Do You Miss Your Pre-Internet Brain?

[Burnt State]

This is the best thing I've read about how ideas work in the 21st century - it has direct bearing on this forum and how ideas are started and then amplified:

The Fire Hose, Ideas, and ‘Topology of Influence’ | The Naked Pheasant

 

[Cosmos007]

I definitely miss the good old days when people were walking without a cell phone in their ear all the time or their eyes glued to same or tablet/IPad without being aware of their surroundings. Awareness and clear unobstructed/original thought seems to have been diminished. Now, we have privacy/freedom concerns with the onset of the Internet era. Is this natural human evolution?


Everything is connected...

 

[Burnt State]

I definitely miss the good old days when people were walking without a cell phone in their ear all the time or their eyes glued to same or tablet/IPad without being aware of their surroundings. Awareness and clear unobstructed/original thought seems to have been diminished. Now, we have privacy/freedom concerns with the onset of the Internet era. Is this natural human evolution?


Everything is connected...

Re: "Is this natural human evolution?"
Probably best answered by the C&P thread people who have disentangled evolution. What would @smcder say I always ask myself. Natural or not, it's the path we chose. Human evolution is probably just a series of random tangents explored by minds that work lemmings. And that always seems to bring about human revolution.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Great thread folks! This is an interesting look at what I think is a huge deal for people whether they understand it's happening or not. Where I live , deep in the woods, there's a dozen or so cabins, a community clubhouse and swim pool. It's obvious that some people who come here for the weekend or even the day love getting unplugged. They'd like to forget what time it is and not talk about world issues. Others look like lost sheep. They're slightly bored. Some even take a renewed interest in the electronics of their cars. People time their visits according to major sports games , if theres football on Sunday they leave early, etc. There has also been an ongoing debate on whether we need a T.V in the clubhouse. It would change the theme too much for some. Anyways, while all these folks ponder what they miss, lol, I head back up to my place and comment here!

 

[Constance]

Re: "Is this natural human evolution?"
Probably best answered by the C&P thread people who have disentangled evolution. What would @smcder say I always ask myself. Natural or not, it's the path we chose. Human evolution is probably just a series of random tangents explored by minds that work [like?] lemmings. And that always seems to bring about human revolution.

And as Steve @smcder would ask: "What would Nietzsche say?" I hope Steve will join in here to tell us what Nietzsche would say, which is I think what the whole phenomenological-existential line of philosophers would also say.

The relatively minor effects of the internet are magnified in virtual reality gaming and are going to become further magnified in the immersive virtual reality devices being developed for home markets in the near future. Here are some extracts from an article surveying this prospect from the points of view of those manufacturing and selling these devices and others in various disciplines who are concerned with their individual psychological and social effects.

"These existing arguments about virtual reality's effects on individuals and society are sure to grow more intense if immersive virtual reality environments become commonplace in the future. In addition, widespread virtual reality could raise entirely new ethical questions. For example, it might force people to redefine being human."

"Some thinkers even believe that, for better or worse, constant to virtual exposure reality [edited: constant exposure to virtual reality] could completely transform human consciousness. Critics fear that large numbers of people might come to prefer virtual worlds to the real one. Like the philosopher Plato, they would feel that the everyday world is an imperfect reflection of an ideal, but, in opposition to the prisoners in Plato's imaginary cave, they would see the ideal world as the one shown on the screen and the imperfect world as the one outside. Why let others see a flawed real body when online interactions can be delivered through a beautiful, sexy avatar? Why bother with a boring real life when, in an online world, a person can fly through the air, have adventures in distant or imaginary lands, and build a house or even a city in any form he or she wants?

The idea that people might choose to ignore the actual world and withdraw into virtual reality began to concern writers and thinkers long before VR technology actually developed. In Summa Technologiae , a book of essays about the future published in 1964, Polish science-fiction writer Stanislaw Lem described an imaginary machine that he called a Phantomat. According to an essay by author John Gray, Lem pictured the dangers of permanent immersion in the Phantomat's virtual reality this way:

'The more realistic the virtual world the machine creates, the more imprisoned we are in our imaginations. As our embodied selves, we interact with a world we know only in part, and which operates independently of our desire. In contrast, the virtual worlds we encounter in the Phantomat are human constructions. Fabricated from our dreams, they are worlds in which nothing can be hurt or destroyed because nothing really exists. In short, they are worlds in which nothing really matters. 48' . . ."

