TEXTS:
Essays:
“Is Technology Good or Evil?”
-Daniel Burrus
Some say technology is a blessing; others say it’s a curse. Which is right? They both are. Think about it:
Technology can give you cancer, and technology can cure your cancer. So it’s not about whether
technology is good or bad; it’s about what we decide to do with technology that matters.
Today, thanks to exponential growth in processing power, storage, and bandwidth, we have the ability to
do things that were literally impossible just a few years ago. For example, for several years now the
military has been increasingly using drones, which are robotic planes controlled from a remote distance,
for surveillance flights over Iraq, Iran, and other areas of the Middle East. And they have kept many
humans from being put at risk. In addition, they have also been used for targeted bombing missions in
areas that would have put human flight crews at high risk. Describing drones as good or bad becomes
harder to answer when you see the many shades of grey underlying the subject.
Taking this a little further, the companies that make drones have recently expanded their markets and
now our boarder patrol, as well as an increasing number of police departments, has found drones to be a
cost effective way to accomplish surveillance tasks.
The next step has been to make drones much smaller, and the U.S. military has been pouring huge sums
of money into miniaturized surveillance drones.
Recently, they’re developing micro aircrafts that can swarm like bugs. Think of them as bug-sized flying
spies. For example, Johns Hopkins University, in conjunction with the U.S. Air Force Office of Science
Research at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Arlington, Virginia, is jointly developing what they’re
calling a Micro Aerial Vehicle (MAV) that can undertake various tasks. They are robotic insects that can
effortlessly infiltrate urban areas, even where there are dense buildings, a lot of people, and unpredictable
winds.
When people control the MAVs, they wear a special helmet and are in what’s like a butterfly cockpit. They
can virtually see exactly what the drone-insect is seeing. The MAVs are equipped with cameras and builtin microphones, meaning they have the capability of hearing what is being said and seeing what they
want to see.
But they’ve gone even beyond that with the technology in that they’re capable of landing the MAVs
precisely on the human skin. Then, using a super-micron-sized needle, it can take a DNA sample and fly
off at top speed. The person who has been bitten by this drone insect only feels the same pain as a
mosquito bite, but they don’t have the burning, itching, or swelling.
Not only that, but this little injection can place a micro-radio frequency identification (RFID) tracking device
under the skin. And, theoretically, it could be used to inject toxins into the enemy during wars.
Keep in mind that we’re not the only country developing these. France, the Netherlands, Israel, and many
other countries either have them or in the process of developing them. And once the military develops
and uses something, it usually spreads to other markets such as police departments. It is also easy to
predict that at some point they will be used by private detectives, and eventually by people who shouldn’t
be using them at all (criminals, terrorists, drug cartels, etc.).
Should we be upset with the military for developing this technology? No. Remember, our military leaders
understand that if it can be done, it will be done, and if we don’t do it someone else will. However, we as
the human race have to ask ourselves, “What kind of planet do we want to live on? Can we use
technology to become more connected, or will we use it to make ourselves more disconnected?”
If we want a more human world, rather than a less human world; if we want to be a more enlightened
planet of human beings, rather than less enlightened; and if we want to use technology to do more good
than bad, then we have to take action to make it that way.
For example, a middle-aged woman who spent most of her life unable to hear now has a micro-implant
that is allowing her to hear for the first time in decades. Likewise, a child being treated for cancer who
could no longer attend school received a computer with a built in video camera and a high-speed
connection linking her to a high-definition video conferencing system courtesy of a local telecom company
so that she can now attend class with her classmates even though she is too weak to go to school. These
are just two examples of using technology to do something wonderful and human—to make the world
even better. There are literally countless stories of how technology has helped make the world more
human, but it took a human with a vision to do good to make it happen.
This article isn’t about protesting the military’s use of drones. That’s not what I’m asking anyone to do.
What I’m asking people to do is to play an active role in using technology to shape a positive future for
yourself and others. You may not be able to control how large institutions such as the military use it, but
you can control how you and your company use it.
So let’s take the time to think through what we can do, because we can do a lot. But there’s a could-do,
should-do, and must-do filter. There are a lot of things we could do, but should we? And what are the
things that we must do? We need to make sure our must-do’s are creating a better, more human, and
more enlightened world. Let’s get involved and do whatever we can on an individual level to create a
better tomorrow.
The Adverse Effects Of Technology
By Tim Bryce
(NOTE) The following is an excerpt of my upcoming book entitled, "MORPHING INTO THE
REAL WORLD - THE HANDBOOK FOR ENTERING THE WORK FORCE."
