Information society and Sustainable Development
It has become widely recognised and ever-increasing attention placed; on human induced planetary problems associated with resource and (fossil) energy depletion, waste and pollution, overpopulation, land-degradation, loss of bio-diversity etc. Associated consequences include (but are not confined to) issues such as; climate change, Starvation and malnutrition (inflicting third world nations), environmental catastrophes, human health issues, economic concerns (need for continual economic growth) and overall ‘quality of life’ concerns for the wider planetary population. A cycle of consequences results from Humanities complex interdependence with the natural environment. As a result of an ever increasing body of evidence recognising this inter-dependent relationship and which directly attributes Man’s (or woman's) impact on the environment with many of the problems and challenges Man faces; a mounting call for ‘sustainable development’ of the human civilisation has been urged by many concerned stakeholders. ‘Sustainable development’ is widely defined as, ‘meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations’.
At the same time, it is now becoming apparent that in terms of societal evolution, we are in the midst of an ‘information revolution’. Society has undergone tremendous changes in the past 30 years, particularly because of technological advancements in ICT’s. Many theorists argue we are, or are approaching; a new ‘epoch’ or ‘age’. Terms include informatised society, information society, information age, knowledge society, network society, post-industrial society. What is clear is that the increased capacity and speed of processing information correlated with the exponential growth of ‘technical/technological/scientific knowledge’, (given the conducive economic/political conditions; democracy and capitalism combined, and favourable quantities of energy and physical resources) has resulted in enormous societal ‘advancement’ or ‘progress’ (seen from a western scientific view of progress).
Benefits of Progress
This ‘advancement’ or ‘progress’ has been associated with a notable rise in western material living standards, the degree and sophistication of the built environment and available technologies, the shift of labour from the agricultural and industrial sectors to the services sector, the advancement and application of scientific knowledge in all fields from medicine to engineering. Many Individuals in western countries now enjoy richer, more diverse livelihoods: They communicate more widely, travel further and more frequently, consume more extensively, are more knowledgeable, live longer lives; with work becoming more mentally challenging and less physically demanding.
Raison d’être pour ‘Progress’
‘Enlightenment’ Progress, delivered principally through capitalism and democracy, concerns emancipating the wider population from the drudgery of life, from misery and suffering and hardship, from control to freedom, from ignorance to literacy, from predetermination to choice. ‘Enlightenment’ progress is a faith in man to change his own condition for the better. Thus accumulating technical and scientific knowledge aids man in directing his own course. However, it is said by many ecologists, that capitalism (which has become the predominant economic model for achieving ‘progress’) is in its current guise creating many of the problems and barriers to achieving such conceptions of ‘progress’. This is because of the many ‘positive feedbacks’ built in to its system, which entails the spiralling and unpredictable consequences of our actions, the invisible ramifications of development which are difficult to identify because of the sheer complexity of our system. The root of the problem lies in neo-classical economics disciplinary isolation. Its failure to recognise the interdependence of our eco-system. It’s reliance on the nation state and global governance to ensure the necessary conditions for growth and to address the evident implications or ‘vicious cycles’ with which it creates. This is aside from the voracious and unapologetic character of capitalism and the values it trumps. Ecologists and some economists see our pre-dominant economic model as deeply flawed. At a more fundamental level, it is the meta-narrative or overarching ideology of western civilisation in the past 200 years, that has led to many of humanities problems and challenges which it faces. In particular, this entails the separation of man and nature in a number of ways; from modes of production, through distance between production to consumption, from the rise of the cosmopolitan cities, and a predominant western technological faith; what some ecologists term the western ‘age of optimism’. This removal of man from his environment has only recently being redressed in terms of a counter-balancing environmental consciousness and a more pro-active governmental attitude. Recently an alternative model; ‘Ecological economics’ or ‘environmental economists’, have been suggested, with aspects of the model beginning to become integrated into government economic policy. This has resulted in changes imposed through government regulation. Within the economic sphere itself, ‘corporate responsibility’ has become a term used to signify a growing recognition of the environmental and social consequences of a company’s actions and a wiliness to change by the companies themselves out of ethical concerns. Amongst the wider population, there have been grass-root movements such as ‘green peace’, political movements such as ‘the green party’ and recognition among sections of the community to be environmentally aware and responsible. This has been a marvellous achievement in itself, and has been facilitated by the information revolution itself. Thus, although the ‘information revolution’ has permitted western development and its associated consequences, it has similarly facilitated a wider awareness and understanding of the impact of these developments.
Capitalism
The principle driver for the breadth and speed of change in the past 30 years has been the evolution of capitalism with features of the information society as its key enabler, as its tools. The principle features of an information society being; 'information flow', ‘knowledge’ and ‘Information Communication Technology (in the form of software, hardware and the internet). ‘Information society’ policy seeks to cultivate ‘human capital’ and ‘knowledge capital’ in accordance with the market, leading to virtuous cycles of innovation, productivity, efficiency etc. Ultimately here, Capitalism is now seen as the only viable economic model for achieving social goals for many nations’ citizens, particularly since the collapse of communism. Wealth creation through continued economic growth is now seen as providing the foundation upon which a nation state ensures equitable ‘quality of life’ for its citizens accompanied with varying degrees of state policy interventions. It has been a combination of factors which has led to this change; the cold war leading to military technological innovations eventually being exploited by the market, the oil embargo of the 70s restraining growth and leading capitalism down a new path, a quickening pace of development subsequent to the second world war, the formation of regional economic alliances such as the European coal and steel alliance eventually evolving into the EU. In particular though, it was the technological revolution as a result of ICT’s which has been recognised as the principle tool for change.
Recent Changes
Thus far, it can be seen that the speed and breadth of change associated with ‘infomatised global Capitalism’ of the past 30 years (term coined by social theorist ‘Manuel Castells’) has resulted similarly in the speed and breadth of change in the physical environment. Rampant; population growth, urban development and ‘material consumption per capita’ has accompanied economic growth. This has resulted in a planet under environmental pressure and becoming resource depleted in important areas. The beneficiaries primarily being 20 percent of the world’s population who consume 80 percent of the world’s resources, while much of the negative environmental consequences being bore by underdeveloped nations in more extreme climates. Many of these resources are now approaching exhaustion or becoming less economically feasible to extract. However, it is the character of this new infomatised capitalism, which has ensured continued economic growth regardless of these limits in resources (dictated through price in a market economy). Knowledge has become the key to further growth through allocating a percentage of wealth to ‘research and development’; leading to innovations which translate to efficiency and productivity gains. These gains lead to products becoming less materially intensive to produce and resources becoming available to create more products. Accumulated Knowledge has led to efficiencies throughout the socio/economic sphere (not just in products) whether in production and management, or in transport and logistics. Efficiencies have led to time/space compression resulting in a quickening pace of change, as we can do more with less time; life has sped up. Another recent feature has been the emergence of the ‘digital economy’ which can be seen to be founded upon and reliant upon the material economy but which does not rely directly on material resources for its growth (but which operates in the same financial market, thus diverting capital from the material economy.)
Globalisation
The globalised economy has resulted in increased cross border trade of goods and services as well as companies becoming organized horizontally across national borders. It has resulted in reduced friction or barriers to trade and the emergence of ‘footloose companies’. This has taken place under the belief in ‘comparative advantage’. The benefit lies in each nation producing goods and services which are economically advantageous to its environmental/social/political climate while importing goods and services which are more suited to another nation’s climate. Thus, goods that are cheaper to import than produce internally are sourced elsewhere. The removal of barriers to trade and capital flow, results in goods and capital more easily flowing to where they are needed. For example; the environmental climate of Spain is more suited to farming ‘Oranges’ than the cooler climate of Ireland and can be done so at lower cost. The manufacturing of textiles is more suited to Taiwan because of abundance of cheap labour. Thus, given economically viable transport and logistics; we import oranges and textiles. However, ecologists may argue that we in Ireland shouldn’t be eating oranges anyway. That we should produce and consume largely products which are suited to our climate while reducing production and consumption which are not. Ecologists principally argue that international transport and logistics has enormous environmental consequences, which in turn results in invisible costs filtering into the economic/social sphere. They point to our dependence on Fossil fuels which account for 85% of the international energy market in subsiding global trade which would otherwise be economically un-viable for 2 reasons: Firstly, there is simply not enough alternative energy available to power the global economy and secondly, oil and gas are incredibly rich and versatile sources of energy unparalleled to any other energy source. However, what some ecologists fail to consider is that the leaps and bounds in technological progress, creates the possibility of alternative sources of energy as well as addressing limits in available resources. Through the information society, we create the conditions for technological innovation at a speed and scale unparalleled in human history, which in turn are applied to all conceivable limits to growth. But the future is uncertain, we do not know as to what extent technological innovation can address the aforementioned problems of energy and resource dependencies. Furthermore, technological progress does not by itself address disparities and inequalities in our global society.
The majority of the planets resources are being imported to western nations for consumption. For example; according to a ‘New Economic Foundation’ Report, Europe consumes twice its own level of bio-capacity, which effectively means purchasing the resources of other nations. Many of these resources include fossil fuels, iron ore and various minerals which are non renewable and will have to be purchased in to a nation in future at a considerably higher cost. The free market is advantageous to developed nations now but there should be no going back. Any closure of markets in the future will essentially entail hording of resources by developed nations. What ecologists refer to as ‘scope enlargement’ and ‘drawdown’ entails the market operating at ever increased scope (becoming viable as a result of a sufficient transport and sophisticated ICT infrastructure). This benefits the market as resources and labour etc become sourced at the lowest price for the producer. New markets of consumers become available and nations must compete by providing a suitable political/social/economic climate for footloose transnational companies to operate in. ‘Peer Polity’ ensues, causing nations to competitively invest in infrastructure, education and ‘research and development’ in order to maintain and attract footloose companies. This proceeds at a spiralling rate, resulting in diminishing marginal returns on development for nations. Increased scope of the market results in increased competition that drives innovation and productivity, but which results in companies always seeking to externalise negative environmental costs in order to stay competitive. Overall, the system requires ever-increasing rationalisation of the socio/economic sphere at every level in order to maintain economic growth, particularly as resource and regulatory limits arise.