Which World Is Real? The Future of Virtual Reality - A Virtual Future, Changing the Brain, Connection or Isolation?, Computer Addicts

 

[smcder]

Re: "Is this natural human evolution?"
Probably best answered by the C&P thread people who have disentangled evolution. What would @smcder say I always ask myself. Natural or not, it's the path we chose. Human evolution is probably just a series of random tangents explored by minds that work lemmings. And that always seems o bring about human revolution.

At the hole where he went in
Red-Eye called to Wrinkle-Skin.
Hear what little Red-Eye saith:
``Nag, come up and dance with death!''

 

[Constance]

Coming back to this part of Burnt's post --

"Natural or not, it's the path we chose. Human evolution is probably just a series of random tangents explored by minds that work [like?] lemmings. And that always seems to bring about human revolution." --

there is much to consider. Given the socioeconomic structure of contemporary society, I don't think it can be said that "we" have chosen this direction of assumed 'progress'. The technological to hyper-technological developments and desires leading to immersive virtual reality have been spread among our species in general (in much of the existing planetary world) by those with the means and the will to pursue these developments on the basis of their own desires -- to sell products and more broadly (and dangerously) in the AI field to transform the conditions of human life, potentially even to replace human life with technologically based 'intelligence' . This technologization of the lifeworld has not been a "random tangent" arising in nature but a purposeful project on the part of the few, not the many. Do the individuals at the forefront of this process actually understand (or care to understand) the global consequences of all this, including the gradual marginalization and eventually the loss of human consciousness itself? As long as it has taken for nature to evolve consciousness and mind in our local planetary world, I do not think that this suppression and eventual erasure of consciousness, mind, and self-determination [both individual and collective] in our species would constitute a 'revolution' in any positive and constructive sense in human affairs. I'm sure there will be a range of responses to this post and I look forward to the discussion of different points of view. I do recommend reading the article I linked above in its entirety first.

 

[Burnt State]

This kind of technology, to be sustained, much less to become the future, takes enormous amounts of energy.

It was wrily observed of Google engineers recently that they tended to mistake technology for energy.

It seems to me a reasonable minority view to question whether we can sustain, much less increase, our current level of technology for any but the very few.

It seems like the trends are all about speed, expansion, miniaturization/invisibility and affordability. Installing fibre optic lines wherever they can and the desire to drop off wireless laptops for free, like they used to distribute cigarettes for free to kids in third world countries, tells you the direction. China is willing to sacrifice thousands upon thousands to cancer as they strip down old motherboards for precious metals in dystopic Blade Runner villages (we call this environmental recycling in the west). They have a middle class to develop after all. Devices get smaller, faster and more integrated into all aspects of modern life. Apple may have pulled out of Russia temporarily, but wherever markets are stable they will set up shop.

So while in the past the concept of exclusivity due to privilege reigned, we know that creating relatively equitable access to the web for communications is destiny here in the west. Kids without smart phones are minority status - at least that's the trend I see, that and everyone charging their devices with solar power.

I was wondering if there would be gaps not overcome by tech but when your average terrorist organization is busy creating high end theatre for digital distribution you can see the evolutionary direction quite clearly: "many will die, but the species will survive & they will be marketed to and manufactured online."

 

[Burnt State]

And as Steve @smcder would ask: "What would Nietzsche say?" I hope Steve will join in here to tell us what Nietzsche would say, which is I think what the whole phenomenological-existential line of philosophers would also say.

The relatively minor effects of the internet are magnified in virtual reality gaming and are going to become further magnified in the immersive virtual reality devices being developed for home markets in the near future. Here are some extracts from an article surveying this prospect from the points of view of those manufacturing and selling these devices and others in various disciplines who are concerned with their individual psychological and social effects.

"These existing arguments about virtual reality's effects on individuals and society are sure to grow more intense if immersive virtual reality environments become commonplace in the future. In addition, widespread virtual reality could raise entirely new ethical questions. For example, it might force people to redefine being human."

"Some thinkers even believe that, for better or worse, constant to virtual exposure reality [edited: constant exposure to virtual reality] could completely transform human consciousness. Critics fear that large numbers of people might come to prefer virtual worlds to the real one. Like the philosopher Plato, they would feel that the everyday world is an imperfect reflection of an ideal, but, in opposition to the prisoners in Plato's imaginary cave, they would see the ideal world as the one shown on the screen and the imperfect world as the one outside. Why let others see a flawed real body when online interactions can be delivered through a beautiful, sexy avatar? Why bother with a boring real life when, in an online world, a person can fly through the air, have adventures in distant or imaginary lands, and build a house or even a city in any form he or she wants?

