Slashdot Mirror
Orlando and the Tragedy of Technology
For some time now, I've wanted to write a book called "Orlando and the Tragedy of Technology," indirectly inspired by a classic essay by the engineer Samuel Florman. Florman's "Technology and the Tragic View," ran in, of all places, House & Garden magazine's Bicentennial issue in 1976.
This, I thought, was the way to look at technology, probably the most powerful, pervasive, and perplexing social force in the modern world. This, it seemed to me, was the sane position, the rational middle ground between Luddite gloom and techno-hype.
Technology is the universal topic, revolutionizing business, culture, publishing, and soon, politics. Technology is a tidal wave; on everybody's mind; debated, denounced, celebrated and fussed about by journalists, politicians, business people, educators, geeks, engineers, academics, intellectuals, Harry and Martha sitting at home figuring out what to buy.
But I've never been sure how to tackle the subject. Books need narrative spines, story lines that take a reader from one point to the next, and it isn't clear that there is one here.
Then last month, to my pleasant surprise, my editors at Rolling Stone bit. They liked my notion of trying to come up with a contemporary view of technology, and of setting this project in an appropriately bizarre place like Orlando, Florida, founded on techno-visions and now one of the most-visited destinations on earth.
So I'm heading south today to write about Orlando and technology. And I'd like to take a whack at open source non-technical writing - presenting the idea to some of the smartest, most opinionated people involved in technology (that would be you guys) and getting some help.
Orlando is a place where technology, capitalism, imagination, individualism and corporatism collide. A polyglot nation of the imagination, the city, for better or worse, is awash with tourists, theme parks and restaurants, all sorts of amazing technologies and much metaphor - from Tomorrowland to EPCOT Center.
Walt Disney chose Orlando as the place for his new theme park for several reasons. The biggest was he wanted to control the land and environment around his parks, something he'd failed to do around Disneyland. Another was his obsession with building EPCOT (Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow) Center.
Disney was a closet utopian, fixated on the belief that technology could be put in the service of creating perfect little worlds. He believed he could build a model community, free of blight, poverty and crime, and he would do this be harnessing the kinds of technologies that embodied good old American ingenuity, the kind he embraced to such successful effect in his theme parks and imagined worlds.
He meant for EPCOT to serve as a model community of the future; a clean, safe, flawlessly-planned enclave where Disney employees could live, and a community whose trailblazing new educational and environmental technologies would save the world beyond.
It didn't turn out that way. Walt Disney died of lung cancer. Rumors had it that he was studying cryogenics so that he could freeze his body and one day thaw himself out and come back and get even with his bottom-line fixated successors, who he was convinced would commercialize EPCOT.
Disney was right, of course. His successors scrapped his expensive and ephemeral notions of a model town, and swiftly turned EPCOT into a giant promotion, one that not only celebrated corporations, but the new technologies they were deploying for the future. Perhaps Disney's successors' vision -- technology in the service of corporatism -- was more prescient than his own.
Almost nothing of his original dream for EPCOT (some of the echoes of EPCOT survive in Disney's planned town, Celebration) remains, except an architectural model hidden from most visitors in a Tomorrowland train tunnel.
Disney's lost dream was a heartbreaker, though. Modern Orlando is now an astonishing, uniquely American world or collection of disparate and disjointed worlds, a place that Disney spawned but would neither recognize nor approve of. Technology -- visions, representations, manifestations -- are at its heart.
There, technology is on display in all sorts of remarkable forms. There's no Tomorrow in Tomorrowland, for example. Disney's notion of the Space Age as the next big thing in technology fizzled. He never imagined anything like the Internet.
The Space Age died and now Tomorrowland is being revamped at great expense along the lines suggested by Jules Verne, a futurist from the past. The walkways, trams and intergalactic spaceways Disney believed would be part of 21st century life never got out of the park.
It seems to me that one of the things that drove Disney, and drew so many millions of people to the things he built was his idea of technology as a way of imagining the past and the future. His life and work, in fact, embody Florman's notion of the tragic view of technology.
Samuel Florman had this idea: technology was neither good nor evil, but inherently tragic. "I suggest that an appropriate response to our new wisdom is neither optimism nor pessimism, but rather the espousal of an attitude that has traditionally been associated with men and women of noble character -- the tragic view of life."
Tragedy, Florman wrote, is uplifting. It depicts heroes wrestling with fate, struggling to improve the world. It also reflects another inherent human trait -- messing the world up.
"We simply cannot make use of coal without killing miners and polluting the air. Neither can we manufacture solar panels without worker fatalities and environmental degradation."