New Economy
It has been argued that the character of the infomatised economy has managed to sizably decouple economic growth from growth of energy and resource consumption and so; (assuming wealth creation from economic growth continues to be seen as the best means of delivering societal goals) the continued development of the information society will provide the conditions under which there can be continuous growth and ensure a nations competitiveness in the global economy. Although economic growth over the past 30 years hasn’t resulted in a net decline in resource use (in fact the reverse has been seen), approaching limits in available physical resources means that future growth may rely almost entirely on mans innovation and ingenuity and not on increasing resource consumption. Not only must western economies continue to grow but developing economies must be allowed to grow also. The emergence of powerful economies such as China (with annual GDP growth of 9 percent and a population in the region of 1.2 billion) highlights this need for expansion and growth of the global economy. The human population is expected to increase from 6.4 billion at present to a figure of up to 9 billion in the next 50 years. Yet, even today, the entire material resources of the planet could only support up to 1.8 billion people at western material standards of living. The availability of cheap fossil fuels has become a thing of the past. Peak supplies of oil and gas only a short period ahead with annual declines in extraction expected henceforth. Available land for agricultural production becoming limited with salination, desertification and degradation on existing lands as a result of over production. Added to this, we must consider the environmental implications from the global economy (as it stands) in terms of ‘sources’: resources’ and ‘sinks: pollution and waste’. Here, enormous international focus has been given to the environmental consequences associated with economic development in recent years. Thus in a market economy, these limits in natural resources and on natures ability to sustain, represent increased costs for what is available.
Eco-economy
Not only must companies in future produce products which are sufficiently economically viable (given the increasing cost of physical and energy resources), they may increasingly be required by regulation to produce products in a less environmentally burdensome way; from production, through to product use, and in disposal. An area of research known as ‘Life Cycle assessment’. In Europe, such initiatives include the WEEE directive and the implementation of the ‘Kyoto Protocol’ (resulting in carbon trading etc.) These policy measures are consistent with calls from ecologists and many ecological economists to reintegrate the disciplines of economics with ecology and recognise that the price of products should better reflect the imposed environmental and social costs.
The economy itself may increasingly become a closed system, relying less on the ecosystem upon which it currently depends. This argument lies on the idea of the recycling economy. The economy may become such that it manages its resources and wastes rather than rely on the environment and state to provide resources and deal with its waste. This expansion of rationalisation into ‘waste’ is a requirement for the continued growth of the material economy. It does raise questions of the proliferation of ICT’s and the plethora of electronic devices such as RFID’s in the year ahead in terms of their viable disposal. A good example of the growth of trade in ‘second hand’ or ‘used products’ is e-bay, originally begun in the USA during the dot-com boom, it is now an international operation handling thousands of used goods daily. A system as versatile and user-friendly as this has only being possible thanks to the internet. It also represents a cultural change, an acceptance of bartering or auctioning, and the growth of individuals becoming accepting of purchasing second hand goods and moving away from a ‘throw away culture’
Character of the information society
Overall, there is currently and will need to be; enormous structural and behavioural changes in the economic/social sphere in order to cope with these grim environmental and physical realities. What is equally true is that there are enormous behavioural and structural changes in the economic/social sphere as we transcend to an ‘information age’. Not only will the 'information society' be crucial for the economy to continue to grow through efficiency and productivity gains etc, it also offers the alternative of providing lifestyle choices which are less materialistically dependent, Etc. Importantly, the networking characteristics of new ICT's allow a reconfiguring of social and economic relations with the prospect of negative to positve consequences for the environmental prolematique. The very character of the ‘information age’ may be one which is more eco-friendly, where lifestyles are less materialistic. The ‘information society also heralds the ability to address many environmental challenges. However, the ‘information age’ is also one which is irrevocably coupled within a predominantly capitalist system. Thus, the many faults and failings of this system can be attributed to its utilisation of ‘knowledge capital’ and ‘information society technologies’.
Age of Limits?
Many ecologists believe we have approached the ‘age of limits’. Modernity and faith in ‘Progress’ has served only a fraction of the human population well but at the detriment to the wider population and to future generations. The ecological cost of modernity has been colossal. Some ecologists referring to man as ‘homo-colossus’. We have now reached a threshold, our planet reaching environmental breaking point. But, we continue to have faith in the modern project, on the ability of science, technology and the market to address our troubles given more time. Our experience of both past and present continues to bolster this faith. New innovations in wind-energy technology increasing efficiency by 50% (announced by China), Intelligent Vehicles being able to substantially reduce their energy consumption by utilising geographical information on the gradient of the roads in which they travel to regulate their engines RPM’s whilst en-route. ‘Composite materials’ replacing ‘aluminium’ and ‘wing design’ mimicking those of birds in new Boeing commercial jets. ‘Knowledge capital’ and ICT’s can and does make significant differences. Substantial investment is being pumped into experimental technologies such as the ITER facility in France, which hopes to test the viability of commercial Nuclear Fusion reactors. Nation States seek to increase their percentage of GDP upwards of 3 percent to R&D seeking important innovations in return and ensuring nations competitiveness. Thus, the ‘information society’, seems to enbue the essence of the idea of ‘enlightenment’ progress. One which many ecologists seem to neglect in painting bleak pictures of the future. For example, Grossmann (2005) points out ‘that often people in the area of sustainability are unaware of the ongoing evolution of the information society’ (Grossmann, 2005, p180) However, it is uncertain as to what extent the transition to an ‘information society’ can positively affect ‘environmental sustainability’. Much empirical research highlights many negative as well as positive contributions of the ‘Information society’. The architecture of the ‘information society’ in terms of ICT’s has many negative environmental aspects. It is uncertain as to what extent people will attain a ‘quality of life’ through digital leisure activities etc. What is clear is that the current ecosystem has suffered tremendously as a result of ‘global infomatised capitalism’. What is hoped is that the current self-transformation and induced transformation of the ‘global infomatised’ economy will result in one which is less environmentally burdensome and which is conducive to sustainable objectives.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it becomes clear that changes taking place from a transition to an ‘information age’ will affect the imperative to achieving 'environmental sustainability'. Thus far, arguments that increasing resource efficiency will reduce the environmental burden, have not been empirically shown (Spangenberg, 2001) as increased mobility and the ‘rebound effect’ or ‘boomerang’ effect offsets any possible overall environmental gains. Widespread ‘environmental consciousness’ has not been felt in OECD countries, as the impetus behind various awareness campaigns quickly dissipates and western societal norms prevail. The onset of a digital economy hasn’t appeared to substitute material consumption but has tended to accompany it.
Finally, this discussion points out that systematically understanding the linkages must be seen as an important and valuable area of research looking ahead. To understand the relationship between the ‘information society’ (in terms of Information Communication technology and theoretical and codified information and knowledge) and ‘environmental sustainability, one must recognise that ‘global infomatised capitalism’ lies at the heart of the issue. Economy is a crucial link between both fields of research and should be the focus of future research. As mentioned earlier, ‘the information society’ is irrevocably coupled within our economic system and the transition to an ‘information age’ may in some respects be seen as a necessary response of capitalism to the physical limits of the planet and not just a stage in economic/societal evolution. In many respects the information revolution permitted capitalism to get us into this mess, equally, it will take the ‘information revolution’ to get us out of it. Perhaps the age we are moving towards is infact the”eco-information age”.
References:
CASTELLS, M., 1996. The rise of the network society. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers.
GROSSMANN, W.D., 2000. Realising sustainable development with the information society - the holistic Double Gain-Link approach, H. PALAN, U. MANDER and Z. NAVEH, eds. In: 1999 Aug : Snowmass, CO, 2000, Elsevier; 2000 pp179-193.
SPANGENBERG, J.H., 2005. Will the information society be sustainable? Towards criteria and indicators for a sustainable knowledge society. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 1(1/2), pp. 85-102.Copyright ©
2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Twitter and it's data free for all....
The rise of Twitter
Twitter is expanding and expanding fast. A flurry of news coverage and hype about the product, particularly in the last 3 months, has seen users flock to the service. Twitter is seen to offer enormous potential, information can be filtered by content, location, keyword etc., opening up the realms of how data is used online in real time. This is in tandem with the numerous benefits of openness discussed below. However, Twitter still has some way to go. It has yet to come to terms with its own potential and how those possibilities should be steered and constrained. The service recently made some small developments to its site, with a 'trend' and 'search' facility added. However, the sophistication of its privacy and account settings is still limited. Thus, it has yet to put more control back in users hand, with regard to how their data is used and by whom. At present, it is an all or nothing affair, you're "open" or you're "private"!!. This begs the following questions, should account holders have more control over their data? If so, why should this be the case? Is openness itself constraining what people will say? Finally, If users have more control, will this stifle the success of the service?
Why openness?
The Twitter model is built largely around individuals posting short 140 character status updates, replies or retweets on any range of topic imaginable. Individuals can find and follow any other user on the service, ranging from friends to common interests, to celebrities etc. The great thing about twitter is its 'openness'. Most individuals choose to keep their profile public to ensure that they can be found by like-minded individuals, or that ongoing conversations can be picked up by interested parties etc. It means individuals have that feeling that someone out there is listening, even if it is just the possibility of feeling part of something. It is a forum for expression of the mind, even if expression is mundane. It is also a means to 'contribute' one's time, knowledge and experience and is thus an avenue of 'meaning' for individuals.
Openness ensures that those with something to offer others can more easily be heard. It engenders the possibility for more connection, collaboration, relationship and even community formation 'without' boundaries. By focusing on the content of messages and less on the full personality, it provides a different kind of social formation. The loud, influential and dominant personality may not make for interesting dialogue. Too many annoying tweets from a user and one can easily unfollow with the click of the mouse. This levels the playing field for users in many respects, as well as increasing the possibility of connection based on interest and not by persuasion. However, not everyone wishes for this openness. There is the option to set your profile 'private' in order to close your information to only those with whom you've allowed follow you.
Interpreting your past online
Full openness has its price though, Twitter first launched in March 2006, and since then, an archive of user data has slowly being amounting for all to access. Hundreds of your messages may (or may not) be carefully vetted by you, but one thoughtless twitter update may be enough to get you in to trouble at any point in the future. This may be nothing more than friends misinterpreting and taking offence to an update. But it could be something more: Recently a US cop had his status updates on Facebook and Myspace used as evidence against him in a gun trial on grounds of the accused acquittal. What was interesting about this case is how status updates became utilised and crucially 'interpreted' by the Jury. This highlights how information may be interpreted and placed into multiple contexts by whoever reads the information. Employers, even potential collaborators, may selectively choose just one suspect twitter update among hundreds as 'proof' of character, or misintrepret one's online ego as holistically representative of the individual. Twitter means your online past and identity will always be there online, waiting to be interpreted and analysed.