The idea that people might choose to ignore the actual world and withdraw into virtual reality began to concern writers and thinkers long before VR technology actually developed. In Summa Technologiae , a book of essays about the future published in 1964, Polish science-fiction writer Stanislaw Lem described an imaginary machine that he called a Phantomat. According to an essay by author John Gray, Lem pictured the dangers of permanent immersion in the Phantomat's virtual reality this way:

'The more realistic the virtual world the machine creates, the more imprisoned we are in our imaginations. As our embodied selves, we interact with a world we know only in part, and which operates independently of our desire. In contrast, the virtual worlds we encounter in the Phantomat are human constructions. Fabricated from our dreams, they are worlds in which nothing can be hurt or destroyed because nothing really exists. In short, they are worlds in which nothing really matters. 48' . . ."

Which World Is Real? The Future of Virtual Reality - A Virtual Future, Changing the Brain, Connection or Isolation?, Computer Addicts

Wow, Lem gets a quote. I think the process of immersion into digital realities has been ongoing and affected all aspects of our lives. What's the current stat - 1/4 or 5 marriages in North America met online? Pornography and human relationships along with our manufacturing of identities i.e. avatar substitution are disturbing & intriguing trends. But then I identify with my avatar and I believe firmly that the amplification and distribution of ideas online will be the best era of exponential progress to date.

I liked the close of that article:
"Interactive multimedia is experiential and sensory, you don't simply observe the object, you are the object. You enter into and become part of the landscape, not just a detached observer. The medium functions as an extension of the self, a reconfiguration of identity, dreams, and memories—blurring the boundaries between self and exterior. . . . The revolutionary nature of multimedia . . . lies in its potential to transform the human spirit."

Transformation is now - it's unstoppable, and fully immersive VR will just magnify current practices of virtual reality. Look to the kids to see how they adopt and adapt readily. We are soon entering an age where those who adapt will thrive and those who can't adopt will be left behind to their older and more passé technologies.

As much as I fear the future I also see how the next generations create whole new ways of being online. Sink or swim I suppose. Check out the 'Topology of Influence' article at the top for a different vision of how it's unfolding. Trends mean so much more than ever before.

 

[Tyger]

This paper is really an exceptionally beautiful document about Human Intimacy in the digital age:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~jackylee/publication/humanintimacy-muffin.pdf

What an amazing paper, Burnt. Thank you for linking to it. I do believe I will be using it in some form or fashion in my Computer/Media Class with my students. Thank you.

So, the above is an indication of my problem with my own 'addiction' with media - chat sites like this. The addiction seems both frivolous and yet - as in this instance - it teaches a great deal. I have been down so many avenues of thought I would not have been exposed to had it not been for the internet. Yet - the question stands - would I have gotten there without the internet? My natural curiosity - would it not have led me via other pathways to what I was searching for? It would, but I would have had to engage more people in person. It would have been a path through the world, rather than virtually.

The problem the young woman alludes to is serious - how the media addiction can actually cause alienation and loneliness. There can actually be tremendous pain being dealt to someone in how people are posting (or not posting). In those situations there is no one having to take the soul-impact of their actions/speech. With a young person, not yet fully formed in their social persona, we can only guess at the problems - the scars being carved into their souls - but I see it already in my students.

 

[Tyger]

This kind of technology, to be sustained, much less to become the future, takes enormous amounts of energy.

In more ways than one. Human time and energy. As I answer this very worthy post, there are activities I should be doing stacking up - and if I stay at this long enough - I know which one will be knocked out of the queue: my walk down at the ocean, and possibly my gym time - because the other tasks are work related and cannot not be done. They will get done - but perhaps instead of a leisurely, and happy, 2 hours (because I do love my work), I will be getting them done pell-mell at midnight, meaning not enough sleep for the next day's laboring in the vineyards.

It was wrily observed of Google engineers recently that they tended to mistake technology for energy.

It seems to me a reasonable minority view to question whether we can sustain, much less increase, our current level of technology for any but the very few.

Exactly so.