Florman was onto something, and I think his theories are best reflected and captured in Orlando, in the place fathered by Disney's failed dreams and mangled visions. So I'm on my way: your thoughts, insights, responses, criticisms and ideas are welcome.
Specifically, I'm interested not in Orlando itself, but in this tragic view of technology -- the idea that it represents the best and worst in humanity almost simultaneously -- as it plays out in Orlando, not only in Disney World but in the network of parks and rendered worlds from Sea World to Universal Studios: in visions of technology and the future, in the ways in which technology captures the imagination. I'll be filing reports from Orlando to Slashdot in the next week or so. I'd love to hear your thoughts. I don't know if this idea is a book or not -- I hope it is -- but at the very least, it promises to be a great conversation.
Anyone ever actually been to Disneyland/world/etc?
Its kinda weird. They *really* spy on you when you're there. Cameras *ALL* over the rides, people watching your almost every move.
Amidst all the joyous kid things, there are people in plainclothes called the "DBI" who enforce the law of the land. If you look 'weird' you're not allowed into the park. If you're wearing a tshirt that says something unsavory (like "Eat the homeless"). If you're too pierced. If you're not living up to Disney's expectations, you're given the boot. Their utopia is no 'weirdos'.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Technology isn't good or evil, it just exists. People create things and solve problems, and technology is both the solution to problems, and the source of new ones. To ascribe words like good or evil or tragic to technology is to ignore the problem that we are trying to address in making technology.
Stupid Example:
Problem: It's a bit chilly in the room.
Solution: Make a heat source. This might involving developing technologies that involve rubbing two sticks together, or a phosphorus match, or a method whereby you burn stuff remotely, convert the energy into electricty, and the convert the electricy back into heat within that space that is chilly. This fire causes pollution, and might burn your house down.
Is fire tragic? hardly. It's just the way we solved the problem. Without the problem of a cold room to solve, the technology of fire wouldn't be required. At a deeper level, the cause of the tragedy isn't fire (the technology) at all, it's the fact that the room is cold (the problem).
I might argue that it's tragic that it's chilly in the room sometimes, but that's just life. There will always be problems. We can try to work towards a minimal subset of those problems. The algorithm for determining the global minimum value of problems in the world is left as an excercise for the reader.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
...technology was neither good nor evil, but inherently tragic.
Why tragic? There can be no doubt that technology is neither good nor evil, but to describe it as 'tragic' is the ultimate glass-is-half-empty sort of outlook.
For a start, what is technology? As far as I'm concerned, it's the use of any tool to help in a task. That tool can be a stick, a rock, a (shudder) NT box or an ICBM. All of these can be used for evil, but consider that we wouldn't have made it to the moon without technology that was first used to blow the shit out of people.
A better question to ask, imho, would be 'why do so many (ie most) people, if pushed, view technology as tyrranical? Would these people change their minds if they were shown that everything (everything) they do is a result of technology or involves its use.
I also spent a few minutes wondering how Disneyland fit into this. Then it hit me... tax breaks. Jon's been reading Dave Barry
I went to EPCOT this summer, and it was sufficiently hot that shorts and a t-shirt were called for. Unfortunately, I decided to wear a shirt that Xircom had sent me after getting a RealPort Modem/Ethernet card for my laptop. Well, the back has an image of a dongle in a surgeon's tray, along with the words, "Have you had your dongle removed?" Heh, I like the shirt, but as the day was winding down, I was approached by one of their security team asking what this "dongle business" was all about. My generous hosts eventually let me stay after giving them a thorough explanation of what the shirt meant, although I don't think they understood a word I said.
Oh well, even though I'd love one, I guess it's for the best that I don't have a shirt with their other ad: A picture of Michelangelo's David, except with his penis broken off, along with the phrase "Uh oh, David's lost his dongle." Heh, Disney probably would've beaten me down with some billy clubs if I had worn that one.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Interesting concept, Jon. I just got back from Orlando, where I spent a day at EPCOT. The last time I visited anything Disney was some 28 years ago, when I was too young to see past the rides and the carnival atmosphere. EPCOT is disappointing, utimately, for a number of reasons. If you've travelled - and I have visited some of the countries represented in the EPCOT park - you quickly realize that they have reduced each to a sound bite. It is Julian Barnes "England, England" come to life... "England, well, we need a Fish-n-Chips place." Then there is the technology. A monorail still glides across the landscape, but that was there 28 years ago. Modern cities have light rail, etc. Are there no new sucesses here? One of the main buildings advertises "Innovation"; I say "advertises" deliberately, for the minute you walk in you are aware of the corporate slogans and the product labels. Walk through the IBM section, the Xerox section, the Sega section. See Thinkpads. See video games. See Bose Speakers. Listen to the guides tell you how you can buy all of this stuff today! All they need is a car lot to complete the shopping experience. The Millenium village comes off as a place where the countries not willing to sign a big enough check to Disney are herded under the same tent, where they shout out like carnival barkers for your attention. I spoke to several country representatives and each was well-spoken and informed about their countries purpose in being there. But what was Disney's contribution to this? Advertising space? Let's face it, Disney is a country and that country has a service-based economy. It is no longer the technological dreamscape that Walt Disney wished it to be.
