs we run on PCs might be run directly from a Cloud in the future. For those unfamiliar with Cloud technology, imagine a private area on the internet, where you store your documents (rather than storing them on your hard drive). Now, simple imagine keeping Office, Excel, Fruityloops, Photoshop, and any other products you use in the same space. To use the programs you might simply connect to the internet, head to your area in the Cloud and start them up. For those uncomfortable with change, the idea is perhaps a terrifying one. For the entire lifespan of the office computer we have sat at a desk with a keyboard, mouse and monitor. The emergence and popularity of the iPad was passed off by many as a simple fad. In fact, whether the tablet is manufactured by Apple, Acer or Samsung seems irrelevant when on considers that they could legitimately replace the desktop computer and the laptop in less than a decade. The simple fact is, those who rejected the tablet did so based upon its limited functionality compared to the PC or Mac. However, if tablets were capable of running virtually everything via a Cloud, the functionality of the PC and the Mac would no longer be so vital.
Perhaps the most important point raised when one considers the future of computing is not the format it will take at all, but rather the significance of the technology it will employ. Recent months have driven home the dangers of internet security more than ever before. Just how comfortable should we feel about keeping everything use on the internet, as opposed to on our computer? Indeed, who would be qualified or even trusted to maintain a network holding the personal details and property of millions of individuals and businesses?