Analyse this!
You may think that with hundreds of recorded messages, it would be uncumbersome for anyone to want to thrall through your past data. But with twitter, software by third parties is springing up to offer just that: Twitter analyzer is just one of the free online applications available that allows you to analyse the data of "any" twitter user with an open account (hence the majority of twitter user). The bounds of what can be achieved with Twitter analyzer is limited. But it opens numerous possibilities. For beyond harmless apps like Twitscoop, which scrape status updates in order to form twitter 'trending topics' and 'buzz words', your data can be analysed in isolation or in tandem with others, in any number of ways, for any number of purposes, and by ANYONE. Twitter apps may emerge (if they don't already exist) to 'profile' individuals; to elucidate personality, truth and inconsistency, track record, literacy, interests etc. etc. etc. This is alongside the likely emergence of targeted advertising etc, and data mining of information, in order to make twitter a viable business model.
Openness on whose terms?
At present twitter has a very lax attitude to its data. If you have your profile public, your data is a free for all. If it's private, its between you, your vetted followers and twitter. This means that Twitter's so called openness may not be so open. People are constantly vetting and reflecting on what information they post on twitter. They may do it out of shyness, cautiousness, personal branding, or foresight etc. Twitter is open for many, but not too open. It's very openness curtails what dialogue does occur online. As users become aware of the ways in which their data can be used, this may further curtail individual expression. Thus, should Twitter not increase the range of choices with regard 'openness' and 'privacy'. What I would like to see is the possibility of users having the choice to make private their archive of data. For instance, what if only your recent updates were set as public? What if twitter made it difficult for those updates to be scraped by third party offerings? What if you could make replies only visible to who you follow? What if you could automatically make messages with certain 'keywords' private? What if you could make certain messages time sensitive and private after a certain period? What if you could make some status updates private to yourself? Thus, the bounds of privacy can be opened up. Will it constrain the services success however? I do not believe so, if too much openness is stifling expression and conversation on twitter, than increasing the scope of openness versus privacy, and doing it in an uncumbersome way; would perhaps increase use of the service. This choice may be the business model Twitter hopes for...
Copyright © 2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Twitter is expanding and expanding fast. A flurry of news coverage and hype about the product, particularly in the last 3 months, has seen users flock to the service. Twitter is seen to offer enormous potential, information can be filtered by content, location, keyword etc., opening up the realms of how data is used online in real time. This is in tandem with the numerous benefits of openness discussed below. However, Twitter still has some way to go. It has yet to come to terms with its own potential and how those possibilities should be steered and constrained. The service recently made some small developments to its site, with a 'trend' and 'search' facility added. However, the sophistication of its privacy and account settings is still limited. Thus, it has yet to put more control back in users hand, with regard to how their data is used and by whom. At present, it is an all or nothing affair, you're "open" or you're "private"!!. This begs the following questions, should account holders have more control over their data? If so, why should this be the case? Is openness itself constraining what people will say? Finally, If users have more control, will this stifle the success of the service?
Why openness?
The Twitter model is built largely around individuals posting short 140 character status updates, replies or retweets on any range of topic imaginable. Individuals can find and follow any other user on the service, ranging from friends to common interests, to celebrities etc. The great thing about twitter is its 'openness'. Most individuals choose to keep their profile public to ensure that they can be found by like-minded individuals, or that ongoing conversations can be picked up by interested parties etc. It means individuals have that feeling that someone out there is listening, even if it is just the possibility of feeling part of something. It is a forum for expression of the mind, even if expression is mundane. It is also a means to 'contribute' one's time, knowledge and experience and is thus an avenue of 'meaning' for individuals.
Openness ensures that those with something to offer others can more easily be heard. It engenders the possibility for more connection, collaboration, relationship and even community formation 'without' boundaries. By focusing on the content of messages and less on the full personality, it provides a different kind of social formation. The loud, influential and dominant personality may not make for interesting dialogue. Too many annoying tweets from a user and one can easily unfollow with the click of the mouse. This levels the playing field for users in many respects, as well as increasing the possibility of connection based on interest and not by persuasion. However, not everyone wishes for this openness. There is the option to set your profile 'private' in order to close your information to only those with whom you've allowed follow you.
Interpreting your past online
Full openness has its price though, Twitter first launched in March 2006, and since then, an archive of user data has slowly being amounting for all to access. Hundreds of your messages may (or may not) be carefully vetted by you, but one thoughtless twitter update may be enough to get you in to trouble at any point in the future. This may be nothing more than friends misinterpreting and taking offence to an update. But it could be something more: Recently a US cop had his status updates on Facebook and Myspace used as evidence against him in a gun trial on grounds of the accused acquittal. What was interesting about this case is how status updates became utilised and crucially 'interpreted' by the Jury. This highlights how information may be interpreted and placed into multiple contexts by whoever reads the information. Employers, even potential collaborators, may selectively choose just one suspect twitter update among hundreds as 'proof' of character, or misintrepret one's online ego as holistically representative of the individual. Twitter means your online past and identity will always be there online, waiting to be interpreted and analysed.
Analyse this!
You may think that with hundreds of recorded messages, it would be uncumbersome for anyone to want to thrall through your past data. But with twitter, software by third parties is springing up to offer just that: Twitter analyzer is just one of the free online applications available that allows you to analyse the data of "any" twitter user with an open account (hence the majority of twitter user). The bounds of what can be achieved with Twitter analyzer is limited. But it opens numerous possibilities. For beyond harmless apps like Twitscoop, which scrape status updates in order to form twitter 'trending topics' and 'buzz words', your data can be analysed in isolation or in tandem with others, in any number of ways, for any number of purposes, and by ANYONE. Twitter apps may emerge (if they don't already exist) to 'profile' individuals; to elucidate personality, truth and inconsistency, track record, literacy, interests etc. etc. etc. This is alongside the likely emergence of targeted advertising etc, and data mining of information, in order to make twitter a viable business model.
Openness on whose terms?
At present twitter has a very lax attitude to its data. If you have your profile public, your data is a free for all. If it's private, its between you, your vetted followers and twitter. This means that Twitter's so called openness may not be so open. People are constantly vetting and reflecting on what information they post on twitter. They may do it out of shyness, cautiousness, personal branding, or foresight etc. Twitter is open for many, but not too open. It's very openness curtails what dialogue does occur online. As users become aware of the ways in which their data can be used, this may further curtail individual expression. Thus, should Twitter not increase the range of choices with regard 'openness' and 'privacy'. What I would like to see is the possibility of users having the choice to make private their archive of data. For instance, what if only your recent updates were set as public? What if twitter made it difficult for those updates to be scraped by third party offerings? What if you could make replies only visible to who you follow? What if you could automatically make messages with certain 'keywords' private? What if you could make certain messages time sensitive and private after a certain period? What if you could make some status updates private to yourself? Thus, the bounds of privacy can be opened up. Will it constrain the services success however? I do not believe so, if too much openness is stifling expression and conversation on twitter, than increasing the scope of openness versus privacy, and doing it in an uncumbersome way; would perhaps increase use of the service. This choice may be the business model Twitter hopes for...
Copyright © 2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Monday, February 16, 2009
It's my data not yours!
Like many of you, I've been using 'web 2.0' sites for some time now. My use of them seems to be increasing and expanding of late. They allow someone like myself, who spends alot of time stuck in front of a computer, to maintain some degree of social interaction, express my interests and thus hold my sanity at bay.
In fact, I've come to like these new online offerings so much, that I want to do more!! For instance, I've been playing around with the idea of keeping an online journal for some time now. Having chosen a service that I liked; 'Penzu' , I realised that after keeping entries for more than a week, I had no assurance as to the integrity and access to data in the event of this service ceasing. The site gave no assurance about data portability or policy with regard to cessation of service. Then, I came across this interesting article by Bill Thompson over at the BBC See article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7760528.stm
He rightly raised the issue of data portability concluding that web site developers should do more. (Data Portability concerns the ability for user data to be transferred to another service, or downloaded by the user.) However I think he failed to fully argue what should be done about this issue. For example, if your data and/or intellectual property resides on a free online site, and that service changes its offering; is it made transparent and simple if you decide to jump ship to another offering? If your data and/or intellectual property resides on an online website and that website goes bust, will your data be kept safe and retrievable?
We already have some national government policies in place concerning the protection, control and privacy of data to individuals. However, I feel it should also be up to government to protect citizens with regard to movement, ownership and integrity of user data. For instance, more needs to be done to ensure that website owners have a required responsibility from the outset; to provide data portability and maintain this ability even after termination of service. Perhaps, this would require that the government step in and provide servers to back up user data in the event of a company ceasing. This could be in tandem with services (new or old) being required to ensure data integrity in the case of termination of service etc. Issues like ownership of data also needs to be addressed.
It is often argued that government should not inhibit the market, but I argue that the government should steer the market, maximising the longterm interests of it's citizens. Thus, I don't see a problem with positive interference in the market. The role of government is afterall to balance the realms of life. This is in view of citizens becoming increasingly reliant on the market, and thus, on online commercial offerings to function and stay abreast of modern society. Of course the supra national nature of the web, will require the need for supranational cooperation on any kind of intervention. Political intervention may quicken the pace of progress on these issues, it could also ensure that data rights and opt-out facilities are apparent and transparent to citizens. Finally, certain government measures may benefit both users and service offerings in the long term, by instilling confidence. For instance, a service like Penzu would perhaps better thrive if minimum requirements were in place, granted the details of any technical standards is a messy and arduous business. This kind of confidence, that individuals have certain assurances; would in aggregate serve to speed up adoption of existing and emerging services. It would also assure vigilance, in the face of further encroachment of the market into everyday life.