The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 4th Ed., Vol 2
As I interpret the phrase "open source" when applied to writing, all of us would be able to reproduce, modify, and re-release the product of Katz's labor. We could submit or remove chapters, sell individual paragraphs, or scoop Barnes and Noble by copying the text off an FTP site (where it will be freely available) and reselling print copies with no royalties going to Jonathan Katz.
I strongly suspect this is not what Katz means. Rather, his hope seems to be that we supply him with our ideas, as moderated by his target audience to "Interesting" and "Insightful" levels, he farms those ideas and tosses in a few adverbs as relish, and then he becomes wealthy. If his book is not copyrighted, I will eat my shoe.
Open source writing might very well work for a topic that is highly technical and an author who is highly altruistic. I question whether this book (which may nonetheless be very interesting) fits those criteria.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Disney World may well be more precient that Walt could have ever dreamed. Obviously, we're in the middle of a paradigm shift away from personal privacy, and the Disney Experience is just a sign of things to come.
An example. Where I grew up, in Fort Worth, Texas, there's a downtown district that's now called Sundance Square. As recently as a decade ago, it was a run-down, nondescript urban area. Thanks to the investment a very rich family who, to be sure, has done many wonderful things for Fort Worth, the area has since been revitalized into a lively entertainment district. However, it is also damn near a police state. It's been said, probably without hyperbole, that in what amounts to about a fifteen city block area, there's not a single place you can stand and not be under the surveillance of the private police force of this wealthy family. Fort Worth got a nice little cash cow and the nearest thing they've got to a tourist attraction, but at what cost?
Nor do I see how things can get significantly better. Remote observation will only become easier with the progression of technology, and Diamond Age-esque serveillance robots may be uncomfortably close.
Welcome to the future. Thanks for the preview, Walt.
-jay
The major issues with technology are that it is very expensive to use it cleanly, and that it changes much faster than people.
A lot of the problems with technology are strongly related to the scarcity of energy. In theory, with an infinite supply of cheap energy, technology could limit its own negative ecological effects. The main arguments against ecological alternatives are economic. It would also cease to provide a social gradient that helped to separate rich and poor. Fission, fusion and space-based solar energy are all possibilities for increasing the energy supply, but none looks to be cheap, completely safe, or all that plentiful. Finding a good source of energy would redefine the technology landscape, making clean use of energy practical and reducing scarcity of goods in general. Can we survive long enough to find one? Shouldn't we be looking a little harder?
The other aspect of technological tragedy is social. People's cultures and means of living together change much slower than technology. New technologies, while increasing production, also create personal tragedies thru obsolescence and unanticipated side effects. For one example, feeding everyone thru efficient agriculture leads to population growth. This means that we live maladapted to technology and often without much idea why. We can acculturate faster, or control the growth of technology. I'm mostly for the former (I'd rather not shut down the internet until the lawmakers catch up.) But when new technologies have expensive social costs that aren't reflected in the bottom lines of the corporations promoting them, restraint is required for the common good.
... I might actually read it when it is finished.
:)
Who in their right mind, living in the mid-century would believe that we, in almost the year 2000 have not already actively colonized space stations, that the moon is not home to at least a lab and that we have not even set foot on Mars yet!?
We have done squat as far as the "final frontier" is concerned! Well, of course the main reason is that there simply no money in it (at least right now). So capitalism has thwarted Mr. Disney's dreams in yet another way
Instead, the "final frontier" has been internalized. The Internet, mapping out the human gene code, modern medecine and biotechnologies. There is money in that... that is where our interest lies... not space.
I have joked about the new silver spacesuit I bought for New Year's this year... because afterall, that is what everyone will be wearing in the 21st Century!? Now, who knows when I will really be able to wear that and fit in!? Probably not for a while.
