The Mind, the Machine, and the Living Earth

I find it interesting that the western mode of living seeks to achieve simplicity through complexities. Yes technology and science has brought so much advancement and growth, but at what cost? That is the question most of us do not ask ourselves. Most communities in the developing world are hoping to attain the technological heights that most western countries now enjoy, but have not taken into consideration most of what has been lost. The western lifestyle is the most subjugate and invasive form of development, unlike the Native approach to technology and science. Both methods achieve the same goals but the Native method is more holistic, which brings into play the role of the person in the creation and production process thereby engendering a sense of appreciation and respect both for the environment and the object, mitigating waste.

The Canadian lifestyle is a way of living that has completely deviated from the lifestyle of the original settlers of the land. With the increase in science and technology in the western world, it has encouraged, nay, fostered a mindset and lifestyle of selfishness and convenience, laziness and comfort. People no longer seek new knowledge and discoveries for the greater good of humanity, but for their own selfish gains either monetary or status wise. Now we live in a world where the Mind is weak, the Machine is preeminent and the Living Earth is being eroded of respect, sanctity and identity. We have generations and subsequent ones growing up with the entitled attitude, but do not respect the rights of any other thing to exist.

We as a modern generation should look at the state we are in "...these ... have become such an integral part of the fabric of existence in the real world of technology that the resulting distortions of human and social relations are now considered normal and beyond questioning.." Ursula M. Franklin, The Real World of Technology (page 46) and try for a change. Someone once wrote '...technology had also brought a sense of alienation among our loved ones.' Not only that, but also stealing our basic human interactions and instincts. This is leading to a deterioration of our mind, body and spirit by the degradation of the creative and productive process, exercising of our bodies to achieve our needs and the respect for others and our environment.

I read somewhere that '...as a nation (and globally) we are trying to use technology to better our connection with nature and try to reverse some of the damage we have caused.' We are at a time where we should not be using fire to fight fire, because as we experiment for ways to reverse damages, more harm is being done to the environment, hence as Aesop wrote 'Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow' I am not knocking all the advancement we have achieved through science and technology, just that as the natives have done, we can practice them in harmony with nature and the Living Earth. This would create a beautiful productive synergy between the Mind, the Machine and the Living earth. We must remember like Albert Szent-Györgyi said ' We are all but recent leaves on the same old tree of life and if this life has adapted itself to new functions and conditions, it uses the same old basic principles over and over again. There is no real difference between the grass and the man who mows it.' Even the machine experiences 'wear' and 'tear' and we all come from the same source, Nature.

The western lifestyle and technology does not promote the type of interconnectedness that the Native teach. Natives teach a connection that is heavily reliant on a foundation of oral tradition that fosters close knit human interactions and relationship, which is the opposite effect of the western interconnectivity.Our over dependence on the technological gizmos in our lives are not in any way an extension of ourselves. That is unless we are seeking to equate a kissing emoticon to a real kiss or a mother’s touch to text. If you were raised every night being read bedtime stories by one of Hallmark’s recordable storybooks, with out any parental contact, is it the same? So I say, that by our nigh total dependence on the technology that we develop, we are seriously undercutting and undermining the greatest machine of all, the Human Mind. This is one of the greatest components of the Living earth that we are putting to waste, and subjugating under the rule of less intelligent non-sentient things, thereby diminishing its great capacity and intelligence.

Internet Privacy: Behind closed doors

Internet Privacy is a very huge issue today, because the generation today is a generation that live online and on-camera. The same way people in times past expect the mails and private correspondence to be private, so do people today expect what they do, even if it is online as long as it is tagged as private, it should remain so. The legal system has come a long way since the 1800’s, with every case a new precedence is set and it is adapting with the jetting changes of our time. Now MRI scan are admissible in court as evidence in to a defendant’s thought pattern, so privacy rights and human rights have over the years been eroded by the legal system.