In fact, I think it's not a world coming as those 'down the rabbit hole' think it is.

 

[smcder]

Re: "Is this natural human evolution?"
Probably best answered by the C&P thread people who have disentangled evolution. What would @smcder say I always ask myself. Natural or not, it's the path we chose. Human evolution is probably just a series of random tangents explored by minds that work lemmings. And that always seems to bring about human revolution.

I wonder did anyone ever tell the Buddha:

"If you find a Buddhist on the road ... kill him."?

 

[Tyger]

This kind of technology, to be sustained, much less to become the future, takes enormous amounts of energy.

It was wrily observed of Google engineers recently that they tended to mistake technology for energy.

It seems to me a reasonable minority view to question whether we can sustain, much less increase, our current level of technology for any but the very few.

As an example of the above, workers finding themselves in the kind of situation described in the following article, will not have time for what we do here: chat about ideas. I've only given an excerpt of the beginning of the article - worth a full read -

The Growing Degradation of Work and Life, and What We Might Do to End It
Saturday, 21 March 2015
LINK: The Growing Degradation of Work and Life, and What We Might Do to End It

TEXT: "In a recent New York Times' article, former labor editor Steven Greenhouse writes about how employers in the service sector often demand that their employees work shifts that allow them little time for rest. For example, a worker might have to close a night shift on Wednesday and open the morning shift on Thursday: "At Hudson County Community College in Jersey City, Ramsey Montanez struggles to stay alert on the mornings that he returns to his security guard station at 7 am, after wrapping up a 16-hour double shift at 11 pm the night before."

"Given that it takes precious minutes to get home, at least an hour or two to wind down and take care of chores, and an hour or more to prepare and then get back to work the next morning, Montanez probably has to get by on no more than five hours of sleep. If he has children or is responsible for the care of others, then the time crunch is still worse.

"The practice of having employees close late and open early has become common enough that there is now a word for it - "clopening." Management justifies the practice by claiming that turnover in restaurant and other service jobs is so high that only the relatively few longer-term employees are sufficiently trustworthy and "have the authority and experience to close at night and open in the morning." Labor advocates say that the reason for clopening is that scheduling is often no longer done by actual managers but by "sophisticated software" purchased by companies."
​

"Workers are conceptualized as mechanical cogs in a system that transforms inputs into outputs, and a host of managerial control techniques are implemented to force those hired to perform what they are ordered to do in a machine-like fashion."

Neither of these explanations suffice. The first implies that the fault lies with workers. However, turnover could be reduced by improved wages, hours and working conditions.

That these have not been bettered suggests that turnover works to the advantage of service-sector businesses. When shifts consist of people who have been on the job for many years, their loyalty to one another might come to outstrip their corporate fidelity, making them more willing to act collectively in opposition to their supervisors. They are more likely to insist on better treatment and to organize a union when demands are not met.

The second justification suggests that scheduling software is bought to lessen the burden of those who previously had to make work timetables. On the contrary, this software is used by corporations to squeeze as much work out of the mass of employees hired as possible. The goal is to minimize unit labor costs and to achieve maximum control over the labor process, which encompasses every aspect of how work is performed. Workers are conceptualized as mechanical cogs in a system that transforms inputs into outputs, and a host of managerial control techniques are implemented to force those hired to perform what they are ordered to do in a machine-like fashion.

An important modern control device is just-in-time inventory, meaning that a business keeps only as much inventory - car seats in an auto plant, frozen French fries in a fast-food restaurant - as will be needed over a very short period of time. This saves money on storage space and storage labor. In combination with other practices such as constantly shortening task times and using work teams in which members will pressure one another to solve production bottlenecks, it can help a business shave a few seconds from any particular assignment, whether it be moving a car along an assembly line or making a Big Mac.

However, today, just-in-time inventory is applied to workers themselves. Rather than assuming the utilization of someone for a week or even a day, scheduling is based upon an analysis of how many total work hours are likely to be needed during any particular hour or set of hours during a shift. If the scheduling program tells you that for an eight-hour shift, seven workers are needed for the first three and the last three hours but 10 are needed for the two-hour period around lunch time, then you will use 10 workers only for those two hours. Employees may be scheduled for two-hour workdays, or "on-call" personnel may be asked to come in.