Alas....
I actually preferred the other book on Celebration - I think it was called 'Celebration USA'. Celebration Chronicles wanders so far from its proported subject at times that I often wondered if it would ever return.
D
----
People create things and solve problems, and technology is both the solution to problems, and the source of new ones.
Homer: "Here's to alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems"
+&x
Any given instance of technology with a small "t" is just an attempt to solve a problem (sadly, that problem is increasingly "how do we enchance stockholder value?")
However, Technology with a big T (viz: Heidegger's "The Question Concerning Technology) is the implicit faith and complex of assumptions that motivates us to seek technological, rather than social, spiritual, cultural, political or psychological responses to our environment - when we encounter our world entirely in terms of tools, methods, and means. It's noble in that it is a positive, reasonable, and often helpful stance to problems. It is tragic in a number of senses: often, it seeks to satisfy a desire without understanding the engine that underlies desire; satisfying desire is itself essentially tragic, since desire is extinguished in its satisfaction and the motivation lost. From a Buddhist perspective, desire is the source of suffering, and technology only feeds the illusion that desire can be fulfilled.
Heidegger's plaint is that the technological stance towards the world eclipses all others, and is a sort of squandering and corruption of our ability to generate Being through interaction with the world. I think it's largely an aesthetic argument, but it really is a powerful one -by choosing to live in a technological mode, we stop inhabiting a world and start dwelling amidst Objects and Tools.
While the solutions addressed by technology is almost always local, its effects are often global. Technology always serves someone's interest, and that interest may be someone elses's detriment.
But the essence of the tragic nature of technology is this: the technological stance seems redemptive, but it can never actually redeem.
Be sure and drop by the Kennedy Space Center while you're in the area. I think its proximity to the tourist parks, its own status as a tourist attraction would add important perspective to your work. Also, the hardscrabble dedication to the long-term promise of technology (versus short-term consumerism) displayed by many employees here would contrast well with Orlando's tourist industry.
Also, a visit to the to some of the tech companies developing around the UCF (University of Central Florida) may show a different side of the city.
One of my former employers (Time Warner) did a major test roll out of interactive cable service here, emptying out the group I was working with in the process. I often wonder what became of it.
Is this the kind of help you meant? Or were you just looking for a "sound byte" on technology?
Tragedy:
The Shakespearean tragedy occurs when a fatal character flaw means an unavoiadable
fated downfall. Does technology have a fatal flaw? If so, what is it? Will the
tragedy be a sci-fi style apocalypse? Or something less tangible and dramatic?
Would we be any better off without technology? Or is it humanity that contains
the fatal flaw?
Disney:
Disney Inc. now represents a capitalist regime. It produces cutesy films and a zillion
and one products related to said films.
Walt Disney, however, was an innovative and imaginative human. During his time, Disney
produced animation that was light years ahead. His passion was with the art and what
could be acheived. He bought the best equipment and artists he could find and he
risked trying new things.
Disney Inc. now regularly produces films, that are neither sparklingly imaginative, nor
innovative. Disney is no longer a man, unfortunately, its just another company that
wants to turn a profit.
Technology was used by Walt Disney to it's fullest extent. He pushed it to where he
wanted it to go-- which was on flights of imaginative innovation. Disney Inc, uses
technology, too... but merely as a tool for profit.
Orlando and DisneyWorld:
It's just another American city, with an American theme park. There is a stereotpe of
an American tourist abroad, the type that is generally despised. Not all Americans
are like that... it is a stereotype. But a good number are. They go to some place
in Europe, say, and photograph the tourist trap monuments, comment to eachother how
adventurous they are, and then go look for a McDonalds or Burger King to eat in. They
are not really interested in the country they are visiting. They want the themepark
version. Safe, popularised, and shallow. That is what DisneyWorld is. Orlando is a
city of contradictions... the restaurants are varied and represent flavours from many
parts of the world. (I recall a Lebanese restaurant that was stuck in a random strip
mall, but had extremely authentic and delicious Lebanese food). Beneath that sort of
cosmopolitan exterior was the same old story, though. For instance, in the time I
spent there, I saw only African-Americans working in the "menial" jobs. I doubt
that Walt Disney would be pleased with DisneyWorld or Orlando.
---
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
..
of the new Katz book.
"So in conclusion, the whole point of technology is to create really large and expensive shopping malls that you have to pay to see."
