Technology: a window to our humanity

Ordinary_Guy · Aug 8, 2006

SF is sometimes generalized as being plot-centric, or at the very least: technocentric at the expense of the characterizations. It's unfortunately true, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Here's a clipping from the New York Times that talks about a ubiquitous bit of technology we call the cellphone. Forty years ago, this tech was in Dick Tracy cartoons as a novelty. These days, we take it for granted (which is pretty cool), but in what you'd think would be a tech-centric article, the technology is just a conduit for the humanity to shine:

Must Haves: Cellphones Top Iraqi Cool List
By DAMIEN CAVE
Published: August 8, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 7 — The cool kids in Iraq all want an Apache, the cellphone they’ve named after an American military helicopter. Next on the scale of hipness comes a Humvee, followed by the Afendi, a Turkish word for dapper, and a sturdy, rounded Nokia known as the Allawi — a reference to the stocky former prime minister, Ayad Allawi.

Even more telling are the text messages and images that Iraqis share over their phones. From all over the city, Baghdad cellphones practically shout commentary about Saddam Hussein, failed reconstruction and violence, always the violence. One of the most popular messages making the rounds appears onscreen with the image of a skeleton.

“Your call cannot be completed,” it says, “because the subscriber has been bombed or kidnapped.”

Cellphones have long been considered status symbols in developing countries, Iraq included. But in an environment where hanging out is potentially life threatening, cellphones are also a window into dreams and terrors, the macabre local sense of humor and Iraqis’ resilience amid the swells of violence...

In your tech of the future, your in-head implants or holograms or whatever it is you feature: how does the humanity shine through?

newmod · Aug 8, 2006

Hi Ordinary guy I´m working on something where in the future people (who have the means) internalise more and more technology within themselves. It´s still very much developmental so I dont know where it will go in the end.

Probably this is an irrelevant reply because at the moment I´m thinking about having a reaction to this phenomenon. A sort of ´back to the primitive´ response.

But something I´ve often wondered is if we get to the point where a machine/robot/android, or whatever you wish to term it, can think intuitively, have emotions etc then what´s the difference between them and us?

But you make an interesting point for me, my approach is often technophobic, so I think I will start making an effort to have a bit more balance in my work.

Should I come up with a more directly relevant response to your post, I´ll be sure to add it!

Jenny · Aug 8, 2006

A tougher question than I originally thought it, and since I should be re-writing a novel at this very moment, I guess I'll keep my answer short. I think humanity is probably mostly our consciousness. I know I'm me, for example, and I remain aware of my me-ness even if that me-ness is added to by incorporating technology. Don't know if that helps, but I should run away and work now. [Wouldn't it be funny if work - commitment to duty - defined us as human?]

Jenny

Shweta · Aug 8, 2006

Ordinary_Guy said:
In your tech of the future, your in-head implants or holograms or whatever it is you feature: how does the humanity shine through?

I think this is an important question in fantasy too. In our weird alternate worlds, with strange critters and magic and such, how does the humanity shine through? And how badly does it, as modern readers see it, get clobbered by some of the effects f lower tech levels, like feudalism and massive gender differences?

Ordinary_Guy · Aug 8, 2006

Shweta said:
I think this is an important question in fantasy too. In our weird alternate worlds, with strange critters and magic and such, how does the humanity shine through? And how badly does it, as modern readers see it, get clobbered by some of the effects f lower tech levels, like feudalism and massive gender differences?

Good point. Actually, the gender differences point would be a good SF/F thread all by itself...

virtue_summer · Aug 9, 2006

newmod said:
But something I´ve often wondered is if we get to the point where a machine/robot/android, or whatever you wish to term it, can think intuitively, have emotions etc then what´s the difference between them and us?

Our emotions and intuition are spontaneous, real, and adaptable. Theirs aren't. They're programmed, with inevitable glitches to remind us of the fact.

Ordinary_Guy · Aug 9, 2006

virtue_summer said:
Our emotions and intuition are spontaneous, real, and adaptable. Theirs aren't. They're programmed, with inevitable glitches to remind us of the fact.

Quaint notion, but we glitch out so much it takes the DSM-IV to describe it...

Shweta · Aug 9, 2006

virtue_summer said:
Our emotions and intuition are spontaneous, real, and adaptable. Theirs aren't. They're programmed, with inevitable glitches to remind us of the fact.