Copyright © 2006-2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
See; Facebook retain right to user data after account deletion
In fact, I've come to like these new online offerings so much, that I want to do more!! For instance, I've been playing around with the idea of keeping an online journal for some time now. Having chosen a service that I liked; 'Penzu' , I realised that after keeping entries for more than a week, I had no assurance as to the integrity and access to data in the event of this service ceasing. The site gave no assurance about data portability or policy with regard to cessation of service. Then, I came across this interesting article by Bill Thompson over at the BBC See article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7760528.stm
He rightly raised the issue of data portability concluding that web site developers should do more. (Data Portability concerns the ability for user data to be transferred to another service, or downloaded by the user.) However I think he failed to fully argue what should be done about this issue. For example, if your data and/or intellectual property resides on a free online site, and that service changes its offering; is it made transparent and simple if you decide to jump ship to another offering? If your data and/or intellectual property resides on an online website and that website goes bust, will your data be kept safe and retrievable?
We already have some national government policies in place concerning the protection, control and privacy of data to individuals. However, I feel it should also be up to government to protect citizens with regard to movement, ownership and integrity of user data. For instance, more needs to be done to ensure that website owners have a required responsibility from the outset; to provide data portability and maintain this ability even after termination of service. Perhaps, this would require that the government step in and provide servers to back up user data in the event of a company ceasing. This could be in tandem with services (new or old) being required to ensure data integrity in the case of termination of service etc. Issues like ownership of data also needs to be addressed.
It is often argued that government should not inhibit the market, but I argue that the government should steer the market, maximising the longterm interests of it's citizens. Thus, I don't see a problem with positive interference in the market. The role of government is afterall to balance the realms of life. This is in view of citizens becoming increasingly reliant on the market, and thus, on online commercial offerings to function and stay abreast of modern society. Of course the supra national nature of the web, will require the need for supranational cooperation on any kind of intervention. Political intervention may quicken the pace of progress on these issues, it could also ensure that data rights and opt-out facilities are apparent and transparent to citizens. Finally, certain government measures may benefit both users and service offerings in the long term, by instilling confidence. For instance, a service like Penzu would perhaps better thrive if minimum requirements were in place, granted the details of any technical standards is a messy and arduous business. This kind of confidence, that individuals have certain assurances; would in aggregate serve to speed up adoption of existing and emerging services. It would also assure vigilance, in the face of further encroachment of the market into everyday life.
Copyright © 2006-2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
See; Facebook retain right to user data after account deletion
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Response to; I haz a Nom
A friend of mine; 'Victoria MacArthur' over at 'Propositional Structure' , today wrote an interesting muse about personal writings on blogs. In it, she put forward the question; as to how personal one should get in a blog? How much does one 'feel comfortable' with sharing on the web? And, what are the ramifications in terms of employers vetting candidates for jobs etc. ?
She seemed to raise 2 fundamental issues:
1. The question of instinctually or more cognitively wanting to protect and control one's identity.
2. The pragmatic issues around needing to negotiate one's privacy on the web.
This got me thinking about some of the key issues at stake which I've layed out as follows:
First off, there is the problem of ‘identity crime’. This is a type of crime which is on the increase and one further enabled by the web. This can occur whereby you leave enough breadcrumbs on the internet for someone to cross-correlate that information and build up a profile on you. This profile can then be used to create a false identity for another person, or even worse; to 'steal' someones identity. Outside of crime though, it may be a case that you unknowingly have left the jig-saw for an online profile of you, which can be pieced together by employers and others. Thus, you may incremently and unknowingly lose your privacy online.
Second off, identity in the 21st century has increasingly become ‘individuated’, whereby individuals construct the ’self’ through-out their lives. (Note: This construction can be conscious, unconconscious and indeed shaped with social structure at micro, meso, macro level) What’s important about posting information on the internet, is that it can leave relics of your previous ’selves’. Thus, your past can constrain your identity ‘construction’, particularly when it cannot be erased from the past. For example, archive.org has been archiving web pages on the internet for nearly 10 years now. Fragments of your past identities on the internet can be seen as both positive and negative. One positive, is that it means you have to face all of your past realities (and integrate them). On a negative, it can give people (such as employers) a false sense of who you are ‘now’; your past may constrain you in the eyes of others. It may also constrain your own sense of identity and your ability to construct.
Third Point. There is an issue with social networking sites etc., whereby individuals can have too much ‘control’ of their online identities. Individuals can now put themselves in a position to be able to package their life online, and this online construction may not be ‘holistically’ representative of the integrated identity. It may represent a planned and controlled fragment of your identity, or even an entirely consciously manufactured identity. At the other extreme, the fragments of identity that do lie on the internet, may result in people constructing a narrow and perhaps even false sense of who you are as an integrated identity.
Final point. The solution to all this seems 3 fold. (1)Government policy with regards to data protection etc. (2)Some responsibility and forsight with regard to website owners and content managers (3)Individual responsiblity, in terms of managing your online identity and maintaining a degree of foresight.
Overall, it seems like there isn’t a polarising solution. A balanced attitude to your identity and privacy on the internet seems the best approach. Individuals need to be vigilant and maintain foresight when posting information on the web. On the other-hand, individuals need to be attentive to how, ‘controlled’ and ‘representative’ that information on the web is of their ‘integrated identity’.
To see the original article, go to; http://www.victoriamacarthur.com/2009/01/20/i-haz-a-nom/
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
She seemed to raise 2 fundamental issues:
1. The question of instinctually or more cognitively wanting to protect and control one's identity.
2. The pragmatic issues around needing to negotiate one's privacy on the web.
This got me thinking about some of the key issues at stake which I've layed out as follows:
First off, there is the problem of ‘identity crime’. This is a type of crime which is on the increase and one further enabled by the web. This can occur whereby you leave enough breadcrumbs on the internet for someone to cross-correlate that information and build up a profile on you. This profile can then be used to create a false identity for another person, or even worse; to 'steal' someones identity. Outside of crime though, it may be a case that you unknowingly have left the jig-saw for an online profile of you, which can be pieced together by employers and others. Thus, you may incremently and unknowingly lose your privacy online.
Second off, identity in the 21st century has increasingly become ‘individuated’, whereby individuals construct the ’self’ through-out their lives. (Note: This construction can be conscious, unconconscious and indeed shaped with social structure at micro, meso, macro level) What’s important about posting information on the internet, is that it can leave relics of your previous ’selves’. Thus, your past can constrain your identity ‘construction’, particularly when it cannot be erased from the past. For example, archive.org has been archiving web pages on the internet for nearly 10 years now. Fragments of your past identities on the internet can be seen as both positive and negative. One positive, is that it means you have to face all of your past realities (and integrate them). On a negative, it can give people (such as employers) a false sense of who you are ‘now’; your past may constrain you in the eyes of others. It may also constrain your own sense of identity and your ability to construct.
Third Point. There is an issue with social networking sites etc., whereby individuals can have too much ‘control’ of their online identities. Individuals can now put themselves in a position to be able to package their life online, and this online construction may not be ‘holistically’ representative of the integrated identity. It may represent a planned and controlled fragment of your identity, or even an entirely consciously manufactured identity. At the other extreme, the fragments of identity that do lie on the internet, may result in people constructing a narrow and perhaps even false sense of who you are as an integrated identity.
Final point. The solution to all this seems 3 fold. (1)Government policy with regards to data protection etc. (2)Some responsibility and forsight with regard to website owners and content managers (3)Individual responsiblity, in terms of managing your online identity and maintaining a degree of foresight.
Overall, it seems like there isn’t a polarising solution. A balanced attitude to your identity and privacy on the internet seems the best approach. Individuals need to be vigilant and maintain foresight when posting information on the web. On the other-hand, individuals need to be attentive to how, ‘controlled’ and ‘representative’ that information on the web is of their ‘integrated identity’.
To see the original article, go to; http://www.victoriamacarthur.com/2009/01/20/i-haz-a-nom/
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Ubuntu grievances....
So I'm back using Ubuntu (the fancy gui laden linux), literally because Vista's lackluster performance led me to.
And yes, what a relief; speed, performance and it's cracking GUI advanced interface options come as a welcome relief. But, ubuntu obviously has its shortcomings, the most noticably so far being installing items. Basically, if you have the update manager running to download an upgrade or several program updates; you can't install anything else simulataneously. Furthermore, you can only install one item at a time. This can be especially frustrating given upgrades can take hours to download on an average ISP connection.
Also, Vista's 'Cleartype', 'graphics', 'icons' and 'font' choices are still miles ahead of Ubuntu and customising these items is a must in order not to feel like you've been transported to the past!
Finally, concluding my brief rant, the gdesktop widgets are still wanting in many regards and thus, on my 'wishlist', would be a plethora of new widgets to choose from. But overall, gripes are superficial at worst, Ubuntu has evolved in leaps and bounds since I got involved 2 years ago!
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
And yes, what a relief; speed, performance and it's cracking GUI advanced interface options come as a welcome relief. But, ubuntu obviously has its shortcomings, the most noticably so far being installing items. Basically, if you have the update manager running to download an upgrade or several program updates; you can't install anything else simulataneously. Furthermore, you can only install one item at a time. This can be especially frustrating given upgrades can take hours to download on an average ISP connection.
Also, Vista's 'Cleartype', 'graphics', 'icons' and 'font' choices are still miles ahead of Ubuntu and customising these items is a must in order not to feel like you've been transported to the past!
Finally, concluding my brief rant, the gdesktop widgets are still wanting in many regards and thus, on my 'wishlist', would be a plethora of new widgets to choose from. But overall, gripes are superficial at worst, Ubuntu has evolved in leaps and bounds since I got involved 2 years ago!
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Bye Bye Paper ??
Now that e-readers and e-paper are finally beginning to trickle into the market-place, what are the key issues surrounding these developments and where could this all lead?
It's now been 2 years since the second generation of E-Reader devices hit the market. The past year has seen several additions to the line-up including; Amazon's Kindle and an updated Sony E-Reader. These devices may herald the transformation of the publishing industry, as e-books can be downloaded and updated with these devices, consumer's and scholar's can effectively have their book collection or more significantly the world's libraries on the palm of their hand's.
What's so 'special' and significant about these devices is the incorporation of 'E-Ink' displays. E-Ink, unlike LCD or LED displays, are not back-lit. A kind of 'electronic ink' gets rearranged to form words and pictures as the user switches pages. The technology allows improved readability and reduced eye-strain, in addition to much improved battery life as compared to LCD. The technology promises to marry many of the benefits of a traditional book with the advantages of computers and the Web.