+&x
How about a modern day Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas...only it would be Fear and Loathing in Orlando. You could take a twisted deranged friend with you, load up on all of the high tech gear known to man, and of course take as many mind altering drugs as possible ( in the spirit of HST of course ) then you could compare your technology enhanced views of all of the freaks, lepers and cam-corder totin trolls with your drug enhanced perception... or something like that..
Might not win you any awards, certainly would not be PC, but it would make for an interesting read. Of course you could have the Katz-cam to document it for slashdot.
Just think Jon... you could be the first techo-gonzo journalist.... you could be the HST for the new millenium..go for it Jon..sieze the moment !!
Whats more, this substance is allowed to land on the surface of the planet completely unchecked! No control whatsoever exists to stop this compound soaking into land! It can be found in every living organism!
Speak out now!
Don't take life too seriously. It is only a temporary situation. Usual disclaimers apply.
The camera's that is. I'm from Richardson, but now I live in Fort Collins, CO, where they now have cameras all throughout the city including parked, unmarked police vehicles that take snapshots of speeders and mail them tickets.
oh, and Disneyworld(TM,c,a,t) is very much it's own country. Walt got the state of florida to bend way over when he showed them how much money he was willing to invest and would eventually add to the states economy. IIRC they even have the right to build their own nuclear reactor. here's a quick link
+&x
If I recall my English lit classes, the tragic hero has some sort of tragic flaw. Often it's hubris (Macbeth's belief in his right to rule and his invulnerability), or ignorance (a simple DNA test could have saved Oedipus so much trouble).
Capek's R.U.R. might be the best literary example of techno-tragedy; humanity's downfall is a combination of hubris (believing it can create life better than God or Nature) and ignorance of the consequences of it's invention.
Maybe that's what makes for techno-tragedy - pride made dangerous by ignorance. "Look!" says Man "I have invented refrigeration! Food and medicinces can be preserved! Hot buildings can be made comfortable! Isn't this wonderful!" And it is wonderful - but meanwhile, unknown to him, his refrigerant is eating away the ozone layer that shields him from ultraviolet rays.
Maybe it's technophile hubris to think that the human condition can be fundamentally improved by technology - "we cannot get grace from gadgets," as someone once put it. But on the other hand, we are now developing the technologies that can change what it is to be human - genetic engineering, bio- and nano-tech, cybernetics, things that will not lead to incremental change in the human condition but quite possibly to the end of humanity as we know it.
Maybe we'll just destroy ourselves; but maybe we'll just break out of the chyrsalis and become something more than what we are. Remember that birth to the butterfly looks like death to the catepillar.
The end of our story with technology isn't written yet - it remains to be seen whether it is tragedy, comedy, or romance.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Well, I don't see any reason to call technology tragic, but Disney (the man) sure is.
Think of it... The man spends his life building a truly creative, magical company -- but when he dies, the company morphs into a media marketing conglomerate, smothering its own tiny creative division to keep it from competing with its own past output.
I didn't realize the extent of its hatred of creative competition until the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension came up. Disney pushed it... hard. The main reason is presumably to keep the image of the Mouse from entering public domain. The side effect is to keep *anything* from entering the public domain for at least 20 years. The cruel irony is so many of their works (Pinocchio, Little Mermaid, Hunchback, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc...) came directly from stories which had been copyrighted, but become free for public use. Well, no more.
And of course Disney's crowning failure came at the very end of his life. The attendant physicians misunderstood his last request, and (alas) instead of preserving his magnificant brain, we now have "Disney on Ice!"
(sorry, couldn't help it!)
There is a book that delves pretty deep into this subject already -- it is called "Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World".. I read it at Barnes and Noble one day. Both the author and I are Orlando locals, so the book (and Katz's thoughts above) definitely hit home. The book can be purchased from Amazon here. For those of you who have read 1984 and Brave New World, this is (in some ways) a real-world complement.
BTW, I think that calling Disney's technological advances "tragic" is true in many senses.. You really have to have lived in Orlando (esp. in the south west areas) for a number of years to realize this. Everything is so overcapitalized that all sorts of buildings and roads get thrown up very rapidly, leading to a poor infrastructure and just a weird feeling of the place in general. Everybody's just realized that there is a lot of money to be had, so quantity (not quality) seems to be the focus.
In essence, it's not that the technology is tragic, but more that the effects of it are. For lots of examples of this, please get the book above -- it's a very interesting read.
-- Does Rain Man use the Autistic License for his software?
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Curious, I left Northern Virginia in November 1997 to take a job in Orlando. So if the Washington you headed to in January was DC, I've got my own list of differences to note.
