Slashdot Mirror
Jamais Cascio on Gadgets and the Future
Armchair Anarchist writes "Futurismic has just posted the first column from its new monthly contributor, the renowned Jamais Cascio. Cascio is best known as a co-founder of Worldchanging.com, but is also a prolific blogger (at his own site 'Open The Future'), writer, public speaker and pundit on many aspects of futurism and foresight. This new piece sees him discussing the way futurist thinkers tend to focus on gadgets and technology, and advocating the use of more critical approaches."
It must be really hard to be a futurist when your first name means "never" in French.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
So what we're reading...is some guy talking about other guys talking about their guesses for the future. It's...a whole new realm of mental masturbation. I'd try my hand at it myself, but I'm afraid I might break my mental wrist.
The answer, obviously, is that neither choice is exclusive of the other, and that both are often true.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
... but maybe it would be better to wait until he posts a really interesting, insightful column before posting it to the front page of Slashdot. This was just a preliminary bit of throat clearing from what I can see.
And really - a futurologist who finishes his column with "I can't wait to see how it turns out." - that's right up there with "only time will tell" - much beloved of lazy trainy-journalists who have got tired of thinking and have completed their allotted word count.
And this isn't just s/Chuck Norris/Jamais Cascio/g
Cheap UK and US VPS
Click here or here.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Sounds like he's just discovered what Langdon Winner has been saying since the 1970s, and others since before then. Slashdot frequently sees posts like "a razor blade can be used for good or evil" implying technology is value neutral -- but it isn't. Technology embodies our values, especially when looked at as a system including favorite economic stories at the time -- including a decision to invest in, say, designing nuclear weapons design or marketing larger SUVs instead of say, curing river blindness or designing electric cars -- decisions driven by values.
Contrast, say, Disney's investments in controlling media with DRM versus the RepRap project to make a free 3D printer. Winner goes further in his book _Autonomous Technology_ and suggests large bureaucracies "reverse adapt", changing their environment to perpetuate themselves, including the legal environment. So, if you can't make or share your own media or 3D models, then you are dependent on Disney or whoever. Consider the kind of technology to sustain the values described here: CLAWS: Creating Livable Alternatives to Wage Slavery and how it might differ from the politics and policies and technologies and infrastructure of today. Or from this essay The Abolition of Work: "Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working. ... Only a small and diminishing fraction of work serves any useful purpose independent of the defense and reproduction of the work-system and its political and legal appendages. Twenty years ago, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just five percent of the work then being done -- presumably the figure, if accurate, is lower now -- would satisfy our minimal needs for food, clothing and shelter. Theirs was only an educated guess but the main point is quite clear: directly or indirectly, most work serves the unproductive purposes of commerce or social control."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
"This is a more important issue than you might think. If you doubt the relevance of social values when thinking about the future, ask yourself: how would an intelligent machine built by computer scientists in China differ from one built by computer scientists in the United States... Or an electric car design coming from computer industry veterans rather than a Big Three carmaker? "
1 - The intelligent machine built in the US is not censored
2 - Electric car would be highly efficient and not consume oil, therefore it is blocked by the lobbying power of oil companies which have recently benefitted from record profits given to them by high oil costs ($74/barrel.)
Electric cars should be in use right now, there is no reason why we can't produce them efficiently - right now.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Because they fail to look at the rampant stupidity and greed that is making innovation go down the toilet.
Examples? sure! I currently have great TV service at home, I do not have Cable or Dish I use the Internet. Some of the shows I want to watch are NOT on the net for me to collect so I have installed "collectors" at friends homes to record and then foreward my few recordings to me (low bandwidth plus I compress to mpeg4) My setup works great and all my friends and relatives think it's really cool and want one.
One problem. It's 100% illegal. I have over 300 movies on it for on demand viewing, I have lots of video content from TV shows (yes WITH the commercials) as well as tons of IPTV content. The companies that deliver TV content are scared shitless because they know that they can easily be replaced. Channels and networks are 100% useless today people only care about shows that catch their fancy.
So what happens? TV stations and networks fight tooth and nail to make sure that innovation is stifled. Therefore advances in the future are severely limited due to the short-sightedness of very rich and stupid people on the boards of large companies.
They are even fighting the ipod and the slingbox and even Tivo's now. They can stifle any advances and cause a stoppage of innovation through legistlation.