One reason for the slow recovery of employment in the United States is the rising exploitation of those working. Corporations have used all of the control mechanisms at hand, techniques that have become both more sophisticated and punishing, to get fewer workers to convert ever more of their labor power into actual effort. This is true not just for manufacturing concerns like auto companies, which pioneered modern Taylorism, but by all private businesses (and public sector establishments such as colleges and the Social Security Administration), including especially today those in the service sector.

Some have called the new forms of control, "management by stress," meaning that employers constantly stress the labor process to force more production out of less labor. (2) In economic terms, every second counts, and eliminating a fraction of a second from the performance of a particular job detail means a great deal of money when applied to tens of millions of repetitions.(3) So, speed up the assembly line and keep inventory, including labor, low. Reduce the size of work teams - but keep raising the output quota; outsource work to lower-wage countries; and super-exploit undocumented immigrants. Threaten those who can't keep up with demotion or firing; engage in constant electronic monitoring of employees on the job; even, as Henry Ford once did, keep tabs on the worker's private lives, which today often means eavesdropping on their Facebook and Twitter posts.
​

"When we combine relentless time pressure with the mind-numbing and physically destructive nature of most jobs, we have a recipe for acute human misery."

"In an economy with an enormous surplus of potential workers - nearly 18 million unemployed and underemployed as of January 2015, for a rate of 13.3 percent - those who own and manage businesses offer the choices to those they employ and not the other way round."

"The unhappy truth is that we can never beat those who own the world's capital at their own game."

The full article is well worth the read. It may seem off-topic, but I think it's part of a whole.

 

[smcder]

As an example of the above, workers finding themselves in the kind of situation described in the following article, will not have time for what we do here: chat about ideas. I've only given an excerpt of the beginning of the article - worth a full read -

The Growing Degradation of Work and Life, and What We Might Do to End It
Saturday, 21 March 2015
LINK: The Growing Degradation of Work and Life, and What We Might Do to End It

TEXT: "In a recent New York Times' article, former labor editor Steven Greenhouse writes about how employers in the service sector often demand that their employees work shifts that allow them little time for rest. For example, a worker might have to close a night shift on Wednesday and open the morning shift on Thursday: "At Hudson County Community College in Jersey City, Ramsey Montanez struggles to stay alert on the mornings that he returns to his security guard station at 7 am, after wrapping up a 16-hour double shift at 11 pm the night before."

"Given that it takes precious minutes to get home, at least an hour or two to wind down and take care of chores, and an hour or more to prepare and then get back to work the next morning, Montanez probably has to get by on no more than five hours of sleep. If he has children or is responsible for the care of others, then the time crunch is still worse.

"The practice of having employees close late and open early has become common enough that there is now a word for it - "clopening." Management justifies the practice by claiming that turnover in restaurant and other service jobs is so high that only the relatively few longer-term employees are sufficiently trustworthy and "have the authority and experience to close at night and open in the morning." Labor advocates say that the reason for clopening is that scheduling is often no longer done by actual managers but by "sophisticated software" purchased by companies."
​

"Workers are conceptualized as mechanical cogs in a system that transforms inputs into outputs, and a host of managerial control techniques are implemented to force those hired to perform what they are ordered to do in a machine-like fashion."

Neither of these explanations suffice. The first implies that the fault lies with workers. However, turnover could be reduced by improved wages, hours and working conditions.

That these have not been bettered suggests that turnover works to the advantage of service-sector businesses. When shifts consist of people who have been on the job for many years, their loyalty to one another might come to outstrip their corporate fidelity, making them more willing to act collectively in opposition to their supervisors. They are more likely to insist on better treatment and to organize a union when demands are not met.

The second justification suggests that scheduling software is bought to lessen the burden of those who previously had to make work timetables. On the contrary, this software is used by corporations to squeeze as much work out of the mass of employees hired as possible. The goal is to minimize unit labor costs and to achieve maximum control over the labor process, which encompasses every aspect of how work is performed. Workers are conceptualized as mechanical cogs in a system that transforms inputs into outputs, and a host of managerial control techniques are implemented to force those hired to perform what they are ordered to do in a machine-like fashion.

An important modern control device is just-in-time inventory, meaning that a business keeps only as much inventory - car seats in an auto plant, frozen French fries in a fast-food restaurant - as will be needed over a very short period of time. This saves money on storage space and storage labor. In combination with other practices such as constantly shortening task times and using work teams in which members will pressure one another to solve production bottlenecks, it can help a business shave a few seconds from any particular assignment, whether it be moving a car along an assembly line or making a Big Mac.