Now that the technology has gone to industrial scale production and sales are 'slowly' creeping up, the market is forming to allow further innovation, proliferation and price reduction. In essence, the cogs in the E-ink machine are slowly beginning to turn. Just recently, a German factory in Dresden (Plastic Logic), went into operation turning out a 'newspaper' version of the technology alongside the 'EBook Reader' devices already in 'circulation'. These devices’s, (the technology still in its infancy), will eventually supplement, and may one-day even replace traditional newspapers. Developing technology and industry growth in this sector means we may inhabit a predominantly 'paperless' world in the not too distant future. A world in some ways reminiscent of that portrayed in Spielberg's film, 'Minority Report'. The devices 'currently' are only available in black and white, other short-comings currently exist such as memory, processing power, battery life and connectivity. However, down the road, it is envisaged that such devices will form part of the 'ubiquitous' web, with multi-coloured screens, multi-media capability and live updating of content. Furthermore, the amount of content and functionality of these E-Reader devices will drastically improve. The latest generation already allow for underlining and note taking of text, in the not too distant future, continual updating of e-books, user's contributing through discussion of passages, as well as enhanced functionality such as automatic summarisation and correlation of note-taking etc, will undoubtedly be forthcoming.
There are a few significant issues which ought to be explored in light of this. Firstly, how environmentally sustainable will such an industry be, as opposed to the paper industry? What will the total environmental footprint be in manufacturing and disposing of these devices? We have already seen from existing computer and electronic manufacturing, that this footprint can be significant. Hundreds of parts, manufactured using harmful chemicals, flown in from around the world to an assembly site before being shipped back around the world; represents industry norms at present. This is before we factor in direct and indirect energy, water and waste by-products. We must also question the short life-cycle of these devices (in a capitalist society) as well as their disposal and replacement. In sum, there is the need to scrutinise and improve the environmental credentials of the electronics industry from cradle to grave. The European WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment) directive goes some way to steering the industry in a positive direction.
Certainly the traditional paper industry has environmental shortfalls with much room for improvement. Even with the growth of E-Paper replacing paper, it must be recognised that packaging presently consumes half of all paper produced. Up to 40 of total municipal waste in the US is paper based. Paper production has been cited as accounting from anything between 20% to 40% of global logging and is one of the most water intensive industries requiring c.20 thousand gallons of water per ton of paper. Concern also exists about the degree of wood logging from non-'farmed' forests, particularly in developing countries. This is in light of global paper consumption increasing at over 3% annually into the foreseeable future. On a positive note, recycled paper accounts for about c.40% of total paper used globally, though in some western countries; recycling rates have hit 60%. Thus, there is enormous scope for overall improvements in paper recycling, and in reduction of packaging. With the advent of e-paper, significant environmental benefits may be added by reducing paper use, if an environmentally sustainable electronics industry emerges to supplement it. One that in aggregate outweighs the benefits of recycled paper. In any event, the push and pull factors of e-paper and e-readers looks set to increase!!
There are also other issues that must be considered alongside environmental concerns. Advertising currently subsidises the newspaper industry, can a model be developed that ensures the devices themselves are subsidised so that the gap in information inequality is not increased? Technology has the potential to increase equality by improving access to more information by all sectors in society, but without foresight, technology can also act as a barrier in terms of cost, awareness, understanding and 'computer literacy'.
We must also ask whether more information is better information or even needed information. Are we becoming a society of superficial information junkies? Research has shown we increasingly 'flicker' through content rapidly on the internet, prepared to trawl through a number of articles in order to grab snippets of interesting or relevant information without spending the time trying to get a more in-depth understanding of particular topics. The emergence of E-paper devices may continue and expand this trend for better or worse. With such an abundance of easily retrieval information available, it may seem increasingly difficult for individuals to 'filter' and 'process' the abundance of information. Thus, how will all this impact us psychologically in terms of attention span, memory and behavioural traits? There is belief that it will lead to increased selectivity and 'differentiation', meaning readers can increasingly become selective about what content they wish to know about, perhaps at the expense of democracy and the 'public good'. It is a well known phenomenon that individuals have a tendency to selectivity, choosing information that's agreeable with their prior knowledge, sometimes adopting theories about things which favour preconceived biases or conclusions. Existing Paper formats cover a wide range of content from politics, social issues to economic and lifestyle issues. Individuals 'paying' for a newspaper may be more inclined to read from a wider range of stories and view-points, in-turn having a more rounded knowledge of current-affairs and everyday reality as a result. With E-Paper, users will eventually be able to choose what content (and by whom) they wish to receive by page or even by column. Thus, research which ascertains the information behaviour of e-paper users seems timely.
Ending on a positive note, the maturation of e-reader devices may have enormous benefits for scholars and consumers alike. It certainly means increased access and availability of high quality content. With access through a library portal, students will no-longer need to visit the library for text books; there will be no such thing as limited availability. There will be enormous easing of 'friction' in terms of time and space, as books become almost instantaneously retrievable, illiminating the time and journey involved in accessing content. Furthermore, unlike books on a shelf, e-books don't degrade and can't be defaced. Students and consumers may have automatic updates; newer editions may be factored into the 'purchase' or 'rental' price of content. With online accounts, e-readers that get lost or stolen will not mean the need for repurchasing of content. From this we can gage that the role of the traditional library may change in light of this new model. The issue of 'trust' may become more crucial as 'library portals' and 'publishers' (being gatekeepers of information) may be viewed increasingly like brands, some 'brands' trusted more in terms of providing filtered reliable high quality content.
Finally, where does this leave the traditional book, newspaper and magazines? Notwithstanding the likely negatives in terms of cost and environmental credentials of the paper industry, it seems likely that paper will continue to play a role in our lives long into the future. The vast proportion of information may become solely electronic but; key texts, magazines and fictional works will likely remain in print as well as electronic format. Changes in the academic journal sector in the past 20 years indicate such a possible scenario. Individuals will likely still place emotional value on physical copy. Filled book-shelves may be an expression of personality, an indication of status, or provide a feeling of tangible ownership. The feel and smell of the book, the linear arrangement of text, the ability to personalise, flick through pages; all these unique features are known to aid memory. Books can also provide spatial reference and association of information, provide emotional comfort and value, as well as convey a sense of permanence. Thus, the future it seems may be principally electronic, but reports of the traditional newspaper or book’s death, are greatly exaggerated!!
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
It's now been 2 years since the second generation of E-Reader devices hit the market. The past year has seen several additions to the line-up including; Amazon's Kindle and an updated Sony E-Reader. These devices may herald the transformation of the publishing industry, as e-books can be downloaded and updated with these devices, consumer's and scholar's can effectively have their book collection or more significantly the world's libraries on the palm of their hand's.
What's so 'special' and significant about these devices is the incorporation of 'E-Ink' displays. E-Ink, unlike LCD or LED displays, are not back-lit. A kind of 'electronic ink' gets rearranged to form words and pictures as the user switches pages. The technology allows improved readability and reduced eye-strain, in addition to much improved battery life as compared to LCD. The technology promises to marry many of the benefits of a traditional book with the advantages of computers and the Web.
Now that the technology has gone to industrial scale production and sales are 'slowly' creeping up, the market is forming to allow further innovation, proliferation and price reduction. In essence, the cogs in the E-ink machine are slowly beginning to turn. Just recently, a German factory in Dresden (Plastic Logic), went into operation turning out a 'newspaper' version of the technology alongside the 'EBook Reader' devices already in 'circulation'. These devices’s, (the technology still in its infancy), will eventually supplement, and may one-day even replace traditional newspapers. Developing technology and industry growth in this sector means we may inhabit a predominantly 'paperless' world in the not too distant future. A world in some ways reminiscent of that portrayed in Spielberg's film, 'Minority Report'. The devices 'currently' are only available in black and white, other short-comings currently exist such as memory, processing power, battery life and connectivity. However, down the road, it is envisaged that such devices will form part of the 'ubiquitous' web, with multi-coloured screens, multi-media capability and live updating of content. Furthermore, the amount of content and functionality of these E-Reader devices will drastically improve. The latest generation already allow for underlining and note taking of text, in the not too distant future, continual updating of e-books, user's contributing through discussion of passages, as well as enhanced functionality such as automatic summarisation and correlation of note-taking etc, will undoubtedly be forthcoming.
There are a few significant issues which ought to be explored in light of this. Firstly, how environmentally sustainable will such an industry be, as opposed to the paper industry? What will the total environmental footprint be in manufacturing and disposing of these devices? We have already seen from existing computer and electronic manufacturing, that this footprint can be significant. Hundreds of parts, manufactured using harmful chemicals, flown in from around the world to an assembly site before being shipped back around the world; represents industry norms at present. This is before we factor in direct and indirect energy, water and waste by-products. We must also question the short life-cycle of these devices (in a capitalist society) as well as their disposal and replacement. In sum, there is the need to scrutinise and improve the environmental credentials of the electronics industry from cradle to grave. The European WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment) directive goes some way to steering the industry in a positive direction.
Certainly the traditional paper industry has environmental shortfalls with much room for improvement. Even with the growth of E-Paper replacing paper, it must be recognised that packaging presently consumes half of all paper produced. Up to 40 of total municipal waste in the US is paper based. Paper production has been cited as accounting from anything between 20% to 40% of global logging and is one of the most water intensive industries requiring c.20 thousand gallons of water per ton of paper. Concern also exists about the degree of wood logging from non-'farmed' forests, particularly in developing countries. This is in light of global paper consumption increasing at over 3% annually into the foreseeable future. On a positive note, recycled paper accounts for about c.40% of total paper used globally, though in some western countries; recycling rates have hit 60%. Thus, there is enormous scope for overall improvements in paper recycling, and in reduction of packaging. With the advent of e-paper, significant environmental benefits may be added by reducing paper use, if an environmentally sustainable electronics industry emerges to supplement it. One that in aggregate outweighs the benefits of recycled paper. In any event, the push and pull factors of e-paper and e-readers looks set to increase!!
There are also other issues that must be considered alongside environmental concerns. Advertising currently subsidises the newspaper industry, can a model be developed that ensures the devices themselves are subsidised so that the gap in information inequality is not increased? Technology has the potential to increase equality by improving access to more information by all sectors in society, but without foresight, technology can also act as a barrier in terms of cost, awareness, understanding and 'computer literacy'.