Today, our society is driven by technology and some would accuse me of being an antitechnologist. Having been actively involved with the Information Technology industry over
the last 30 years, I can assure you this is simply not true. I have witnessed many different
technological enhancements over the years, but what intriques me most is how it affects us
socially. I firmly believe technology is purchased more as a fashion statement as opposed to
any practical application. Consequently, we tend to under utilize or abuse the technology
thereby costing companies millions of dollars. Instead of "Ready, Aim, Fire," people tend to,
"Fire, Aim, Ready." In other words, people tend to implement the latest technology before
they understand precisely what it is or what business need it serves. To me, this is putting
the cart before the horse.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the 20th century and the 21st is how technology
has changed the pace of our lives. We now expect to communicate with anyone on the
planet in seconds, not days. We expect information at our fingertips. We expect to be up
and walking shortly after a hip or knee replacement. Basically, we take a lot for granted.
But this frenzied pace has also altered how we conduct business and live our lives. To
illustrate, we want to solve problems immediately, and have no patience for long term
solutions. Consequently, we tend to attack symptoms as opposed to addressing true
problems, and apply Band-Aids to pacify the moment as opposed to tourniquets which are
actually needed. We are easily satisfied with solving small problems as opposed to
conquering major challenges. Personally, we tend to live for today, as opposed to planning
for tomorrow. This mindset concerns me greatly.
What if someone pulled the plug on our technology? Would engineers still know how to draft
products? Would we still know how to ship a product or process an order? Would our
financial transactions come to a halt? Would business come to a standstill? The answer,
unfortunately, is Yes. This highlights the overt dependency we have developed on our
technology and is cause for alarm. We are being driven by technology as opposed to the
other way around. By unplugging our technology, we are unplugging the human-being.
Think I'm wrong? Watch what happens the next time the power goes out at your office or
home.
Because of the domination of technology, people have allowed their socialization skills to
slip. Small things, such as common courtesy, appearance, and our ability to network with
others, have all deteriorated in the workplace. We may be effective in communicating
electronically, but we are becoming complete failures in communicating socially. Throughout
the book I mention how people act on perceptions, right or wrong. These perceptions are
based in large part on our ability to communicate, such as through the messages we
transmit verbally or written, our appearance, our body language, and how we treat others.
If we cannot communicate effectively in this capacity, no amount of technology will be able
to alter the perceptions of our coworkers, our managers, our customers, our vendors, or our
friends and family.
To this end, I have introduced a new Bryce's Law:
"As the use of technology increases, social skills decreases."
From A Man Without a Country
By Kurt Vonnegut
“I have been called a Luddite.
I welcome it.
Do you know what a Luddite is? A person who hates newfangled contraptions. Ned Ludd was a
textile worker in England at around the start of the nineteenth century who busted up a lot of new
contraptions – mechanical looms that were going to put him our of work, that were going to
make it impossible for him with his particular skills to feed, clothe, and shelter his family. In
1813 the British government executed by hanging seventeen men for “machine breaking” as it
was called, a capital crime.
Today we have contraptions like nuclear submarines armed with Poseidon missiles that have Hbombs in their warheads. And we have contraptions like computers that cheat you out of
becoming. Bill Gates says, “Wait till you can see what your computer can become.” But it’s you
who should be doing the becoming, not the damn fool computer. What you can become is the
miracle you were born to be through the work that you do……..
Electronic communities build nothing. You wind up with nothing. We are dancing animals. How
beautiful it is to get up and go out and do something. We are here on Earth to fart around. Don’t
let anybody tell you any different.”
August 5, 2013 New York Times
A Lab-Grown Burger Gets a Taste
Test
By HENRY FOUNTAIN
A hamburger made from cow muscle grown in a laboratory was fried, served and eaten in London on Monday in an
odd demonstration of one view of the future of food.
According to the three people who ate it, the burger was dry and a bit lacking in flavor. One taster, Josh Schonwald, a
Chicago-based author of a book on the future of food, said “the bite feels like a conventional hamburger” but that the
meat tasted “like an animal-protein cake.”
But taste and texture were largely beside the point: The event, arranged by a public relations firm and broadcast live
on the Web, was meant to make a case that so-called in vitro, or cultured, meat deserves additional financing and
research. Proponents of the idea, including Dr. Mark Post, the Dutch researcher who created the hamburger at the
University of Maastricht, say that lab-made meat could provide high-quality protein for the world’s growing
population while avoiding most of the environmental and animal-welfare issues related to conventional livestock
production.
