Digital technologies and Web2.0 have allowed us to interrogate structure like never before. It allows us to explore and question grammar, paths, patterns, order and sequences surrounding the way that we think and what we have in the past perceived as fixed or concrete (Roth 2008). The feedback loop provides an alternative communication channel which, rather than engaging in mainstream top down/bottom up communication, acknowledges how communication and knowledge can 'percolate' through the culture and practices of everyday life (Internet Interdisciplinary Institute 2011). For example, in our war reporting project Web2.0 has enabled communication from many Middle Eastern and North African counties to reach audiences in the West. Often the footage is unplanned, unfiltered, unmediated and often almost instantaneous. The footage informs Western publics in ways that would never be possible via a Western perspective or Western media, so much so that even an analogy between the two seems ill-founded (YouTube 2011).
This reassessment of what we have perceived as unchangeable allows us to expand our world and expand our notion of what is possible by thinking in new ways. Is an affinity with Things and Objects symbolic of a part of us retreating from our fissured selves to find a more rewarding and equitable life? Julian Bleecker suggests that Things can evolve just as human beings have evolved and learned to walk upright. We seem to want to evolve everything including our pets (Bleecker 2006, pp9-15). How do we imagine this world?
References:
Bleecker, J 2006, Why Things Matter, accessed 20/10/2011, http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/files/WhyThingsMatter.pdf
Internet Interdisciplinary Institute, 2011, Researching Everyday Life Through Visual and Digital Media, accessed 22/10/2011, http://in3.uoc.edu/opencms_portalin3/opencms/en/activitats/seminaris/agenda/2011/agenda_020
Roth, D 2008, Google's Open Source Android OS Will Free the Wireless Web, accessed 13/10/2011, http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/16-07/ff_android?currentPage=all
YouTube, 2011, thehawkofsyria, accessed 14/10/2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPvCSzXfBPM&feature=relate
Humans do seem to want to evolve everything, but I do not think it is a good idea. Some things can be evolved without it going to far, but when clothes, bedding, and even walls are connected to the internet then we have a problem. There are some 'things' in this world that are not meant to be able to interact socially. I am not going to pretend I know where the line is on this issue, but maybe someone needs to figure out a boundary.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why human being is most intelligent animal is because we thinking and changing. As you mentioned that things could evolves just as human beings have evolved and learned to walk upright. Whereas, during changing, people would go though the process of doubt, prove and then accept. For example, few decades ago people may not comfortable with communicate through Internet, but then people accept the Internet and benefit form the Internet. Actually, I do not like Internet completely control my life, but I try to suit the benefits brought form technology things.
ReplyDeleteThe Japanese already made that robot dog. What if in the near future every appliances you have becomes an emotional attachment. Can you imagine the burden of all that attachment. I fear when this stuff does happen and if it does. I don;t think I want to be around for my toaster being smart, and possibly outsmarting me. It's designed to toast bread not evolve, and if it does, who knows what it evolves in to!
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, if we were to connect our pets to the internet, not much would change. Think about it - we already microchip our pets in case they get lost. Change the microchip into a transmitter and there you go! I could only see benefits in the case of pets.. monitoring of health or sex, etc. Though I think a fully robotic pet would be taking it a little too far.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that major technological evolution is upon us. Already we are seeing things from war reporting, farm monitoring and new ways of spreading information that we've never experienced before. I agree with Kathleen that although evolution is good, we don't necessarily need to evolve -everything-. Instead of Internet of Things, can't we just have Internet of Only Benificial Things?