We must also ask whether more information is better information or even needed information. Are we becoming a society of superficial information junkies? Research has shown we increasingly 'flicker' through content rapidly on the internet, prepared to trawl through a number of articles in order to grab snippets of interesting or relevant information without spending the time trying to get a more in-depth understanding of particular topics. The emergence of E-paper devices may continue and expand this trend for better or worse. With such an abundance of easily retrieval information available, it may seem increasingly difficult for individuals to 'filter' and 'process' the abundance of information. Thus, how will all this impact us psychologically in terms of attention span, memory and behavioural traits? There is belief that it will lead to increased selectivity and 'differentiation', meaning readers can increasingly become selective about what content they wish to know about, perhaps at the expense of democracy and the 'public good'. It is a well known phenomenon that individuals have a tendency to selectivity, choosing information that's agreeable with their prior knowledge, sometimes adopting theories about things which favour preconceived biases or conclusions. Existing Paper formats cover a wide range of content from politics, social issues to economic and lifestyle issues. Individuals 'paying' for a newspaper may be more inclined to read from a wider range of stories and view-points, in-turn having a more rounded knowledge of current-affairs and everyday reality as a result. With E-Paper, users will eventually be able to choose what content (and by whom) they wish to receive by page or even by column. Thus, research which ascertains the information behaviour of e-paper users seems timely.
Ending on a positive note, the maturation of e-reader devices may have enormous benefits for scholars and consumers alike. It certainly means increased access and availability of high quality content. With access through a library portal, students will no-longer need to visit the library for text books; there will be no such thing as limited availability. There will be enormous easing of 'friction' in terms of time and space, as books become almost instantaneously retrievable, illiminating the time and journey involved in accessing content. Furthermore, unlike books on a shelf, e-books don't degrade and can't be defaced. Students and consumers may have automatic updates; newer editions may be factored into the 'purchase' or 'rental' price of content. With online accounts, e-readers that get lost or stolen will not mean the need for repurchasing of content. From this we can gage that the role of the traditional library may change in light of this new model. The issue of 'trust' may become more crucial as 'library portals' and 'publishers' (being gatekeepers of information) may be viewed increasingly like brands, some 'brands' trusted more in terms of providing filtered reliable high quality content.
Finally, where does this leave the traditional book, newspaper and magazines? Notwithstanding the likely negatives in terms of cost and environmental credentials of the paper industry, it seems likely that paper will continue to play a role in our lives long into the future. The vast proportion of information may become solely electronic but; key texts, magazines and fictional works will likely remain in print as well as electronic format. Changes in the academic journal sector in the past 20 years indicate such a possible scenario. Individuals will likely still place emotional value on physical copy. Filled book-shelves may be an expression of personality, an indication of status, or provide a feeling of tangible ownership. The feel and smell of the book, the linear arrangement of text, the ability to personalise, flick through pages; all these unique features are known to aid memory. Books can also provide spatial reference and association of information, provide emotional comfort and value, as well as convey a sense of permanence. Thus, the future it seems may be principally electronic, but reports of the traditional newspaper or book’s death, are greatly exaggerated!!
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Electric Picnic 2008; the verdict
To give my quick rundown of 'Electric Picnic', detailing my high's and low's, read on...
After hauling myself and dragging my stuff to and from this year's 'premier' festival, here's my take on Ireland's largest annual 'picnic':
Firstly, a big 'Yes' to 'Ginderman', 'Josh Ritter' and 'Santogold'. Yes to 'Cut Copy's' live gig despite their recent albums' scrappy and disjunctured mixing. Yes to 'The Herbaliser', to 'Franz Ferdinand' and to 'Elbow'. Yes to 'Sigur Ros' but 'No' to their lack of uptempo tunes on the set-list. On a 'more' subjective note; CSS really 'sucks', the poor sound quality killed 'The kills', we yawned and promptly escaped from 'The breeders' and woe there funkastic 'Chromeo'; too slow!!
On to food and drink: Yes to 'Taco-man', to marshmallow dunked 99's in M&M's Cafe, to 'Fine burger' (half pounders) and to 'Moon' fries. 'Here here' to the 'Farmers Market 'and to a general abundance of quality cake. Yes to 'Motion Lotion' (Buckfast mixed with Cider), to lashings of Brandy and to 'Pear Kopperberg'. A thankful yes to sunny weather, to colourful clothes and people. Yes to free 'Lyons' Tea and cadbury flake, to 'Chai Tea' with flapjacks and to 'Mad-hatter's Tea Party'
Sorry but 'No' to knacks with getto blasters banging out 'Scooter' in the campsite. Of similar note, 'No' to some 'illfitting' Oxygen blow-ins. No to lengthy complaining and 'detailing' of toilet experiences. No to lack of bins, lack of showers and at times a lack of sanitation. No to tea shirts entitled; 'IPOOD'. No to penis graffiti art on tents and EP property. No to careless urinating anywhere and everywhere. Yes to some good sober fun; to 'Lucent Dossier', 'Fausset's Circus', to spinning swings, to the outdoor arcade and its fire dancing performers. Yes to choice theatre, art and crafts, to cinema, comedy and 'talk' tents. Yes to the 'turf cottage' and to other santuary chill-out haunts in 'Body and Soul.'
Yes to the 'Temple of Truth' and its symbolic burning, but a big 'No' to “Burn the f*&King thing already” chants from indifferent as said Oxygen blow-ins. Yes to 'Live Food demo's' in 'Body and Soul' with accompanying free sunday roast dinners, barbecue and desserts. Yes to random erupting 'dance offs', to spontaneous 'Tower of London' quicksteps and to strangers random acts of kindness.
No no to incessantly 'loud' and boisterous lager louts at 6am onwards in the campsites. Nay to careless parents with their lost wondering kids. No to wasps descending on Stadbally from across the country. 'No' to long traffic holdups on the friday approach and mud stranded cars on the monday exitous.
Yes Yes to metal clad campsite pavements, Yes to gazebo's equals 'taken' ground. Yes to quality fairtrade, organic and locally produced food, but 'No' (as usual) to excessive food prices and other acts of 'gombeenism'. Yes to underbearing Gardai presence and lack of trouble at the events. Yes to variety, variety, variety, with plenty on offer all weekend. Yes to 'Bodytonic', trance music and 'silent disco'. Yes and 'Oh No' to friction free spending opportunities galore. A resounding 'Yes' to the people, the staff, the performers and the overall spectacle of the 'Electric Picnic'. And finally a big grateful 'Yes' to 'Electric Picnic'; once again worth every dime...
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
After hauling myself and dragging my stuff to and from this year's 'premier' festival, here's my take on Ireland's largest annual 'picnic':
Firstly, a big 'Yes' to 'Ginderman', 'Josh Ritter' and 'Santogold'. Yes to 'Cut Copy's' live gig despite their recent albums' scrappy and disjunctured mixing. Yes to 'The Herbaliser', to 'Franz Ferdinand' and to 'Elbow'. Yes to 'Sigur Ros' but 'No' to their lack of uptempo tunes on the set-list. On a 'more' subjective note; CSS really 'sucks', the poor sound quality killed 'The kills', we yawned and promptly escaped from 'The breeders' and woe there funkastic 'Chromeo'; too slow!!
On to food and drink: Yes to 'Taco-man', to marshmallow dunked 99's in M&M's Cafe, to 'Fine burger' (half pounders) and to 'Moon' fries. 'Here here' to the 'Farmers Market 'and to a general abundance of quality cake. Yes to 'Motion Lotion' (Buckfast mixed with Cider), to lashings of Brandy and to 'Pear Kopperberg'. A thankful yes to sunny weather, to colourful clothes and people. Yes to free 'Lyons' Tea and cadbury flake, to 'Chai Tea' with flapjacks and to 'Mad-hatter's Tea Party'
Sorry but 'No' to knacks with getto blasters banging out 'Scooter' in the campsite. Of similar note, 'No' to some 'illfitting' Oxygen blow-ins. No to lengthy complaining and 'detailing' of toilet experiences. No to lack of bins, lack of showers and at times a lack of sanitation. No to tea shirts entitled; 'IPOOD'. No to penis graffiti art on tents and EP property. No to careless urinating anywhere and everywhere. Yes to some good sober fun; to 'Lucent Dossier', 'Fausset's Circus', to spinning swings, to the outdoor arcade and its fire dancing performers. Yes to choice theatre, art and crafts, to cinema, comedy and 'talk' tents. Yes to the 'turf cottage' and to other santuary chill-out haunts in 'Body and Soul.'
Yes to the 'Temple of Truth' and its symbolic burning, but a big 'No' to “Burn the f*&King thing already” chants from indifferent as said Oxygen blow-ins. Yes to 'Live Food demo's' in 'Body and Soul' with accompanying free sunday roast dinners, barbecue and desserts. Yes to random erupting 'dance offs', to spontaneous 'Tower of London' quicksteps and to strangers random acts of kindness.
No no to incessantly 'loud' and boisterous lager louts at 6am onwards in the campsites. Nay to careless parents with their lost wondering kids. No to wasps descending on Stadbally from across the country. 'No' to long traffic holdups on the friday approach and mud stranded cars on the monday exitous.
Yes Yes to metal clad campsite pavements, Yes to gazebo's equals 'taken' ground. Yes to quality fairtrade, organic and locally produced food, but 'No' (as usual) to excessive food prices and other acts of 'gombeenism'. Yes to underbearing Gardai presence and lack of trouble at the events. Yes to variety, variety, variety, with plenty on offer all weekend. Yes to 'Bodytonic', trance music and 'silent disco'. Yes and 'Oh No' to friction free spending opportunities galore. A resounding 'Yes' to the people, the staff, the performers and the overall spectacle of the 'Electric Picnic'. And finally a big grateful 'Yes' to 'Electric Picnic'; once again worth every dime...
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Chinese Games: Overall opinion and analysis
You've got to give it to the Chinese, they know how to put on a show!! A spectacular opening ceremony and equally dazzling and epic closing ceremony wowed China and the World. Overseen by renowned director 'Zhang Yimou'; an 'artful','grand' and 'unparalleled' display captivated its audience, China's spectacle clearly signified the ambitions of a nation.
The ceremonies and the buildings showcased the heights of human capacity as well as the level of sophistication with which technology has reached in the 21st century. But in all of this dazzle, we must ask the question; can we separate art and the aesthetic from the moral? Many commentators on the 21st Century have noted how we live in an increasingly schizophrenic world, is this such an example? Can we appreciate the 'esthetic' knowing the circumstances from which it arrose? or should be shun this spectacle, and cynically denigrate this episode of human history? Thus, how should we think about the games?