Since the introduction of the Internet, the way we did many things before became obsolete. Even some words took a whole new meaning or where expanded in extent. Internet privacy has been an issue that has never been set in stone from the get go. It has been a very dynamic issue that is a continuum. Of all the human rights in the international catalog, privacy is perhaps the most difficult to define. Privacy is the state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2009). Privacy is a fundamental human right. It underpins human dignity and other values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights of the modern age (Laurant, 2003). It is something everyone as a human being holds dear and cherishes, if it is allowed to be eroded then where is the sense of self and individuality?

This issue not only deals with privacy but also free speech, because if we are to worry about every thing we write and put out there, then where is our free speech? Facebook and many other sites like it, are the way the world lives today. With all the progress made with technology, trying to inhibit the outcome of it is simply ludicrous. With the advent of cyber social communities, the world has become a global village. Now people can keep in-touch with friends they otherwise would have lost contact with, and precious relationships saved. People even forge connections business connections and valuable networks. So putting personal information and a profile so that potential contacts and network circles can get to know you and add a personal touch to an otherwise impersonal form of communication should not be something to be punished for. As mentioned in the case the lawyer looking to obtain these personal writing is actually doing something that is unethical. If a person where going through a trauma and decides to open up to a few close people to facilitate healing, does that mean that everything they say is open to the public? Like Phillip Malone, director of the cyber law clinic at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, says the generation that has grown up online have different privacy expectations, and believe they can put material on the Internet with the expectation that only a limited group will see it (Stein, 2008). The world we live in today is a world where people have gotten used to living in front of cameras and the Internet. So because of these changes the notion of privacy and individuality should be done away with?

Networking online is not only limited to social sites, but also even ones where people go to escape the pressures of life and unwind. People relax in so many ways, some people play golf with golf buddies or poker with poker buddies, some people go surfing with other surfers, but most of the time they do these things with people the barely know but are united just by their love of a common sport or game. Now with technology in the mix new types or recreational activities have sprung up. People now go online to play games that help them escape, sometimes even assume a second identity. Second life is a virtual world developed by Linden Lab that launched on June 23, 2003, and is accessible on the Internet. A free client program called the King Bee[1] enables its users, called Residents, to interact with each other through avatars. Residents can explore, meet other residents, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, and create and trade virtual property and services with one another, or travel throughout the world (which residents refer to as "the grid"). Second Life is for people aged 18 and over (Wikipedia.org, 2009). It is an online game that has a community all of it own, here people take up pseudonyms and play characters that they create. So people escape into a world where they want to be able to say things anonymously and get some burdens off. If privacy does not apply here where else can people go to get the privacy they need?

Now begs the question, do we have a right to privacy when we share personal information with friends or family in real space? And does the same apply when we share this under a pseudonym in second life. With the way the world has changed the legal system has to pick up and not be left behind. Since the way most of our communication is made has changed new things have to be factored in when making a case. Yes the legal system is doing a good job to protect citizens better, but do they do it at the expense of the same people? When changes occur people should consider, what is replacing what? If a private conversation between two people could be considered evidence before then a phone call can used as evidence, if a private letter is admissible in court as evidence then emails and be used, if a public announcement is evidence then a blog can be an evidence.

In conclusion, when we are trying to adapt to changes it should not be used as an excuse to get rid of basic fundamental human rights.


REFERENCES
Houghton Mifflin Company. (n.d.). Privacy - definition. Retrieved April 6, 2010, from The free dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/privacy

Laurant, C. (2003). Privacy and Human Rights 2003: Overview. Retrieved April 6, 2010, from Privacy International: http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003/overview.htm

Stein, M. (2008, February 05). Daily Brief. Retrieved April 06, 2010, from Portfolio.com: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/daily-brief/2008/02/05/facebook-page-or-exhibit-a-in-court

Wikipedia.org. (2009, March). Second Life - Wikipedia. Retrieved April 06, 2010, from Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life

Internet Safety: Who Scammed You?

When I hear people lamenting about being scammed, the first thing I ask is 'who scammed you?' Most people by now are aware of the most common Internet scams by crooks. Some send you mails claiming you have won a lottery with your email address, or telling you they can help you wash black papers into money, and still some others come through the guise of being millionaires who want to give you money to hold for them and spend as you see fit.

