EPTWe were in the car during the 1700 rush hour, and my sister then turned on Podcast via her iPhone. She loaded the channel Freakonomics. Freakonomics is a well known modern channel, with the watchword 'exploring the darker side of things'. The host of the radio station - or channel - is some guy, with a lush voice, full of juice.. a sort of pleasing accent of moist quality.
As you know, Podcast is a 'radio station' but the sessions are recorded before hand. So the overlapping music and voice samples interjected, are seamlessly well produced. The tone is strictly 21st century, and nothing to suggest distrustful pessimism. Overall, the atmosphere serves to dispel the unwillingness that prevents blind submission, to our modern trends and currently existing technology.
On THIS particular Broadcast there was some guy with a sonourous voice, called Kevin Kelly. Incidentally Kevin Kelly is one of the co-founders of Wired magazine.
I have only ever seen the Wired magazine once, about 20 years ago, this was in the late 90s, when the computer was in that incipient peak of development. Years before it became a household standard, and leading up to the .NET crash. The magazine was heavy and thick and could've been used as a Door-stopper. My only memory of it, as I went through the pages, was the periodic appearance of an Apple advert for the new apple computer, G4. I was puerilely aware of CPU speed and all the pages where emphatically clear that the new Apple CPU was 300% faster, than any other then existing processor.
Kevin Kelly has written books, one of them is called 'The Inevitable'. To be concise, it basically paints the future with an impersonal yet optimistic brushstroke, preparing the reader for the pending world of cybernetics and computers.
One precept the book purports, is that any technological device invented by man is 'inherently evil'. That meaning, any device can be put to evil use. The only remedy for this - the solution - is to keep producing more technology. For if all our time, creativity and resources are invested in the design of MORE devices, they will impinge on each other causing a distractive war of competition.. and so removing chance of any single device, put to nefarious use. Though he wasn't entirely resolved to expand upon this notion, and maybe his solution was something fanciful, hoping to urge the listener to start dabbling in technology and computers.
His voice ( the texture ) was pleasing enough to hold your attention for some time. But inordinate exposure to the sound would render your self-possession compromised, disarming the audience into complacent ease. It is interesting to note that we eventually took a bet between us - my sister and I - trying to guess how he looked. We searched and found a relatively amiable fairly old guy with a beard.
In ANY case.. with that said we come to a critical point, where within we decide our response to this presentation.
[DEFINITION] cybernetics : (biology) the field of science concerned with processes of communication and control (especially the comparison of these processes in biological and artificial systems)
At an early age, Kevin Kelly became fascinated with the field of Cybernetics.
His father also worked for Time magazine and used 'System Analysis' in his work.
Currently, the word cybernetics paints a non-specific brushstroke, too large to exemplify ONE field of special interest. But surely he purely focused on the technological view, not so much the human behavioural patterns in relation to current tech. It is precisely here the rift is found.
A sort of hilarious moment was when Kevin K remarked the only problem he cares about is battery life. How he would have to go around replacing the battery cells of every appliance & gadget in his house. It sounded like this guy was immersed in electronic gadgets. Another critical thing which betrays the fantastic ideal of his perception, was when Artificial Intelligence was mentioned, he did nothing to dispel the myth of latent A.I. within the machine. Of course, artificial intelligence, is an impossibility.
All this said, why did some uncertainty descend upon me urging me not to accept all these things said, blindly?
It comes down to the difference when we define the two terms, Science & Technology. Science is our understanding of nature and surrounding environment. Technology is the application of OUR knowledge of science, to create things.
What unsettles me is THEIR perspective of innovation and creativity, believing that there is leeway to be creative in the industry.
Kevin Kelly was clear when he said, once transmission over an electrical medium.. everything else (the telephone, radio, cellphone ) would be discovered automatically aftewards. However the iPhone was a creation brought about through creative innovation.
I think all Apple did was, give the machine a glamourous look, slap an apple logo on it and suddenly there be something prestigious people like better than Microsoft. People neglect to mention what Bill Gates accomplished, completely centralizing the industry, making the computer accessible & affordable to the public.
But Kevin Kelly says the iPhone was an invention. Is this really true? A musical piece is a composition of many things. A single musical note, resonating alone is something without direction and shape. One colour taken alone is not enough to compose a detailed picture.
But all the components and features of the iPhone, taken alone are disparately self-sufficient. Camera, mp3 player, e-mail & daily reminder.. etc
They all work perfectly good alone performing some unique function. But the moment digital storage was perfected, all this media could be saved onto a medium, generically accessible. And so intergration was brought about.
The word Science there is denotative of OUR understanding of nature. But science today is a word applied to some established doctrine, that places materialistic restriction upon an idea.
The word cybernetics there, could well denote the REACTION of people to machines and tech. This Kevin Kelly has not a single introspective clue unto the inner workings of OUR biological system. And I emphatically repeat that Artificial intelligence is an impossibility. If you're going to immerse your self in fantasy & sci-fi, and sell the world a portrait, of sensory overload and robotic indifference... then that is well within your right.
But it is precisely this attitude that makes technology seem responsible for all the bad things on the planet. Did you know 'Internet Addiction Syndrome' first started off as a joke, and only later was discovered to be a diagnosable condition? But people and your friends, one way or another will always say what's on their mind. If there was no 'current status' they could change, they would make smoke signals or paint a picture.
Now the people have instant access to each other across the globe, they can see & hear each other immediately if they want. The audience present, could easily dismiss these words as some cynical outburst of morbid despair.
Before I stray from what I seek to conclude, I think the theme and attitude purported by Kevin Kelly is over-simplified, trying to divert our attention to a realm immersed within the machine.
I do not think the world and trends of today indicate that man is heading for some 'inevitable' state, of being irreversibly entrenched in technology.
AND also I don't think that this guy has the wits about him to play or entirely comprehend StarCraft II!!!!!!