The Chinese Olympics passed flawlessly thanks to; human rights abuses, the brute willpower and (what seemed like) unlimited financial means of an authoritarian state. Protests around the world ensued prior to and during the games commencement; the argument being that the Olympic Games and its audience had served to legitimise for China the means through which these games came to fruition, as well as the climate from which these games took place. This being a sad case of the end justifying the means. How could we celebrate these games and its grand ceremonies, when to do so; we vindicate, commend and at best only admonish the Chinese State; in turn fueling the internal propaganda accompanying the spectacle and strengthening it's 'Raison d'être'? Was there a better alternative? Perhaps to Shun the games in protest?
Here are some points for consideration:
In the past I've worked with a number of Chinese people and was always struck by the enthusiasm and conviction they displayed for their country, all seemingly assured that China would gain planetary hegemony in the years to come. Though we might argue in the west that such minds have fallen prey to repetitive propaganda and restrained freedoms relative to the west; we cannot ignore that a significant proportion of Chinese felt proud of their country and it's hosting of the games. As millions of Chinese lay glued to their TV, thousands upon thousands contributed to the organisation, performances and hosting in varying capacities. Though a top down approach, success resulted from the hard work of the Chinese people. Overall, it seems we have to acknowledge their allegiance and more significantly; we must acknowledge and commend the fruits of their labour (however misguided we feel they are).
We must also recognise there have been positive as well as the negative consequences for china. For example, Road, air transport and other infrastructures improved greatly for many parts of Beijing and beyond. World class sporting venues were erected of benefit to chinese athletics. The west learned more of China as China learned more of the West. Internet restrictions were laxed during the games in view of visiting journalists, though we must question whether this will last? The world drew focus on despicable human rights abuses in China, as well as ethnic divides among Han, Tibetan and Uyghur factions, will political good come of this? Up to 1.5 million Beijing citizens were evicted from their homes to facilitate construction, authorities initiated hidden and untold human rights abuses in Beijing to ensure the games were a success. Thousands of performers heavily drilled daily for up to 2 years in advance of the games, the mammoth cost of preparation being something they shall not easily forget. It is in times like these that the character of an authoritarian state is revealed to its citizens and to the rest of the world, we may feel saddened and helpless when it occurs but we can only but hope that change can result as a consequence. What seems clear is that we simply cannot predict or direct the unintended positive and negative outcomes which result from the Beijing games, whether the positive will outweigh the negative or vice-versa is a matter of time. To take an extreme and narrow view on this episode of history at this stage would be foolish and unwise.
Overall, what the West can do is to 'lead by example'. 'Acceptance' is key here. Let us acknowledge and commend the Beijing Games. That does 'not' mean we shouldn't cast a critical eye over precedings or that we should be affraid to issue deep concern and advice to the Chinese people; we simply need to work with the system as well as to challenge it. To do otherwise would fuel bitterness and anamosity towards the West from those who 'know no better'. We need to build bridges to affect change not direct distain and blanket criticism.
In all of this, an argument can be made that the games were a real triumph for sport itself. The world celebrating sport and prepared to dedicate so much time, energy and resources serves to emphasis that humanity can trump sport above economic considerations. China's economy wound down for the Olympic games as other values gained prominence. Though we must recognise the increasing economic ties and economic justification with hosting such games, the games and its athletes won the hearts and minds of countless million spectators. They provided 'in themselves' great joy for Chinese people and the world.
Given that I've explicated points for consideration in how we ought to think about the China games, lets return to and reiterate the central guiding question here; how can we appreciate art and the asthetic dimensions of life given the moral and cognitive dimensions to which they are bound? Paradoxically it seems, to dismiss the aesthetic dimension in such a case, 'is' to act schizophrenically. That is to say; to deny or paint our very senses, our innate appreciation for beauty; is to truly become internally turmoiled. It is in recognising our paradoxes that we reconcile our paradoxes. Our appreciation of art does not take away from our moral fibre or our reasoning. Let us feel one thing but to think and speak another, that is what it can be to be human afterall...
See article: 'China's Totalitarian Games' ; http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/24/chinas_totalitarian_games/
See article; 'The price of the Chinese Olympic Games'; http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-olympics26-2008aug26,0,4466878.story
See article; 'Beijing Olympics London 2012 handover blow to British pride.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/2614357/Beijing-Olympics-London-2012-handover-blow-to-British-pride.htmlCopyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
The ceremonies and the buildings showcased the heights of human capacity as well as the level of sophistication with which technology has reached in the 21st century. But in all of this dazzle, we must ask the question; can we separate art and the aesthetic from the moral? Many commentators on the 21st Century have noted how we live in an increasingly schizophrenic world, is this such an example? Can we appreciate the 'esthetic' knowing the circumstances from which it arrose? or should be shun this spectacle, and cynically denigrate this episode of human history? Thus, how should we think about the games?
The Chinese Olympics passed flawlessly thanks to; human rights abuses, the brute willpower and (what seemed like) unlimited financial means of an authoritarian state. Protests around the world ensued prior to and during the games commencement; the argument being that the Olympic Games and its audience had served to legitimise for China the means through which these games came to fruition, as well as the climate from which these games took place. This being a sad case of the end justifying the means. How could we celebrate these games and its grand ceremonies, when to do so; we vindicate, commend and at best only admonish the Chinese State; in turn fueling the internal propaganda accompanying the spectacle and strengthening it's 'Raison d'être'? Was there a better alternative? Perhaps to Shun the games in protest?
Here are some points for consideration:
In the past I've worked with a number of Chinese people and was always struck by the enthusiasm and conviction they displayed for their country, all seemingly assured that China would gain planetary hegemony in the years to come. Though we might argue in the west that such minds have fallen prey to repetitive propaganda and restrained freedoms relative to the west; we cannot ignore that a significant proportion of Chinese felt proud of their country and it's hosting of the games. As millions of Chinese lay glued to their TV, thousands upon thousands contributed to the organisation, performances and hosting in varying capacities. Though a top down approach, success resulted from the hard work of the Chinese people. Overall, it seems we have to acknowledge their allegiance and more significantly; we must acknowledge and commend the fruits of their labour (however misguided we feel they are).
We must also recognise there have been positive as well as the negative consequences for china. For example, Road, air transport and other infrastructures improved greatly for many parts of Beijing and beyond. World class sporting venues were erected of benefit to chinese athletics. The west learned more of China as China learned more of the West. Internet restrictions were laxed during the games in view of visiting journalists, though we must question whether this will last? The world drew focus on despicable human rights abuses in China, as well as ethnic divides among Han, Tibetan and Uyghur factions, will political good come of this? Up to 1.5 million Beijing citizens were evicted from their homes to facilitate construction, authorities initiated hidden and untold human rights abuses in Beijing to ensure the games were a success. Thousands of performers heavily drilled daily for up to 2 years in advance of the games, the mammoth cost of preparation being something they shall not easily forget. It is in times like these that the character of an authoritarian state is revealed to its citizens and to the rest of the world, we may feel saddened and helpless when it occurs but we can only but hope that change can result as a consequence. What seems clear is that we simply cannot predict or direct the unintended positive and negative outcomes which result from the Beijing games, whether the positive will outweigh the negative or vice-versa is a matter of time. To take an extreme and narrow view on this episode of history at this stage would be foolish and unwise.
Overall, what the West can do is to 'lead by example'. 'Acceptance' is key here. Let us acknowledge and commend the Beijing Games. That does 'not' mean we shouldn't cast a critical eye over precedings or that we should be affraid to issue deep concern and advice to the Chinese people; we simply need to work with the system as well as to challenge it. To do otherwise would fuel bitterness and anamosity towards the West from those who 'know no better'. We need to build bridges to affect change not direct distain and blanket criticism.
In all of this, an argument can be made that the games were a real triumph for sport itself. The world celebrating sport and prepared to dedicate so much time, energy and resources serves to emphasis that humanity can trump sport above economic considerations. China's economy wound down for the Olympic games as other values gained prominence. Though we must recognise the increasing economic ties and economic justification with hosting such games, the games and its athletes won the hearts and minds of countless million spectators. They provided 'in themselves' great joy for Chinese people and the world.
Given that I've explicated points for consideration in how we ought to think about the China games, lets return to and reiterate the central guiding question here; how can we appreciate art and the asthetic dimensions of life given the moral and cognitive dimensions to which they are bound? Paradoxically it seems, to dismiss the aesthetic dimension in such a case, 'is' to act schizophrenically. That is to say; to deny or paint our very senses, our innate appreciation for beauty; is to truly become internally turmoiled. It is in recognising our paradoxes that we reconcile our paradoxes. Our appreciation of art does not take away from our moral fibre or our reasoning. Let us feel one thing but to think and speak another, that is what it can be to be human afterall...
See article: 'China's Totalitarian Games' ; http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/24/chinas_totalitarian_games/
See article; 'The price of the Chinese Olympic Games'; http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-olympics26-2008aug26,0,4466878.story
See article; 'Beijing Olympics London 2012 handover blow to British pride.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/2614357/Beijing-Olympics-London-2012-handover-blow-to-British-pride.htmlCopyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Beware of of the Steyn's of this world....
I seldom read editorials, opinion pieces or commentary on people and events these days and my argument and indeed suggestion is for you to do the same! I realised some time ago that to passively do so is to allow others to implicitly and explicitly influence how I think. Go ahead and ask yourselves these questions; Do I want to be another consumer, a vessel, a mouthpiece for other peoples ideas? Do I want to choose what I read to legitimise and reinforce what I think? Do I lazily want others to crystalise for me what I can already know and thus stunt my own capacity for thought? Do I wish to display information about everything but possess knowledge and wisdom of nothing; as I read the thoughts of others with little knowledge of the contexts from which they've arisen or the assumptions and values laden in their words? It seems that for many in the masses; current affairs and politics has become a competitive sport, a pastime for some and for others an expression of their character; it may be ingrained in their identity from early on or it may be a manifestation of their wants (to be more than they are etc.), their insecurities (the need for peer acceptance), and their pathologies ('intellectual narcissim' etc.) Granted that 'yes', as democratic citizens and as individuals who wish their reality to align with the masses; keeping in touch with the issues that affect your life is vital, for a healthy democracy and for an individuals capacity for action. Analysis and opinion are vital for many to gain 'perspectives' and diversity of viewpoints, so as to make decisions for themselves. What I am arguing here is to become acutely aware of those who go beyond giving you the 'facts', who go beyond giving a perspective, that is to say, be very beware of the Steyn's of this world. Be very aware of those who effectively offer-up how and what you should think, be aware of the messages, the preferences, the assumptions or even the agenda's underlying many societal commentators. To demonstrate what I am getting at, below I've provided a brief analysis of just one of Mark Steyn's 'opinion' pieces:
Post 'Post-Racial Candidate'
Things get out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts on the
campaign trail.
