[fr]
Quelques idées qui me sont venues en écoutant le podcast On The Media. Les visions dystopiques de notre futur technologique nous tiennent souvent pour des victimes passives et oublient de tenir compte des mécanismes de compensation que nous mettons inévitablement en place pour résister au changement. On met nos téléphones mobiles sur silence, et si tout le monde commence à porter des verres de contact avec reconnaissance faciale, on portera des masques ou on trouvera d'autres stratégies pour compenser (plus réalistement, il y aura peut-être moyen de bloquer la reconnaissance, tout comme on peut bloquer les moteurs de recherche).
J'aime l'idée selon laquelle la technologie nous permettrait "d'être plus de ce que l'on est déjà".
[en]
These last weeks I’ve been catching up with On The Media (partly thanks to being back in the saddle), and earlier this evening I was listening to the February 18 piece on “Our Future With Technology”.
I had a few thoughts as I was listening that I’d like to share with you.
First of all, I quite strongly believe in the position defended by Brooke at some point which says that technology mainly allows us to become more of what we are. This is along the line of what I try to explain about “dangers” of the internet regarding teenagers: most of the trouble they face online is the same kind of trouble they face offline. Yes, sometimes with a twist, and other consequences. But in a very general way, the internet is not a completely alien place — as our local online world sociologist Olivier Glassey said a few months back during a talk I attended, we need to stop thinking of the “online” as a “separate space” (the expression he used is “le lieu de l’altérité”).
A bit later in the show, they are talking about augmented reality: what will it be like when we can wear glasses or contact lenses which, along with facial recognition software, will allow us to identify the people we come upon in the streets? OMG-there-will-be-no-privacy-anymore the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it <insert more dystopian panic here>.
I’m always surprised that this kind of thought experiment never includes things like “well, some people might end up covering their faces” or “we’ll start wearing masks” or “there will be a way to opt out of being ‘facially recognized’” or… whatever coping mechanism one can imagine. Because as technology advances and disrupts the way we are used to living, we also evolve coping or evading mechanisms to resist change. Why does run-of-the-mill dystopian thinking always depict us as passive victims of the unstoppable advance of technology?
We’re not passive. We usually actively resist change. For example, we now carry on our phones everywhere we go, but we choose to mute them or screen our calls — something that was pretty unthinkable 30 years ago when all we knew was landlines.
With the dystopian glasses on (the show was constructed as an attempted dialogue between utopian and dystopian visions of our tech future) the idea was brought up that augmented reality might at some point allow us to ignore or obliterate what we disagree with — extreme example: not seeing people with radically opposed views to ours. Bob concluded “people obliterate people”, which in my sense is right: we are already obliterating what we don’t want to see. Technology might allow us to do it better (“becoming more of what we are”) but sticking to what is familiar and ignoring the rest is fundamentally human. If I wasn’t so tired right now I’d fish out this article I read (no memory where) which shows how we very selectively remember what already fits in our worldview and obliterate the rest.
I see the “people obliterating people” thing at play in India. In the same spaces (I’m talking of streets or neighbourhoods here), you have completely parallel and distinct societies that live on with very little knowledge or understanding of each other. Literally invisible to each other.
Similar Posts:
- Lift09 — Change — Patrick J. Gyger — Science Fiction and the Future
- A Book on Teenagers and the Internet
- First Draft of Book Presentation
- Teens, Schools, and Blogs
- IT Conversations: Dan Gillmor
- Lift10 Politics: The Technological and Social Trends Impacting Politics (Rahaf Harfoush)
- FOWA: The Future of Commerce (Robert Kalin)
- Working on my Professional Site
- What Do You Care About?
- FriendFeed’s Missing Feature
, has its negatives too. Like many natives all over the world, I’ve developed a selective blindness to what is “wrong” in the land I come from, considering much of it “normal” as I have been brought up with it. I know that. But too much of what I see here makes my skin crawl. I’m really enjoying spending some weeks here, I love my friends, the food and the sunshine, but I don’t think I’d be happy living here.
— but also, the fact there is a graphical representation of the people you’re chatting with helps capture one’s attention. (Maybe I feel things this way because I’m new to Second Life, I might think differently later on.)
Digital Crumble