I moved into Winter Springs, rather north of Disney World, and a convenient drive to the Sanford Flea Market. We had cable modem service hooked up in July, and fairly soon will have DSL in the neighborhood for competition. Over 30% of Orlando is covered by either DSL or Cable Modem now.
The Sanford Flea market is a cool place to shop, be it for cell phones, pecans, or DIMMs. Not necessarily the best prices, but lots of local color.
The technology in the theme parks is inconsistent, and I think the heirs to Walt's vision aren't doing as good a job in DisneyWorld as Universal Studios is with Islands of Adventure, or SeaWorld.
As for bad phone lines, the Maryland suburbs have some truly outdated switches that are slowly approaching their 30 year writedown, and have equally great difficulty with 14.4 connections.
I'll agree with the poster who commented about the water, it's some of the worst I've tasted in fifteen countries.
But as for Orlando being a huge technical dichotomy, it seems rather better off than the average US city. Compare Potomac, Maryland to SouthEast DC. Then Winter Park to Parramore. Probably the same technical gap, but the ratio of tech-haves to tech-havenots seems lower in Orlando than around DC.
For all that, though, I'd trade my cable modem for five decent restaraunts. All the food down here is way too bland. I'm not sure if it's due to the parks constant promotion of their "themed entertainment experiences" rolling over into bland food (and bland t-shirts), but I've found that the only really good food here is stuff I cook myself.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
In another post, vivekb remarks that Katz is probably "talking more about Greek Tragic than Plane-Crash tragic."
I agree. Plane-Crash tragic is, well, bad. Katz seems to be saying that technology is neither good nor bad. But it might be tragic. It's certainly worth looking in to.
Tragedies (not the plane-crash kind), perhaps paradoxically, can be uplifting. The people in them are not typically evil; they're frequently good people. But they suffer (boy do they suffer!) the unintended consequences of their plots and machinations.
Technology (as in coal furnaces and maybe Disneyland) differs from simpler activities like breathing and eating in that technology intends to improve the world. Eating and breathing, while they may have tragic (in the plane-crash sense) consequences for the organisms that get eaten or who die from airborne diseases, are intended to merely perpetuate survival. If things go wrong, it may be bad but it's hardly tragic in the Greek-tragedy sense of the word. But a marvelous new technology - created with the noblest of intentions by the cleverest of inventors - which has devastating unintended consequences, is truly tragic. Esp. if those consequences could have been minimized with a little careful planning.
I don't know much about heterotopias, but panopticon, it definitely is. Quick gloss on the term, for anyone who's not familiar-- a panopticon, or panoptic system, is basically a place where you might be under observation at any time, but you can never truly know. Foucault took the word from the prison design work of Jeremy Bentham, who proposed a prison architecture where all the cells were arranged in a huge cylinder around a central observation tower. The prisoners couldn't really see each other, and they couldn't see into the observation tower, but anyone in the observation tower could see into any cell at any time, and in great detail, with the aid of binoculars.
So what happens is, you encourage a sense of constantly being watched in the prisoners. They might not be being watched at any given moment, but they always could be under observation. So they would tend to be self-policing, thereby reducing the number of actual guards you should need.
This general trick has been pulled off in many different contexts, including of course, Disney theme parks. Hence the rumors that the guys in costume might be security, and the fact that there are... or could be cameras watching every square inch of the parks. Whether there are or not doesn't even matter. It works as long as people believe they could be under observation at any time.
This is probably also familiar to many of you as a main feature of society in 1984. The population was totally self-policing because they simply believed that they could be under observation at any time. And with just a little bit of effort, the authorities could easily maintain that impression.
Jon, if you really do plan to write this book, you're going to have to make a herculean effort to make it worth reading. Many people who are way smarter than you have dealt with this topic before, so please don't waste everybody's time by writing up a little vacation and pretending you did something worthwhile.
Be sure, especially, you've read Jean Baudrillard's pieces about Disney, including The DisneyWorld Company, and... umm, he has a book that is primarily about Disney, I think, but the name is escaping me.
Anyway, good luck.
----
Morning gray ignites a twisted mass of colors shapes and sounds
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
The only thing more tragic than technology is the lack of technology.
After your trip to Orlando you ought to vist at least two other places, a second world country like Korea, where they have technolgy, but not as much of it as Orlando, and your favorite country in Central or 1Northern Africa where they have little.
Technology is a huge force for good in the world, and all you have to do to see that is go somewhere where they don't have it. At least read "Holidays in Hell" by your colleuge P.J. O'Rouak.