All of these scenarios are so transparent that anyone would see it for what it is: A scam. If the situation was a call for investment into a get-rich-quick business or a non existent home business that is understandable. Why? Because they are not far-fetched ideas and there are some very genuine ones. But a mail asking you to cash a cheque you did not work for, am sorry to say but people who fall for that are of the same mind as their scammer; to take money they did not earn or deserve and that is being greedy. To consent to spending money you did not earn or to consent to put it into your account, to take money for a lottery you did not enter and you paid no money for a ticket that to me is just plain greed.
I believe that nothing short of greed will make someone want to reap where they did not sow. Even lottery winners buy their tickets, people who enter a draw at least put their information down for the company to do marketing with. So essentially nothing is free everyone at least trades something before being given anything.

In harsh economic times as these and from a country were the minimum wage is less than $2 a day. Please with these facts would it not make you ask, where the money came from? Who are they? Are they criminals to have such money in such an economy? Another factor is that people are not educated. I mean how on earth can someone with whatever chemical wash black construction papers into money, please this is mind boggling. I also get emails like that but I know I never entered any lottery, yahoo or MSN is not running any, if they are as rich as they claim they could easily open a foreign bank account move their own funds.

So when I hear people (I mean you see learned and intellectuals) claim to have been scammed I ask 'who scammed you?' Is it yourself or some uneducated man who had a really silly idea and wants to see how many silly people are out there who would really fall for it? Really ask who is at fault here?

Ethical Issues: Neutrality on the Internet

As the times go by, each year new inventions and new innovative technology is brought into our world. From new devices, new applications to new information and services. With all these becoming available we are becoming increasingly dependent on the internet. With globalization tearing down barriers and bring the world to one global village, many business in order to conform to the shift are now running as e-business, even this has opened up a whole lot of possibilities now people can be business owners from their own homes. So net neutrality is something that is worth the talk it is generating to day. Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic. The issues that net neutrality is seeking to address is the artificial scarcity that ISPs are trying to create, by using their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, protocols), particularly those of competitors.

Net neutrality advocates for all information flowing on the internet to be treated fairly. Today with the way the internet has evolved, more people are streaming data-rich video and playing online games. This has also introduced the problem of congestion of the internet. So should ISPs take advantage of that and provide multi-tiered access to heavy users? With all the hype about net neutrality and the argument of both sides we usually often time skew from the fundamental issue. The Open Internet Coalition argues that “Too often, the discussion of why we need to protect the open Internet degenerates into a stale debate about regulation versus the free market. In fact, it’s impossible for innovation to continue apace without some basic rules of the road to protect that innovation. The open Internet was the principle leading the development of the Internet as the first open global communications network. And it helped drive the development of a host of Internet applications like Facebook, YouTube, and Skype. There would have been no motivation for the developers of these applications to have expended time, effort, and in some cases, their own financial security, in pursuit of their vision if they weren’t guaranteed their inventions would have been able to work over any Internet connection." 

On this topic I personally believe, that with the way the internet is now so much integrated into our everyday lives, its importance alone has made it some think akin to water. If Water is not regulated in the terms of how much we drink and who can drink better water, I think that the internet should be treated the same way. Yes we pay for the delivery of the service but not for tiers of service.

As for search neutrality, which is what some people are pushing for to be included in the new rules of net neutrality, the issue being addressed is the right to have all available information on a search term made available to you in order of relevance and not in order of who can afford it. Search Neutrality can be defined as the principle that search engines should be open and transparent about their editorial policies, or, better still, should have no editorial policies other than that their results are comprehensive, impartial, and based solely on relevance. Search engines are among the most innovative services in the global economy. They provide extraordinary efficiencies for advertisers and consumers by targeting messages to viewers who are most likely to want to receive them. For things to be easier and faster some pertinent information is now made available on the internet.