However, today, just-in-time inventory is applied to workers themselves. Rather than assuming the utilization of someone for a week or even a day, scheduling is based upon an analysis of how many total work hours are likely to be needed during any particular hour or set of hours during a shift. If the scheduling program tells you that for an eight-hour shift, seven workers are needed for the first three and the last three hours but 10 are needed for the two-hour period around lunch time, then you will use 10 workers only for those two hours. Employees may be scheduled for two-hour workdays, or "on-call" personnel may be asked to come in.

One reason for the slow recovery of employment in the United States is the rising exploitation of those working. Corporations have used all of the control mechanisms at hand, techniques that have become both more sophisticated and punishing, to get fewer workers to convert ever more of their labor power into actual effort. This is true not just for manufacturing concerns like auto companies, which pioneered modern Taylorism, but by all private businesses (and public sector establishments such as colleges and the Social Security Administration), including especially today those in the service sector.

Some have called the new forms of control, "management by stress," meaning that employers constantly stress the labor process to force more production out of less labor. (2) In economic terms, every second counts, and eliminating a fraction of a second from the performance of a particular job detail means a great deal of money when applied to tens of millions of repetitions.(3) So, speed up the assembly line and keep inventory, including labor, low. Reduce the size of work teams - but keep raising the output quota; outsource work to lower-wage countries; and super-exploit undocumented immigrants. Threaten those who can't keep up with demotion or firing; engage in constant electronic monitoring of employees on the job; even, as Henry Ford once did, keep tabs on the worker's private lives, which today often means eavesdropping on their Facebook and Twitter posts.
​

"When we combine relentless time pressure with the mind-numbing and physically destructive nature of most jobs, we have a recipe for acute human misery."

"In an economy with an enormous surplus of potential workers - nearly 18 million unemployed and underemployed as of January 2015, for a rate of 13.3 percent - those who own and manage businesses offer the choices to those they employ and not the other way round."

"The unhappy truth is that we can never beat those who own the world's capital at their own game."

The full article is well worth the read. It may seem off-topic, but I think it's part of a whole.

Yes, I have experienced this most of my working life.

 

[smcder]

An aspect of internet pornography, don't know if this has been mentioned, is

re-booting

First noted by high end computer users, young males, in the mid 2000s when the bandwidth (in some places ;-) was such that multiple streams could be handled - so a user could view multiple pornographic videos simultaneously. Such users experienced depression, fatigue, loss of motivation, disinterest in real women, and a diminished return on the use of pornography - nothing would arouse them ... so they hit upon the idea of a "re-boot" which was simply not viewing pornography for three to six months.

They reported all the symptoms remitting as well as a new attitude toward women - both being aroused by real women and appreciating them as real people.

I believe they are working on funding to try and prove that this has something to do with the dopamine system ... but for the present discussion the thing to note is that this phenomena apparently depends on high band-width, just as distilled alcohol, coca leaves in the form of powder and pure cane sugar present problems that their natural forms do not, much of the more extreme effects of pornography seem to rely on very high levels of exposure that can only come with a high bandwidth delivery.

Oh and as far as a fully immersed VR world - it will be a while out here, I can't even stream video ... and that's just 12 miles from the last incorporated area ... but it might as well be a thousand miles ... the only alternative to DSL in the foreseeable future (and I cannot see infrastructure being run this far out - talk about prohibitive cost) is satellite and satellite, my work from home friend informs me, goes down at the threat of rain or rain cloud ... but even in town, our local utility has run an excellent internet service for years - I've noticed in the past years, and my IT and gamer friends inform me, it's certainly not getting faster and our service at the library is anything but reliable on most days.

Maybe the larger cities are seeing something different but I've read in the past year that the US has some of the wort internet access in the developed world.

 

[Burnt State]

Best discussion I've eve heard on the impact of pornography on society (including ill effects like impotence) is from the CBC radio program, Ideas. You and the rest of the C&P crowd would like the Massey Lecture Series recordings.
Generation Porn - Home | Ideas with Paul Kennedy | CBC Radio

 

[Burnt State]

The Archdruid Report

In the light of the other issues I’ve tried to discuss over the years in this blog, that view has another dimension, and it’s a considerably harsher one. Among the outsiders whose opinion of contemporary science matters most are some that haven’t been born yet: our descendants, who will inhabit a world shaped by science and the technologies that have resulted from scientific research. It’s still popular to insist that their world will be a Star Trek fantasy of limitlessness splashed across the galaxy, but I think most people are starting to realize just how unlikely that future actually is.

I read the Archdruid (personally, I expected to run into a Julian Cope website filled with weird international metal and punk music archeology mixed in with talk of sacred stone sites) and thoroughly enjoyed his socio-critical lens. Like the Industrial Age as portrayed in the opening montage of David Lynch's Elephant Man I also feel like technology will have its way with us, will impregnate us, distort us and will alter things like human privacy, intimacy and individuality.

But I do think he's a bit off the mark and a tad retro in thinking it is just a giant schizoid pinball machine rattling the youngins. There's much more significant things taking place, aside from the dominance of social media, pornography and home shopping. I see those as all lowest common denominator approaches to media consumption & proliferation. That doesn't mean that there are not quite revolutionary ideas, and paradigm shifting interactions taking place everyday with a speed that makes the industrial age transition a minor valley to cross compared to the deep Marianna's Trench that is the digital revolution.

Yes, there will be a cost for such delights, just as all of work, class, education and gov't changed over a hundred years ago, we are watching the same shifts take place now with even greater pace and magnitude. The human displacements will be enormous; a very staggered and stratified society is being born. How our grandchildren live will be unrecognizeable to our generation, the ones who plugged in the first modem.

 

[Burnt State]

You won't get much from reading and dismissing a single post. I would say start with post #1 and each week read the next post and the most current one. You'll beging to see his themes and underlying logic. He covers a lot of ground and is very well read. Externalization of costs, his current series, is a good place to start.

You have to understand some basics of peak-oil too to see where he is coming from. He may or may not be right - but I live in the Fayeteville shale and I see what we are doing to get a low return on investment for natural gas by some of the largest companies in the world. The same of which have some of the gloomiest predicitons for the next ten years of economy. So if the gas companies aren't optimistic, why are you? Cold fusion? ;-) None of the alternatives offer a return on investment that fossil fuels do. That energy was packed in over millions of year - the wind a blowing, the waves a swelling, the atoms a splitting can't ROI like petroleum - and now petroleum is returning less and less for every unit of energy put in. My understanding is that the money to be made was in selling the leases not in the gas itself and larger companies are selling off fading wells to smaller companies to run out of business (and they are dropping like flies around here).

So if we have essentially unlimited fossil fuels at our disposal why are we poking holes in the middle of nowhere (each well drops something like 70% in productivity in the first year) and why aren't the largest mining companies in the world bringing a boom to the local economy or at least cleaning up their mess as they go along? Because they can't afford to? .... And if we do have unlimited fossil fuels (the problem is more that it's in a form that requires a lot of processing to use) then can we afford to burn them?

Technology isn't the same thing as energy. We may find some unlimited supply of energy soon ... but no one is talking about it that I know of?

Here is another thing I think is behind it all. City folks is made soft by technology. And they should be scared. As conservative as Oh Lord my neighbors are (bless their hearts) they believe something is going on - climate change and energy debates are for city folk, farmers and ranchers are pragmatists and they live every day in dependence on the weather and they can show you down to the penny what's different this year and they aren't going to wait for scientists or politicians to change the way they do things. But then again they started out chopping their own wood and raising/killing their own food and they aren't afraid of what might (or might not) be coming.

Google "shale gas" "natural gas" and "bubble"

As I said, I did like his thinking, and did in fact read a series of his posts to get to his 'online' criticisms. I just thought he was limited in his persective of the value of the web.

Re: energy doom and gloom. I think I side with a lot of that, and see the further dissolution of rural America into soup kitchens while cities bulk up even more than in the late 1800's. There is a rather excruciatingly slow transition towards renewables, but for those billioaires who make the real money & who don't care if oil goes south, they will just shift to the next game.

The history of mining, and its lack of care about the worker or the city that houses the worker, should have taught the worker collective to reject such business models, but alas a pay cheque is a pay cheque and the unions have lost most of their power.

I also agree with you that cities have made people soft and that watching The Walking Dead religiously is not going to save anyone. Just how rough will these transitions be? I'm not too sure but I am seeing call centers set up shop in former grocery stores so that's not a good sign. But I don't see the rejection of the personal device be a fixture of the future. People have always enjoyed being marketed to and influenced by others. The future is still trending and all our persistent fears of the apocalypse remain as part of the ongoing narrative of paranoia we live with. These are the shackles we chose.