But I still see you as not distinguishing between technology as local problem-solving, which of course exists as much in tuber-gatherers as in Quake Clans, and Technology as a redemptive stance.
That's because I'm not convinced that there is a difference. Technology as a redemptive stance (if I understand you correctly) is a manifestation of our never being happy with what we've got; problem solving is essentially the same thing. There's no point in solving a problem unless you get something out of it, be it a potato, a new car or a feeling of smugness. And however smug you feel, you know that it's only a matter of time before some smartarse eclipses your wonderful achievement, and you've got to do it all over again.
And I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but if we'd had better spuds 150 years ago, there's tens of millions of fewer Americans claiming to be Irish despite having never been nearer to the republic than Nantucket.
Native Americans did not have alcohol until we came to North America. (What's this "we" sh1t?)
Wrong! Some (probably not all) Native American people did have alcohol before European contact. The Natives of what is now the Southwest U.S. and Mexico made a drink much like today's tequila. However, they did not use alcohol in the same way that Europeans did (unless you count Communion wine). They used it in religious ceremonies.
The "bad alcoholism genes" you speak of are genes that make an enzyme - alcohol dehydrogenase, IIRC - that helps break down alcohol into non-toxic substances. These genes were not so vital for Asians and Native Americans, who drank little alcohol, but they were vital for Europeans, for whom wine and ale were often less toxic than the local water. Asians and Native Americans did have the technology to make alcohol, but their culture compensated for their lack of alcohol dehydrogenase. In Asia, they typically drink from tiny saki cups, and in the Americas alcohol was used sparingly, by a select few, in order to see visions in religious ceremonies.
[Asians and Indians] cannot take the alcohol as well as we do (hence the entire "chinese and indians are all drunks" stereotype, since they're [sic] immune system is not able to handle it).
...bringing in things like harmful cigarettes...
It has nothing to do with the immune system. It has to do with an enzyme, alcohol dehydrogenase, which helps break alcohol down into less toxic substances. Europeans typically have more of it than other people.
Native Americans made their own alcohol long before Columbus. It was a lot like modern tequila. But they had strict rules for its use. A few people got very drunk seeking visions, but they didn't destroy their society with it.
That one's really funny. Who do you think grew the tobacco? The Native Americans! They invented smoking! Maybe it's justice after all, that Native Americans probably killed more Europeans with tobacco than Europeans ever killed Native Americans with muskets. Then again, at least the smokers had a choice. Oh Well...
If you want to see technology maybe you should go to LA or San Jose. It seems like all the few IT people who actually survive in Fl*rida want to do is wear business suits and write with gold plated pens but it is by no means a technology hub. With all the credit Orlando gets for having all kinds of multimedia attractions there are really no jobs in computer multimedia anything out here. I have a feeling everything you see in Orlando is developed in LA or San Jose and trucked to Fl*rida where MSEE's staff the ticket booths and CS PhD's serve the hot dogs.
well...
...you can do the math for yourself.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Sone anonymous coward dun said: I agree with everything you said except this. Native Americans did not have alcohol until we came to North America. That's why there is a higher percentage of alcoholism, in europe people with bad alcoholism genes were most likely just bred out of the gene pool over hundreds of years.
As some others have noted already, I'm afraid you're rather mistaken. :)
There were no less than three separate and distinct alcoholic beverages that were developed by Native Americans some hundreds of years before silly Cristobal Colon got lost and confused Hispaniola for Indonesia. :) The first was a corn-beer which was later distilled (and the Mayas actually used to give themselves ENEMAS with this stuff in rituals); the second was mezcal (which has been mentioned several times here, and is the direct ancestor of tequila--and you can still buy the stuff in a lot of places); the third (which I'll grant is not commonly known) is a sort of fruit-beer or metheglin made from passionfruit (yes, passionfruit actually grows in the United States--bet most of you didn't know that :) known as "old field apricot drink" (I'm using the English translation) which was invented by the Cherokee some hundreds of years back which is approximately as strong as kvass (a Russian beer made from rye bread).
The Mayas and Aztecs tended to use the corn-beer and mezcal for religious purposes (the Mayas, again, even going to such measures as taking the stuff in enemas when one was puking too much to keep it down--which will also, incidentially, get one more drunk than just drinking it--it's actually been suggested in books on treatment of radiation poisoning that if one can't safely give someone an IV one could well give someone an enema of essential nutrients). "Old field apricot drink" wasn't used for any ritual purposes that I know of (it might have hundreds of years back, but there's been a fair amount of Cherokee lore that got lost thanks to assimilation + the Trail of Tears) but was used in exactly the same manner as your average white American bubba uses Bud Light--as a refresher after a hard day's work. (Kvass and "old field apricot drink" tend to have a lower alcohol level than traditional Western beers, though...the fermentation is only about a week or so.)