So many types of information are available on the web these days, and some of them can have life changing effects in the right hands. Internet sites have much riding on search engine results: as Nissenbaum & Introna memorably put it, “to exist [online] is to be indexed by a search engine.” While users can locate relevant information on the Net in other ways, search engines now constitute the dominant platform through which content producers and audiences can reach each other. Just as dominant search engines fear an unfairly tiered online world, they should be required to provide access to their archives and indices in a non-discriminatory manner. If dominant search engines want telecommunications and cable carriers to disclose their traffic management tactics, they should submit to regulation that bans stealth marketing and reliably verifies the absence of the practice. For fair competition to be available online it demands common commercial ethics to be applied for both dominant search engines and dominant ISPs.

I personally believe, that with the amount of pertinent information and businesses on the internet which we use in our everyday lives, information should not be hoarded or displaced, to promote increase in revenue.
Looking at the ethics associated with these issues, there are to point of views that can be looked into. The deontologist approach is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. Deontologists look at rules and duties. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. For a deontologist ‘the end does not justify the means’, it is the original intent or motive that is the underlying factor under ethical scrutiny. Under this approach net neutrality and search neutrality is ethically right. The main motive behind it is to make things equal and accessible to all. The utilitarian position is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequential-ism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Under this view neutrality on the internet is not ethically wrong, as long as the snowball effect of it brings about a positive change.
With all these facts laid out on the table, I personally think that the internet should be regulated by a body or committee. If it is regulated thus, internet usage and things available on the web will be available to everyone fairly.

Works cited

(n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2010, from The Free Online Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Deontologist

Pasquale, F. (2008, July 15). Internet Nondiscrimination Principles for Competition Policy Online. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Judiciary House: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Pasquale080715.pdf

Schonfeld, E. (2008, August 31). The Net Neutrality Debate All In One Page. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/31/the-net-neutrality-debate-all-on-one-page/

Search Neutrality. (2009, October 11). Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Search Neutality.org: http://www.searchneutrality.org/

Wikipedia. (2008, August 18). Network neutrality in Canada. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_Canada

The Future: The Next Big Thing!

"Throughout the history of computation and the Internet, there have been watershed moments where technological advancements have defined a generation of both devices and applications.Today, given the vast diffusion of technologies and the diverse uses that can be derived from a single product, it may seem difficult to identify technologies that are truly redefining the way we live, learn, work and play."
- Prof. Kristina Verner 2010.

As stated above 'Today, given the vast diffusion of technologies and the diverse uses that can be derived from a single product, it may seem difficult to identify technologies that are truly redefining the way we live, learn, work and play.' Still there are some underlying technologies that actually herald the changes that we see in the way we live, learn, work and play.

An example is the internet; it gave rise to all devices and applications that promoted community and instant information. Another example is the touch screen technology that has led to a whole new era of technology use. Now we have the iPad, iPods, touch screen phone and computers. Last example is search engines, these have revolutionized the way we retrieve information from the internet, not only that it has created a whole host of other applications and jobs.

Now we are moving to a whole new age where the contemporary computer systems will become obsolete. I am talking about Cloud computing, Cloud computing is a general term for anything that involves delivering hosted services over the Internet. These services are broadly divided into three categories: Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). With this the use of CPUs, processors and hard drives will cease to be relevant. Also with the introduction of the TED sixth sense the needs for computer monitors even touch screen ones and trackball or pad will become a thing of the past. These new technological processes if perfected and introduced into the society it will effectively change the way we live, learn, work and play. Then blind dating will not be so blind, education will be boosted a long way, average productivity per person would increase, carbon printing would reduce, and  medical breakthrough, collaboration and intervention would be almost instantaneous.

All these above are some the good things that we will derive from these things, but there are also some down sides to them. I am talking about privacy. With both new in-the-works technology, privacy is a very big issue, not only that cyber crimes could be on the rise and the ethical issue of "when is the technology too much and how much of our lives should we hand over to machines". These issues that I have mentioned, do you think they matter at all or are there more issues than I mentioned?

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltouch.htm
http://www.computerhistory.org/internet_history/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_search_engine
http://searchcloudcomputing.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid201_gci1287881,00.html
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html