Neil Stephens, a social scientist at Cardiff University in Wales who has studied the development of cultured meat and
who attended the tasting, said the event generated a lot of interest. “The exciting thing will be to see the response,” he
said.
Dr. Post, one of a handful of scientists working in the field, said there was still much research to be done and that it
would probably take 10 years or more before cultured meat was commercially viable. Reducing costs is one major
issue — he estimated that if production could be scaled up, cultured beef made as this one burger was made would
cost more than $30 a pound.
The two-year project to make the one burger, plus extra tissue for testing, cost $325,000. On Monday it was revealed
that Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google, paid for the project. Dr. Post said Mr. Brin got involved because “he
basically shares the same concerns about the sustainability of meat production and animal welfare.”
The meat was produced using stem cells — basic cells that can turn into tissue-specific cells — from cow shoulder
muscle from a slaughterhouse. The cells were multiplied in a nutrient solution and put into small petri dishes, where
they became muscle cells and formed tiny strips of muscle fiber. About 20,000 strips were used to make the fiveounce burger, which contained breadcrumbs, salt, and some natural colorings as well.
The meat, which contained no fat, was fried in a pan with copious amounts of butter by an English chef and presented
on a plate with a bun, lettuce and tomato slices to Dr. Post, Mr. Schonwald and Hanni Rützler, an Austrian food
scientist. Pleas from the journalists and others in the audience for a bite were dismissed by Dr. Post, who said he did
not have enough to go around.
He said he was “very happy” with the burger after tasting it, although he acknowledged that the lack of fat was a
problem. “We’re working on that,” he said.
“I think it’s a very good start,” he added. “It was to mostly prove that we could do this.”
Recent studies have shown that producing cultured meat in factories could greatly reduce water, land and energy use,
and emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases, compared with conventional meat production using livestock.
Depending on how the stem cells were obtained, no animals might need to be killed to make the meat.
Asked if cultured meat might be attractive to vegetarians, Dr. Post said: “Vegetarians should remain vegetarian. That’s
even better for the environment.”
His goal, he said, was to “let beef eaters eat beef in an environmentally friendly and ethical way.”
The tasting event was originally expected to take place last fall but was delayed, Dr. Post has said, because of the need
to make more tissue for testing.
Dr. Stephens said that despite the delay, “it’s still quite a feat that they’ve achieved.”
“To produce that quantity of tissue is beyond what anyone else in the field has done.”
Comics:
Poetry:
Tanka 6
Unknown
heads down,
a boy and girl both walking
almost collide unaware they're
texting each other
The Horrid Voice of Science
BY VACHEL LINDSAY
"There's machinery in the butterfly;
There's a mainspring to the bee;
There's hydraulics to a daisy,
And contraptions to a tree.
"If we could see the birdie
That makes the chirping sound
With x-ray, scientific eyes,
We could see the wheels go round."
And I hope all men
Who think like this
Will soon lie
Underground.
Ode to Browsing the Web
BY MARCUS WICKER
Two spiky-haired Russian cats hit kick flips
on a vert ramp. The camera pans to another
pocket of the room where six kids rocking holey
T-shirts etch aerosol lines on warehouse walls
in words I cannot comprehend. All of this
happening in a time no older than your last
heartbeat. I’ve been told the internet is
an unholy place — an endless intangible
stumbling ground of false deities
dogma and loneliness, sad as a pile of s**t
in a world without flies. My loneliness exists
in every afterthought. Yesterday, I watched
a neighbor braid intricate waves of cornrows
into her son’s tiny head and could have lived
in her focus-wrinkled brow for a living. Today
I think I practice the religion of blinking too much.
Today, I know no neighbor’s name and won’t
know if I like it or not. O holy streaming screen
of counterculture punks, linger my lit mind
on landing strips — through fog, rain, hail — without care for time or density. O world
wide web, o viral video, o god of excrement
thought. Befriend me. Be f*****g infectious.
Move my eyes from one sight to the next.
Films:
It’s time to start questioning bioengineering
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_question_bio_engineering
How Technology will Transform us
http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will_transform_us
Visions of the future:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSyrYa7PjuA
The Future of Medicine
http://www.ted.com/playlists/23/the_future_of_medicine
How Technology Allowed Me To Read
http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_mccallum_how_technology_allowed_me_to_read