Futurists live in a dreamy world, they never take into accounts of events that severely limit or effect the future in drastic ways.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I wonder if this is a jab at WorldChanging? That future thinking, socially engaged blog tends to be extremely gadget and technology focused. He founded the site a few years ago, was extremely active on it, and then left in March without comment -- after an otherwise remarkable year wherein the org files to incorporate as a non-profit and publishes a massive coffee table book.
"Most of the controversy surrounding these technologies has to do with what they mean -- that is, the values they embed -- not how they work."
Take the mobile phone, for instance. When people were imagining mobile phones and how they would work, how much attention was paid to considering how people would really use them?
People driving their cars through traffic while holding a phone to their ear and talking about shopping or going to a party, people sitting in restaurants or other public places speaking loudly into their phones, or mobiles ringing in the middle of discussions, meals,movies or plays, meetings, etc... These circumstances were considered rude or even illegal, and some of these are expected and tolerated now. They have become a normal part of our lives - our values have changed because of the technology.
This guy is talking about looking at that aspect of new technology, changing how we think of its potential. When Buck Rogers movies showed a visual communicator thingy that worked like a tv, who would have thought that when television was invented people would sit in front of it for hours on end as if they were hypnotised?
Perhaps by expanding on how we think of the potential of technology, then we can develop better technologies that really lead to people living better lives.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
This man has nothing to do with futurism. Futurism is far more interesting than anything he's talking about.
"Futurismic has just posted the first column from its new monthly contributor, the renowned Jamais Cascio.
Who?
Cascio is best known as a co-founder of Worldchanging.com,
Wow. They changed the world so much I never heard of them.
but is also a prolific blogger (at his own site 'Open The Future'),
My friend's cat has a blog. Admittedly it tends to cover catnip, hunting birds and napping positions, but it's a blog nonetheless.
writer, public speaker and pundit on many aspects of futurism and foresight.
Ah. A self-promoter, then.
Cascio has worked on a number of television and film projects, and has designed two science fiction game settings, exploring issues of posthumanity, intellectual property, sapient AI, nanotechnology, and bioengineering. Jamais has degrees in Anthropology, History and Political Science.
This snippet from the blogger's bio encapsulates, basically, why calls (like this one) for a turn away from "content" to "a more critical approach" make me nervous. It's true that social values influence technology, and that the nexus of the two is an important area of study-- but why is it that offers to critically examine that nexus always seem to come from outsiders who aren't themselves involved or well-versed in the technology?
Everybody has an opinion, naturally, but a learned commentary on bioengineering, coming from a poli-sci type who may or may not have taken even the most introductory biology courses, would carry about as much weight for me as a lecture on Aristotle from my cocker spaniel. If "critical futurism" is poised to become a valid scholarly/intellectual discipline, I'd much rather see it populated by actual scientists and engineers-- people who're themselves helping to create the future, and who should therefore be in a good position to comment on how it's going-- than by film-school types who've read Foucault but can't do math.
Not only bad writing, but just plain wrong. What tradeoffs were made when developing cardiac stints or cataract lens implants? What tradeoffs were made when inventing the transistor? The cell phone? There are no tradeoffs that are evident to me.
As to the bad writing, I once had to read a paper that had the word "enumerate" three times in th efirst paragraph. Obfuscatory college-level writing like this isn't communication (yes I'm doing this on purpose to make my point), it's there to impress your audience. "Gee, he sure uses lots of big words, he must be smart. I better believe him."
But futurism is just plain dumb. You can NOT predict the future. Where is my flying car? When the lens replacement implant was developed in 1949, it would have been pretty easy to predict that some day we would have ones that could focus, but you'd never have been able to predict when.
Even science fiction authors who are/were actual scientists (e.g., Asimov) got it consistantly wrong. Nobody saw the internet coming; Asimov came closest with his city-sized computer everyone had a terminal to. Rodenberry's writers forsaw self-opening doors; cell phones; talking, flat screen computers, but they thought it would be 200 years before that stuff came to pass.
I've been rereading I, Robot. When I was a teenager in the '60s it was one of my favorite books, now that we have robots it's almost painful to read.
Futurism is great - as fiction. But it's only fiction; at least, until someone invents a working crystal ball.
Speaking of fiction: "If you doubt the relevance of social values when thinking about the future, ask yourself: how would an intelligent machine built by computer scientists in China differ from one built by computer scientists in the United States?"
There will never be an intelligent machine until you redefine intelligence. Folks who think computers can or will be able to "think" either don't understand how computers work, or don't understand that thought and intelligence are merely complex chemical reactions.