Are you outling a Soylent Green future?

I have already scoped out which three local neighbours, whose skills are necessary for survival, to join with before we head out of town. I probably should spend much more time learning to shoot at moving targets with the bow. Do you have a game plan - have you built the 'just in case' bunker?

 

[manxman]

You under estimate nature steve, dry wells are filling back up, wells that are pumped dry now, will be full again in less than 100yrs, check it out.

It was news to me aswell, theres enough down there to keep us going a 1000yrs or more, i forget where i was reading it.


Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.

"Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden," says Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH.

Together with two research colleagues, Vladimir Kutcherov has simulated the process involving pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner layers of the earth, the process that generates hydrocarbon, the primary component in oil and natural gas.

According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared.

Vladimir Kutcherov adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits. As Vladimir Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof, alongside his own research findings, of the genesis of these energy sources -- that they can be created in other ways than via fossils. This has long been a matter of lively discussion among scientists.

"There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil," says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected for these energy sources.

But the discovery has more benefits. The degree of accuracy in finding oil is enhanced dramatically -- from 20 to 70 percent. Since drilling for oil and natural gas is a very expensive process, the cost picture will be radically altered for petroleum companies, and in the end probably for consumers as well.

 

[Tyger]

Re: energy doom and gloom. I think I side with a lot of that, and see the further dissolution of rural America into soup kitchens while cities bulk up even more than in the late 1800's. There is a rather excruciatingly slow transition towards renewables, but for those billionaires who make the real money & who don't care if oil goes south, they will just shift to the next game.

Come on over to the 'What World Under Climate Change' thread and do some reading. All the links I have there speak to a vital future a-borning. I am a firm believer in localization - areas like, say, Los Angeles, that network out to other 'hubs'. The lone riflemen in the hills shooting deer (or the 'stranger') are not going to be the ones who survive into the new civilization with any degree of culture imo. Survival has always been with people who band together - and those are a success that look out for others as well as 'themselves'. Safety is always everyone's bias. It will be those groups who provide safety for anyone - not exclusion - that will thrive.

I also agree with you that cities have made people soft and that watching The Walking Dead religiously is not going to save anyone. Just how rough will these transitions be? I'm not too sure but I am seeing call centers set up shop in former grocery stores so that's not a good sign. But I don't see the rejection of the personal device be a fixture of the future. People have always enjoyed being marketed to and influenced by others. The future is still trending and all our persistent fears of the apocalypse remain as part of the ongoing narrative of paranoia we live with. These are the shackles we chose.

Are you outling a Soylent Green future?

The future will be where the ideas are. There might be interregnums of darkness, outlaw groups, but inevitably the light will shine where ideas thrive.

I have already scoped out which three local neighbours, whose skills are necessary for survival, to join with before we head out of town. I probably should spend much more time learning to shoot at moving targets with the bow. Do you have a game plan - have you built the 'just in case' bunker?

You believe it's going to devolve that far? I don't see that happening in the near future. It's possible if the climate change scenario really kicks in, in a catastrophic way, by 2050. In that case we may well see civil breakdown on the scale you seem to be suggesting - but even then it will be local. The best locales will not be the boondocks - but the places where technology (preferably sustainable and green, of course), culture and education are protected, so that ideas continue to flow.

If you are in the technology - like those who are creating and marketing this stuff are - it seems everywhere. It's not. It's those carrying around their ear-pods, oblivious, who are in the minority. Others are singing songs and composing music, acting in community plays, and standing on street corners objecting to whatever. People seek people out for activism and civil action and block parties. People show up at the County Commissioner's office to lodge a complaint and go out and dance in the park.

In a university town near where I live there are lectures and study groups, concerts and poetry readings. The internet has it's own reality - very heady - and it often does not jive with the vital, living, social intercourse taking place in the streets, on the beach, in the shady parks. As with everything, life must be grabbed whole. It's what you make it. I see it all around me. I love the sheer marvel of the civilization I find myself in. Yesterday I was in a coffee house, having a rousing conversation about plasma physics and the problems with Einstein. The vitality of people all around us - why change that for a scared run for the hills? I don't understand the fear. I see a challenge to us to recreate our world in a better image than we have. We have until 2100.