Well, it's likely that we'll never get an artificial system that mimics us well enough if it's just a linear rule-based mechanism. Artificial neural nets work a lot better (not well, but better), and so do robots put together with a nonlinear dynamical systems approach, as I understand it.

Such a system will show graceful degradation just like us, rather than rules-messed-up glitches; and they're not exactly programmed, they're set up and then they learn from experience. And their behaviour is, ideally, adaptable and spontaneous.

Basically the only model of conscious cognition that we've got is... us. So the most successful artificial systems are the ones that are most like... us. So at least the first generation of true AI, if it can happen, is probably going to be quite a lot like us.

TheIT · Aug 10, 2006

One of the themes I'm exploring in my fantasy WIP is ethical uses of power. In this world part of their "technology" is the ability to create items which can store magical effects. For example, they can store an ice spell and provide refrigeration for food. At this point in their history, they have specific laws governing the types of items which can be created. The "technology" was severely misused in the past.

In my story, one of the characters stumbles across an item which absorbs pain. I haven't decided whether he knows the origin of the item. It was originally created as a torture device, sort of a "magic battery". He'll use it to help his mentor, an aging bard who suffers severe arthritis, to ease his pain so he can finish composing his final masterpiece. Unfortunately, his altruism will lead to severe consequences. Good intentions, unforeseen results.

Shweta · Aug 10, 2006

So, I've been thinking about what humanises tech. Specifically I was considering the buckminsterfullerene tubes that (I think?) were first used in stories like Clarke's The Fountains of Paradise and Gibson's Johnny Mnemonic. And I was thinking about the different uses of the stuff -- building material vs. weapon.

The first seems like the kind of thing we'd like to think the tech is going to be used for, and the second more like what it'd really end up used for most of the time. Shiny SF vs gritty SF.

So I was thinking about gritty tech uses, and how we subvert technology to our own purposes. That's something that humanises it, right? I came up with the following purposes we try and turn every technological innovation to.
1) Killing people
1b) Stopping other people from killing us
2) Sex
3) Social prestige
4) General-entertainment

Is that about right?

TheIT · Aug 10, 2006

Shweta said:
So I was thinking about gritty tech uses, and how we subvert technology to our own purposes. That's something that humanises it, right? I came up with the following purposes we try and turn every technological innovation to.
1) Killing people
1b) Stopping other people from killing us
2) Sex
3) Social prestige
4) General-entertainment

Is that about right?

5) Making enough money to be able to indulge in items 1) through 4)

TheIT · Aug 10, 2006

Also labor saving devices. Make a machine to do the dirty or dangerous jobs so people don't have to put themselves at risk.

newmod · Aug 10, 2006

Shweta and TheIT between the two of you, you´ve answered the question in relation to a great number of people. One or more of those things are what most people care about more than anything else.

Doesn´t say much for us as a species. There are a few exceptions, granted, but in general humans are a petty and selfish bunch.

Not that I´m a misanthrope or anything

Shweta · Aug 11, 2006

I don't agree that that says terrible things about people. We want to feel good, we want to not be bored, we want physical comfort, we want protection against dangers...

We're no different from other critters in that; we differ in our pretty amazing use of anything in the world and world-changing tech to get these things.

Sure, we're not all amazing altruistic perfect individuals, but if we were, stories would be much less fun

newmod · Aug 11, 2006

I didn´t say it said terrible things, just that it doesn´t say much for us. I´m pessimistic, not totally morose

We so often do things at the expense of others, the environment and even ourselves (all of these in various ways) and yet we claim to have higher faculties than other species.

And often in the process of obtaining these things (the validity of which could be argued forever and a day depending on your perspective) we destroy (totally or partially) something/one else or ourselves. Either wittingly or unwittingly.

I do believe that there is a trend toward greater selfishness among a significant number of people (in the West at least, but I suspect also in other parts of the world too). Driven by (amongst other things) social-prestige, money and entertainment.

So much seems to be "me,me,me" and "now,now,now". The now,now,now element driven by technology and marketing. The me,me,me probably an instinct. As some French bloke once said, man is free ...

If we were all perfect and altuistic I guess it would be "you,you,you" and "when the time is right"

I would say something in the middle, veering a bit more towards altruistic would be my preference.