By Mark Steyn
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Post 'Post-Racial Candidate'
Things get out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts on the
campaign trail.
By Mark Steyn
'I'm sure," said Barack Obama in that
sonorous baritone that makes his drive-thru order for a Big Mac,
fries, and strawberry shake sound profound, "many of you have
heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you
strongly disagreed."
Well, yes. But not many of us
have heard remarks from our pastors, priests, or rabbis that are
stark, staring, out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts. (interestingly
all religion is a leap of faith which atheists as well as
alternative religions would cast as nuts!) Unlike Bill
Clinton, whose legions of "spiritual advisers" at the
height of his Monica troubles outnumbered the U.S. diplomatic corps,
Senator Obama has had just one spiritual adviser his entire adult
life: the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, two-decade pastor to the
president presumptive. (Here he is over
exaggerating Clinton's use of 'spiritual advisor's' and
under-estimating Obamas for dramatic effect.) The
Reverend Wright believes that AIDs was created by the government of
the United States — and not as a cure for the common cold that
went tragically awry and had to be covered up by Karl Rove, but for
the explicit purpose of killing millions of its own citizens. The
government has never come clean about this, but the Reverend Wright
knows the truth. "The government lied," he told his flock,
"about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against
people of color. The government lied."
Does he really
believe this? If
so, he's crazy, and no sane person would sit through his gibberish,
certainly not for 20 years. (Here Mark
(in few words) appears to use a rhetorical question (where the
answer is now common knowledge) for the purpose of brushing off the
Reverend as overall
'Crazy' over one
of his beliefs as well as
casting off the thousands of his followers as insane and inferring
that Obama sat through 20 years of what Mark has brushed off as a
crazy person . The reality is that Obama claims never to have been
aware of the HIV conspiracy and upon hearing it has described it as
"off the wall". None the less, many people have 'crazy
ideas' but to brush a person off based on one could be considered
morally, socially and politically dangerous. Obama doesn't have to
agree with every persons ideas in order to be in their company or
listen to what they have to say. Does buying into one conspiracy
leave a man out of touch with reality in all other respects? (The
same could be said for buying into a particular religion)
Furthermore, should sane people avoid contact with 'insane' people?
Could it not be argued that by listening to diversity of opinion and
such 'insane ideas, one can cement or perhaps crystallise one's own
sane opinions and crucially maintain ones open-mindedness. Should
Mark not instead be trying to assess fairly the Reverend Wright
(avoiding casting outright labels
of 'crazy person' etc.) and perhaps
then begging the question of whether Obama has merit in retaining
his pastor of 20 years given that he holds a conspiracy theory which
Obama describes as downright 'off the wall'. The debate could then
move to asking whether Obama has legitimate reasoning in retaining
the pastor and if not 'Why?')
Or is
he just saying it? In which case, he's profoundly wicked.
(Again, the question is used as a
prop and a sensationalist one at that)
If you understand that AIDs is spread by sexual promiscuity
and drug use, you'll know that it's within your power to protect
yourself from the disease. If you're told
that it's just whitey's latest cunning plot to stick it to you,
well, hey, it's out of your hands, nothing to do with you or your
behavior. (Off the cauf remarks
like this even for commentary seem extremely unwise. Again he's
opened up a whole line of detailed argumentation without addressing
any of it in any meaningful way)
Before the
speech, Slate's Mickey Kaus advised Senator Obama (???)
to give us a Sister Souljah moment: "There are plenty of
potential Souljahs still around: Race preferences. Out-of-wedlock
births," he wrote. "But most of all the victim mentality
that tells African Americans (in the fashion of Rev. Wright's most
infamous sermons) that the important forces shaping their lives are
the evil actions of others, of other races."
(no reference given to specific
article.) Indeed. It makes no difference to white folks
when a black pastor inflicts kook genocide theories on his
congregation: The victims (the use
of the word victim seems ill suited. Does the 'mistake' of believing
something considered by most as "ludicrous" make you a
victim? Is the Reverend committing some kind of crime? In holding
and preaching his ideas?) are those in his audience who
make the mistake of believing him. The Reverend Wright has a hugely
popular church with over 8,000 members, and Senator Obama assures us
that his pastor does good work by "reaching out to those
suffering from HIV/AIDs." But maybe he wouldn't
have to quite so much (grammatical
error) "reaching out" to do and maybe there
wouldn't be quite so many black Americans "suffering from
HIV/AIDs" if the likes of Wright weren't peddling lunatic
conspiracy theories to his own community. (suggesting
that the Reverend could be inadvertently contributing to a higher
percentage of AID's sufferers in his community without referring to
any kind of research or evidence that shows a direct link in this
case or any other, seems extremely unwise. It could be argued from
his line of thinking that those with less critical minds become
victims to his style of writing where numerous explicit and implicit
opinions and assumptions are conveyed throughout his
articles.)
Nonetheless, last week, Barack
Obama told America: "I can no more disown him than I can disown
the black community."
What is the plain meaning of
that sentence? (It is unwise to try and
separate a sentence from the specific context and passages from
which it is given. Senator Obama was trying to convey his value
preference for a more holistic way of viewing people (that been
accepting and encompassing), perceived flaws and all. Thus, should
Mark be asking such a question? He goes on to use the question to
propel the second question:) That
the paranoid racist ravings of Jeremiah Wright are now part of the
established cultural discourse in African-American life and thus
must command our respect? (verges on a
rhetorical question) Let us take the senator at
his word (The sentence carries the
connotation that there may be times when he shouldn't be taken at
his word) when he says he chanced (???)
not to be present on AIDs Conspiracy Sunday, or God Damn America
Sunday, or U.S. of KKKA Sunday, or the Post-9/11
America-Had-It-Coming Memorial Service. A conventional pol would
have said he was shocked, shocked to discover Afrocentric black
liberation theology going on at his church. (It's
also a case that Senator Obama would not have had the choice of
distancing himself from it) But Obama did something far
more audacious (the use of the word
which is defined from daring to reckless is presumptuous and is a
detailed line of inquiry in itself): Instead of
distancing himself from his pastor, he attempted to close the gap
between Wright and the rest of the country, arguing, in effect, that
the guy is not just his crazy uncle
(has the effect of drawing close
connection between Obama and Wright) but America's,
too.
To do this, he promoted a false equivalence. (He
doesn't appear to have proven a false equivalence) "I
can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother," he
continued. "A woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed
again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves
anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of
black men who passed by her on the street." Well, according to
the way he tells it in his book, it was one specific black man on
her bus, and he wasn't merely "passing by." When the
British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan dumped some of his closest
cabinet colleagues to extricate himself from a political crisis, the
Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe responded: "Greater love hath no
man than to lay down his friends for his life." In
Philadelphia, Senator Obama topped that: Greater love hath no man
than to lay down his gran'ma for his life. (good
point and well delivered) In the days that followed,
Obama's interviewers seemed grateful for the introduction of a less
complicated villain: Unlike the Reverend Wright, she doesn't want
God to damn America for being no better than al-Qaeda, but on the
other hand she did once express her apprehension about a black man
on the bus. It's surely only a matter of days before Keith Olbermann
on MSNBC names her his "Worst Person In The World." Asked
about the sin of racism beating within Gran'ma's breast, Obama said
on TV (what exactly was asked? A
quotation would be helpful here!!) that "she's a
typical white person."
Which doesn't sound like the sort
of thing the supposed "post-racial" candidate ought to be
saying, (good point) but
let that pass. How "typically white" is Obama's
grandmother? She is the woman who raised him — that's to say,
she brought up a black grandchild and loved him unconditionally.
Burning deep down inside, she may nurse a secret desire to be Simon
Legree or Bull Connor, but it doesn't seem very likely. She does
then, in her own flawed way, represent a post-racial America.
(more accurately, she may represent
the transition period to a post-racial America) But what
of her equivalent (as Obama's speech had it)? Is Jeremiah Wright a
"typical black person"? One would hope not. A century
and a half after the Civil War, two generations after the Civil
Rights Act, the Reverend Wright promotes victimization
theses more insane than anything promulgated at the height of
slavery (again, this
opens up a whole line of detailed enquiry to ascertain a conclusion)
or the Jim Crow era. You can understand why Obama is so anxious
to meet with President Ahmadinejad, a man who denies the last
Holocaust even as he plans the next one. Such a summit would be easy
listening after the more robust sermons of Jeremiah Wright.
But
America is not Ahmadinejad's Iran. Free societies live in truth
(infers that there is absolute and not
relative truth and assumes there is such thing as a 'free society'),
not in the fever swamps of Jeremiah Wright. The pastor is a
fraud, a crock, a mountebank — for, if this truly
were a country whose government invented a virus to kill black
people, why would they leave him walking around to expose the truth?
(Again he pitches his propaganda that
Jeremiah Wright's preaching increases the contraction of HIV in his
community. He does this in a rather cruel way and at this stage in
the article has effectively gone beyond the bounds of public
character defamation). It is Barack Obama's choice to
entrust his daughters to the spiritual care of such a man for their
entire lives, but in Philadelphia the
senator attempted to
universalize his peculiar (personal
judment that the judgement is peculiar)
judgment — to
claim that, given America's history, it would be unreasonable to
expect black men of Jeremiah Wright's generation not to peddle
hateful and damaging lunacies. Isn't that — what's the word? —
racist? So much for the post-racial candidate. (It
could be counter-propositioned that Obama was placing men like
Jeremiah Wright in historical context by highlighting how the
cultural and political climate in which they grew up had a pervasive
influence on the ideas which such men hold (however flawed they
appear to us today). His pitch is that it would be divisive to
disown such men at a time when we need unity. This appears a
pragmatic judgement but it could also be an idealist assertion about
human values etc., etc.
© 2008 Mark Steyn
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
