Science is (like) man- controlling by nature

I agree with Holdrege on many levels. I often emphasize that scientific theories are by definition not facts. Theories are guesses that are hopefully plausible and should be based on some research. Their creators claim that science provides deeper insight into naturally occurring thing but in reality scientific explanations only create artificial things. I will admit scientific explanations do provide a sense of comfort and control. Although I will never be able to guarantee my life or the life of my loved ones, I gain a level of reassurance from hearing a man in a white coat explain to me why the death of someone occurred. This is true even if I do not understand the explanation! I find comfort because the explanations are crafted by humans; and I am human. Scientific explanation is primarily useful as a coping mechanism for the ego. If I can explain it in my own terms, I have founded it, created it, invented it and mastered it! It is in this wise that I understand the concept of “delicate empiricism” and the idea that man seeks to become “utterly identical” with natural phenomena he experiences. I agree with Holdrege that scientific explanation should adapt itself to higher forms of knowing and not seek to encapsulate phenomena in limited paradigms. While this can (and does) lead to higher levels of understanding; in the end, scientific theory will always serve to confine the abstract. Even philosophy and its proverbial question, “what is the meaning of life?” does little more than present questions that if answered place confines on the abstract.

Guidelines for acceptable reproductive cloning

Where to draw the line is a very difficult question. Whether or not there is a free market should not be the standard. The demarcation should take into account the effect on cloned individuals and the long term effects on the social interaction between humans in general.

There should definitely be government regulation and an entire body of laws governing genetic manipulation. If reproductive cloning is allowed, it should not be a right. Individuals should have to undergo psychological examination and therapy. Therapeutic and reproductive cloning should be limited to 1) the DNA of no more than two individuals and 2) human genes. Both of these restrictions would help to prevent the manufacture of super babies- babies that benefit from the DNA of more than two individuals (which is not possible with traditional sexual reproduction) or that benefit from the genes of animals (enhanced sight, hearing, strength, etc.,).

Singularity and the Law of Accelerating Returns

From the ‘Future for all’ website I clicked on a link that took me to: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0134.html There I read a read a very long article by Ray Kurzweil titled “The Law of Accelerating Returns”

The law of accelerating returns in lay terms states that progress leads to exponentially greater progress. Faster and smarter computers allow us to revolutionize future computers faster and more intensely than current technology. Hence, progress is not linear, as he suggests that most people believe, but exponential. His prediction is that the law of accelerating returns will lead to ‘the Singluarity”. The Singularity is technological change so rapid and so profound that it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history.

My first thought was to dismiss this theory techie gospel, mostly because I tend to reject all theories that paint the present as the turning point in history as self-centered and irrational (people in the year 1000 had the same apocalyptic convictions of people in the year 2000, not to mention the years 500 and 1500 and every other year regardless of whether or not man believed he was the center of the earth).

However, this article is special in that it does not simply state that this time is special inspite of history but relies on history to show how technological progress has always been approaching a crescendo. He provides an analogy about the inventor of chess who asked to the emperor of China to give him one grain of rice on the first square and then double the number of grains in each succeeding square. By the 64th square the man would have accumulated 18 million trillion grains of rice! Very significant is that for the first 32 squares the numbers of rice grains are relatively insignificant. This is an analogy for the law of accelerating returns applied to technology. In which, technology has always been increasing exponentially but it is not until a certain point that this exponential growth becomes noteworthy! Framed in this manner it becomes more feasible for me to imagine technology expanding to a never before calculated frenzy.

At that event horizon, known as Singularity, mankind merges with technology to become smarter thereby remaining the wielders of technology and infinite intelligence. Also of interest was his prediction of how computer intelligence will surpass human intelligence. He says that the human brain is inefficient but its computing capabilities come from three dimensional operation. Hence, Nanotubes, with circuits forming pentagonal arrays of carbon atoms, three-dimensional silicon chips, optical computing, crystalline computing, DNA computing, and quantum computing all have the potential intelligence millions of times more powerful than the human brain.

More Mahotma Mania!!!

In New York City we already have cameras at traffic lights and police surveillance cameras all over the city. The benefit of surveillance as a tool of the government to record criminal activity is real. However, video surveillance does not lead to more equal justice. Police cameras are disproportionately placed in poor and minority neighborhoods just as police officers are disproportionately placed in poor and minority neighborhoods. Hence, security cameras will be used as “objective” proof that certain communities are more prone to violence and crime without considering the disproportional application of the technology (i.e.: more cameras in certain neighborhoods will almost certainly result in more crimes being recorded in those neighborhoods). Hence, cameras will serve as a tool of the establishment to further demarcate certain communities under the guise of neutral technology.
I find comical Taylor’s assertion that people will behave normally after accepting that they are being watched. I am aware that there is a psychological experiment that revealed that people will only temporarily change their behavior when they know they are being watched (with no long lasting change). However, that experiment did not intrude on the privacy of the subjects. Perpetual surveillance implies distrust of the people and will therefore engender under Newton’s Law (equal and opposite force) distrust of the government. Mechanical overseers disassociate officials from the people and will thus result in a disenfranchised population. Most of all, the proliferation of cameras will represent power and control by the government and not by the people, which will lead to resentment and radical political upheaval- either the people will get rid of the cameras or the cameras will enslave the people in a police state.

Everything that makes America great, on steroids!

The most significant consequence of the information revolution involves the ease with which information can be shared. Like all good Americans I believe in the purity of the free market (to some extent). A free market in information shares one amazing quality with a free market in pricing- efficiency!
At any given time scholars all around the world are seeking answers to the same questions. As I type a blog pondering collaboration in information synthesis at 10pm in New York, someone is learning about it in a classroom on the other side of the world in their 10am class. The idea that they can instantaneously take advantage of my epiphany is the marvel that is facilitating technological advance faster than anytime in history. In an analogy the advantage of the United States has been to recruit diversity from around the world (e.g. Albert Einstein). Information collaboration achieves this same advantage exponentially. Essentially, information collaboration is everything that makes America great, on steroids.

My life changing experience due to globalization

In 2003 while earning my first degree I studied abroad at Stockholm University School of Business in Stockholm, Sweden. In the context of globalization or any other this was one of the most profound experiences of my life. It provided me a new outlook on America. It provided my an new outlook on being a black man. In the social democracy of Sweden I learned a radical new way of looking at social responsibilty and adopted a philosophy of social existentialism. As a journalist and business major I gained an understanding of the tax system and a mindset where people did not resent their taxes being used to support the less fortunate. I was there at when the people of Sweden voted overwhemingly not to adopt the Euro. During that period I had the opportunity to travel extensively across Europe (by rail) and found that most people even in countries with the Euro did not agree with Europe's movement away from social responsibility in an effort to compete with the United States.

I would have never received such an opportunity if not for globalization in tertiary education that facillitated me to earn credits in a foreign institution that would count toward graduation from Baruch, CUNY.

Revealing (or aletheiea)

Revealing (or aletheiea)

Revealing may be looked at as synonymous with truth, or more accurately a way of looking at the truth. Technology is a way of exposing truth in the world. With every technology we learn something new about the world. That means something new is revealed about the world. The way it is revealed determines what we will learn and how we will view the technology. Therefore, we should not look at technology as only gadgets, tools and toys. Instead technology reveals things about the natural world, human beings, and the interaction of human beings in the world. The importance of revealing has to do with how we view technology and the meaning we attach to technology. If we fixate on one way of looking at technology we will miss all of the wonderful things it might possibly reveal.

Man in the crosshairs of technology!

Passage VII P. 126
"Similar comparisons could be made with all the other historical forms of the ethics of contemporaneity and immediacy."

The above line which begins Section VII wraps up his critique of Kant and all other theories of developing ethics as fixed forms that focus on present populations. He then goes on to state that his formulation requires foresight and responsibility. First and foremost I definitely agree that ethical behavior requires foresight and responsibility. It is not enough to say 'I did not know'. The question is always 'should you have known?' This principle is encompassed in a legal doctrine most people have heard that colloquially states that 'ignorance is no defense.' Foresight requires us to actively consider the consequences of our actions and is part and parcel with responsibility. The people that do not end up in jail are those who learn this lesson. The scientists that do not end up jail should be those who learn the same. In a later section he also points out that in the absence of wisdom to act, ignorance is a reason to restrain action. This is a principle I believe in and why I am a critic of ‘reflexivity’.
The majority of Section VII is a provocative discourse in which he notes that “man himself has been added to the objects of technology[!]” By placing man in the crosshairs he may serve to convince a few others that there must be a limit. He notes “[s]omewhere along the line of increasing social manageability at the price of individual autonomy, the question of worthwhileness of the human enterprise must pose itself (128).”
While some of Jonas’ writing might be looked at as hyperbole and rhetoric, I found it hard hitting and interesting. I did not find it nearly as difficult as last weeks reading.

Transforming technology

I would like to see technology transformed to promote greater liberty and freedom. Currently, crop engineering is making more sterile farm crops, which will make people, even farmers, dependent on the government for food. However, this technology has yet to eliminate starvation. Surveillence technology makes it so that honest citizens cannot secure privacy or move freely. However, this tecnology has not brought Bin Laden to justice or numerous other criminals.

Democracy has the connotation of control by the masses. Democracy has the definition of control by the majority. Unfortunately, the masses and the majority are not the same (think majoirty of wealth and power). Technological invention through democracy will hopefully lead to the technological invention of democracy. A democracy where government intrusion is minimized in the lives of individuals.

I would also like to see people move in a direction and guide technology in a direction that unifies people socially. More social cohesion and less government collusion. People must take the lead and technology can play a part.

Fascism . . . I mean . . .Technology as a 'form of life'

Langston Winner's discussion was powerful and even emotional!

Power is centralized!
The few talk and the many listen!
There are barriers between social classes!
The world is hierarchically structured!
The good things are distributed unequally!
Women and men have different kinds of competence!
One's life is open to continual inspection!

Winner is suggesting that contemporary technology is the spokesperson for the above principles. Incidentally, the above principles amount to fascism!
That sounds a bit paran . . .
1- On every block in my neighborhood there are street cameras.
2-The US government is allowed to spy on US citizens
3- The US government can deny US citizens constitutionally protected jurisprudence by simply labeling them "enemy combatants"
4- My phone has a GPS navigator that can pinpoint me anywhere in the world
5- Principles of capitalism state that its OK to replace people with machines because eventually those people will get better paying jobs doing something? else.
6- I know dozens of people that have found themselves in "Ms. Garret" type situations where they are forced to defend themselves against a machine.
7- George Bush stole an election, started a war, erased the surplus (that Clinton left) and created a huge deficit, and made his buddies at Haliburton, Northrop, and Lockheed (not to mention the oil companies) super rich(er)
8- As I discussed last week in the "new human habitat" discussion, technology is definitely creating conditions where humans will have to accept the world as technology crafts it. Utilizing Winner's suggestion of analyzing the relationship from the 'perspective of technology', the new human habitat becomes an overseer and human beings become prisoners.

YEAH, fascism, that sounds about right!
(This class is becoming scary. Tell me I am reading too much into this!)

The relationship between history and technology

This weeks reading revealed a conundrum between technology and history that I did not know existed. This weeks readings analyzes the relationship from a few perspectives.

Edgerton confronts the notion that technology shapes history. He also rebuffs the more dramatic notion that technology defines history. Edgerton explains that the relationship between history and technology is understood through the use of technology by people. This analysis by Edgerton is quite intuitive and elementary in retrospect. However, I understand the need for statement of the point when I dwell on my own education. I remember history classes where stoic teachers prepared students to provide unambiguous answers on exams using neat timelines that progressed human history inventions and inventors. Off the top of my head I think of Davinci's Renaissance and Henry Ford's Revolution. Edgerton knocks tech-savvy Americans like myself out of the monolithic technology-box by pointing out the persistence of dinosaurs like the sewing machine and manufacturing in around the world. OBVIOUSLY, people do not simply stop using old things because new things are made. The old and the new exist side by side. This is fully supported by the capitalistic model that prefaces change on tested efficiency of new designs. The lesson I took from Edgerton is not to get lost in the technological rhetoric (think: dot-com bubble).

Williams considers whether technology replaces history. I find that a bit of a trick question because in every generation present understanding defines the way people analyze history. She discusses the importance of reflexivity in the modern landscape as another way the line between history and technology is abrogated. However, I agree with Beck totally! Entreprenuers/Scientists are taking bold liberties with the health and safety of the world and justifying their actions with reflexivity. The risk that science takes with the idea that they can "fix it later" if it does not work out it the #1 ethical issue I have with modern science in almost every field.

Week 1 Blog Question

Mr. Winner's main point criticizes the commoditization of education. He satires 'schools' that sell distance learning as capitalist-entrepreneurs marketing the newest technological craze. Winner potrays for-profit corporations that sell education as marketing firms and views free-market trade in learning as straying from the purpose of education. This is clear from the conclusion of the video where he states the companys mantra: 'confidence (not education) is our business'.

Winner does not address the social and economic conditions that lead education vendors to believe that they can succeed using 'just in time' and other product-based business principles to deliver education services.

Introduction to The Mahotma

This will be my philosophy blog!

Much more than demagogy and rhetoric, the Mahotma engages in critical exploration of modern society and science, not for the purpose of promoting his position, but simply to promulgate truth.

The MAHOTMA and The MAHATMA were born on the same day during the same month.

What day would that be?