I would say one of the great things about technological advancements has been in connecting people either physically (travel) or virtually. We now have a way to know about other people from them first hand. This could (I hope will) help prevent/reduce ignorance and prejudice.

Like everything, it isn´t all black and white, there are about a thousand shades of grey. My visual range tends toward the darker shades. Well, most of the time

virtue_summer · Aug 11, 2006

Technology consists of tools created by us for us. Everything about it speaks of humanity, who we are, what we want, and what we're willing to do to get it.

Ordinary_Guy · Aug 12, 2006

virtue_summer said:
Technology consists of tools created by us for us. Everything about it speaks of humanity, who we are, what we want, and what we're willing to do to get it.

That about sums it up: a hammer is a hammer is a hammer. Whether we use it to smash the next guy over the head to get his loot – or build a house – the hammer is still just a hammer – it's how we use it.

And that's a question we've got to keep in mind, hopefully even when we're writing the wildest of space opera. We throw in some super-speculative hammers... and how do we use them? What does that say about us?

Shweta · Aug 13, 2006

Yeah, agreed. I was just trying to figure out the ways in which we do use/subvert tech.

Ordinary_Guy · Aug 13, 2006

Shweta said:
Yeah, agreed. I was just trying to figure out the ways in which we do use/subvert tech.

Subverting use... that's a great angle, too! Reminds me of all those disclaimers you see these days "Use of product in manner inconsistent with labeling..." Like using a lighter and a can of "Lysol" for spider control.

"Subverted use" (aka: "MacGyvering") is fantastic bit of real-world engineering that could easily be used in someone's fiction. Using it in SF/F could probably lend a new credence to speculative tech.

Beyond just using Tech X for something criminal, it would be a great exercise to take your feature future tech and figure out how someone might have adapted to do something completely different.

TheIT · Aug 13, 2006

Regarding hammers - wasn't there a Mark Twain quote to the effect of, "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail?"

TheIT · Aug 13, 2006

"Functional fixedness" is a term I vaguely remember from my Ergonomics classes. If I recall correctly, it's the concept that people tend to use objects only for their intended purpose, i.e. the function is fixed in their minds. People don't even consider using the object differently.

I can see this concept being used in two basic ways storywise:

1) Characters have a nifty-neato piece of technology that they try to apply as a solution to every problem (e.g. hammers are only used for nails therefore treat everything like a nail)

or 2) The characters have to come up with some other use for their nifty-neato technology which is different than the manufacturer's recommendations.

Either could lead to interesting story situations.

Shweta · Aug 13, 2006

Yeah, functional fixedness is an interesting characteristic of human cognition; and how we get around it can be cool.

regarding #2, TheIT, I think part of what I love about Lois McMaster Bujold's books is that her characters (Miles, especially) overcome functional fixedness fairly often, so... yeah

Then there's affordance-related cognition. You look at a cup, and hand and mouth parts of your brain are activated. We understand objects in terms of how we use them.
I should post about affordances in my thready thread thingy.

TheIT · Aug 14, 2006

Lois McMaster Bujold is one of my all time favorite authors, and A Civil Campaign is one of my favorite books. Miles epitomizes "thinking outside the box" behavior, or at least "fast talk 'em so they don't notice the box exists" behavior.

Affordance-related conditioning sounds interesting, too, especially when dealing with alien cultures or technologies. A human might look at something and think "cup", while an alien might think of something totally different. All sorts of opportunities for misunderstanding would arise, especially when dealing with wildly different physiologies.

Ordinary_Guy · Aug 14, 2006

TheIT said:
...A human might look at something and think "cup", while an alien might think of something totally different. All sorts of opportunities for misunderstanding would arise, especially when dealing with wildly different physiologies.

Oh, man... Especially with the "cup" reference...?

I suddenly had a vision of Larry, Moe and Curly leading our Interstellar Diplomacy Team.

TheIT · Aug 14, 2006

Ah...maybe I should have said "teacup".

Technology: a window to our humanity

Industrial Strength

Who should be writing ...

gone

Industrial Strength

Always learning

Industrial Strength

gone

Infuriatingly Theoretical

gone

Infuriatingly Theoretical

Infuriatingly Theoretical

gone

Always learning

Industrial Strength

gone

Industrial Strength

Infuriatingly Theoretical

Infuriatingly Theoretical

gone

Infuriatingly Theoretical

Industrial Strength

Infuriatingly Theoretical