In Europe, the selection wasn't so much for alcoholics to be bred out (Russia has a rather severe problem with alcoholism, from what I understand, as do many countries surrounding the Arctic Circle) but for people who are efficient producers of alcohol dehydrogenase to be selected in the gene pool. This is largely because alcohol has been a large part of European culture for a long time. (I can state that your average resident of Belfast could well drink me under the table. Yes, I learned the hard way to NEVER try to outdrink an Irishman, especially since a) I happen to be part Cherokee and b) my liver hasn't gotten that much exercise and c) I weighed about half as much as said Belfastian. :)
In most other countries (with the major exception of Japan and the Middle East) distilled liquors were rarely used, and most of the native beers (yes, most cultures have some form of beer) are at or slightly lower strength than your average beer here in the States. Hence the genes for alcohol dehydrogenase weren't as strongly selected for.
You see this for stuff besides alcohol, btw; many aboriginal peoples (including Native Americans, Australian Aboriginals, and if memory serves some Papuan and African populations) have considerable troubles handling the large amounts of refined sugars and carbohydrates in the Western diet to the point that they have a far higher incidence of type II diabetes than the average population. (It's especially bad among the Pima peoples in the US Southwest, of which something like 80-90% of the population is diabetic; CNN recently did a report in its health section on the health crisis in the population as a result.) There have also been reported cases (though I don't know how true this is, and I've never been able to find more than one or two sources on it so this MAY well be an urban legend) of sugar addiction among the Inuit peoples (who traditionally have not had ANY sugar in their diet, aside that from game; not even that much fructose).
Also as a fun aside--Europeans didn't invent distillation--it was invented by the Moorish peoples sometime in the 700-800s AD and later brought over...specifically by the same folks who invented algebra. (Yes, you may thank Morocco for fine Scotch and Kentucky bourbon. :) The word "alcohol" is actually derived from an Arabic term, in fact...it might be really interesting to see if alcohol dehydrogenase has been selected even more strongly for in these populations than the population at large...
(Yes, I have a slightly biased viewpoint on things. Firstly, I happen to be part Native American, specifically the folks who brought you "old field apricot drink". Secondly, I lived near a lot of people who came from the folks who brought you mezcal and tequila. :) Thirdly, I have an interest in homebrewing and would actually like to find some passionfruit juice or syrup (or preferably passionfruit itself) to try to make a version of "old field apricot drink" as a metheglin. ;)
-Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
You want _me_ (as a reader of Slashdot, not 'me in particular') to help you write an article for Rolling Stone, at which point you'll traipse off to Orlando, weep into your powerbook at the horrors of obsessive Disney street-cleaning, and attempt to parlay your imaginary counterculture status into increased status and influence with Rolling Stone? ;) )
What's wrong with this picture? I'll tell you, as _another_ person who has seen print all over the world (and yes, I was read in Australia before I was posting to the internet- as an audio writer). The problem is simply this: if you expect to deserve such massive distribution, you had damned well better have something of your own to say. Period. If the best you can do is troll for story ideas on Slashdot, the Stone will spike your proposal in favor of new Spice Girl gossip, and so they should. This is the turn of the millenium, and the people you talk to at RS are quite capable of trawling Slashdot themselves, finding people who write more clearly and passionately than you do, and sending those people to Orlando in your place. I'm sure there are at least eight Slashdotters who could do a better job writing a feature on turn-of-the-century plastic communities, and I daresay I'm one of them. (Can't go, sorry Jann
Jon Katz, if you have to ask us Slashdotters for ideas on your Rolling Stone article proposal, you don't deserve to write one. You don't lack for hot air, why on earth are you turning to Slashdot for more of it? Is it that you intend to pitch the feature idea to Rolling Stone with a heavy emphasis on its being 'open source writing'? If so, you're not merely a fool, you are scum, trying as hard as you can to exploit the Slashdot community for personal gain. God help you if that's the truth: certainly your previous exploits would tend to suggest it. Are you in fact going to these people, these publications, saying 'Hire me, give me some articles- I speak for the geek community, I have write access to Slashdot.org, I am their _mouthpiece_'? Are you in fact pitching these ideas to the editors on the basis that it's not just you, but that they are buying a whole website worth of unpaid geek underground? To what extent does your access and affiliation with slashdot get used in these talks?