How many more beads do I have to put on my abacus before it becomes self-aware?
This guy is a dumbass disguising his lack of intelligence with a thesaurus.
Let's elevate those people who actually achieve something making changes in our society like Linus Torvalds, Thomas Edison, Marie Curie or Tim Berners Lee - hell, we could even put Mr Gates on one of the lower pedestals!
In my day, someone who said something without actually doing anything was known as a hypocrite - and "Personne" Cascio ("jamais" is French for "never" whereas "personne" is French for "nobody" which is more appropriate) is a hypocrite with his oversized head lodged firmly up his rectum.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Take the mobile phone, for instance. When people were imagining mobile phones and how they would work, how much attention was paid to considering how people would really use them?
People driving their cars through traffic while holding a phone to their ear and talking about shopping or going to a party, people sitting in restaurants or other public places speaking loudly into their phones, or mobiles ringing in the middle of discussions, meals,movies or plays, meetings, etc... These circumstances were considered rude or even illegal, and some of these are expected and tolerated now. They have become a normal part of our lives - our values have changed because of the technology.
Another thing is the fact that people, for the most part, are ditching their land line phones and replacing them with cell phones. This is especially true with younger people, who tend to move more, and are home less. Plus, you can turn them off.
Driving while talking or listening to a cell phone is as dangerous - or more dangerous - than driving while legally drunk, according to recent scientific studies. Technology isn't good or evil, it's how you use it - ok, well, a nuclear bomb isn't "good".
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"You are telling others to do research, when you don't even know or recognize what Linus did?
/. each day, because of my Karma rating. This inspite of /. management telling us that we should not be concerned about it. Soooo now I am off to make even BIGGER fools of /. management, by using proxies, other 'accounts' and other sorded ways to post :]"
You sound like 'Bill Gates', with your arrogance & ignorance!!"
Where did I tell anyone to do anything? Yes, I know what Linus does and has done (for the most part).
Bill Gates, never known as an especially good programmer, was/is one of the world's great entrepreneurs, and through his hands-on style most likely pooped out more contributions to code than you'll ever imagine. While I'm no fan of MS I'm not stupid. Bill G wrote the original Basic interpreter than was included in DOS from the beginning. That in itself is as original as Linus's poor Unix kernel clone.
"If it wasn't for Linus, we either would not have Unix on x86, or we'd be waiting for someone to come up with the OS so the masses could use it."
You're kidding, right? Unix on x86 far predates Linux. I was personally a release manager and key developer for one such distribution in the late 80's (SVR3.2 and SVR4). Efforts such as XFree86 had their origins before Linux. Today we have many Unix-like systems on x96 besides Linux. Ever heard of SCO?
"As far as Gates acheivements.. just because someone is the best at being a lier, fraud, thief and foool, doesn't make them great or good.
His money is from other peoples misery."
This doesn't justify a response. You know nothing of the history of the PC (or much of your three R's).
"The only reason it is taking Unix and it's varients sooo long to catch on, is because it was orignally designed for the worlds fon network and universities, and therefore was for scientist and nerds.
Linux and other Unices are for those who 'want it', and we are really not thaht interested whether lazy people see the benefits in learning it."
I wager I was using Unix before you were born, yet you refer to yourself as part of the "we" elite of computer OS users. Get over it.
"-- Safely entrenched at the bottom of 'Terrible Karma' I have just used up the second of my 'two' posts that I am 'aloud' on
Judging by your marginal knowledge and questionable literacy, I'd say two posts for you is generous.
This guy is no better than Nostradamus. He has no real insight, no technical background, no basis in the scientific method or objective reality. He is a paid fantasizer and daydreamer without the skill to even create an enjoyable storyline. I wonder how much this nobody paid slashdot to advertise his scam?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Enough is enough. First Leo Laporte takes over the techtv like storm, with his degree in chinese linguistics or some other obscure discipline, along with his wine spectator turned pundit Dvorak. Now the likes of this Jamais Cascio guy, whom I never heard of before today. One look at the two klinked pages, he is nothing but a glorified blogger. Glorified only by likes of /.
/. is getting more and more to my nerves. No wonder digg is gainig up ground (and don't get me started with Kevin Rose. Puhlease)
Day is 24 hours and I only have few minutes to be spared for functions like eating and sleeping. I can do without reading Jamais and his cohorts.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals