Connected Isolation
By Kevin
I was watching Salman Khan's talk on TED before I stumbled upon Sherry Turkle's. It was an amazing contrast. And I'm not referring to the tone and attitudes towards technology of both speakers. I was thinking about the role that technology plays and the things it has done for us. As a matter of fact, technology is truly good at seizing a human need and trying to satisfy it; and it sometimes creates new needs that it goes on to satisfy subsequently. It seems, however, that as we try to tap on technology to free up time for more valuable interaction, the more we end up interacting through technology and forgoing real communication for what we believe to be exchanges.
"What technology makes easy is not always what nurtures the human spirit." - Sherry Turkle
I was incredibly moved by how perceptive Sherry was in observing the sort of impacts that our little devices have on us and how profound they are in their interaction with our human spirit. And I'm equally afraid; is there truly a trade-off the way Sherry makes it out to be? Can we not raise kids in these environment and yet have them still grow up to be able to interact and communicate in the humanly way we all really desire? Do we really have to be addicted to editing/beautifying/augmenting our communications with technology just because we use it regularly?
Maybe we should also ask ourselves what kind of values have arisen from this age of emphasis on the superficial value of things. Our enhanced abilities to present ourselves in debatably deceitful ways (make-up, stuff bought on credit, edited photographs, auto portrait enhancement functions on cameras, just to name a few) have made us feel less spurred by the need to nurture our intrinsic self. And Sherry is trying to point out that technology that makes us constantly trying to be 'connected' removes these opportunities for self-reflection that would cultivate this self. Instead, they reinforces it, they allow us to edit ourselves, put up 'presentable versions' of ourselves and the way we communicate. And we become afraid of showing our true self - like a girl who puts on make-up all the time and now refuses to see anyone without her make-up on.
For a moment towards the end of Sherry's talk I was reminded of the film, Surrogates. It was as if she was calling out for all humanity to stand out and live as themselves instead of trying to insulate their real selves from the real world. Indeed, the distance we've built to make ourselves comfortable with being able to meet and interact with more people has similarly isolated us and prevent us from becoming closer to one another. It is a scary prospect, but like Sherry, I think it need not be a trade-off. It may take more technology; but it will also take changes in our own thinking, values and worldview.
Internet Addict & Such
By Kevin
Right from the thin air...
When I told my little cousin who is 9 year old that I didn't have the Internet to play with when I was at her age, she gave such a shocked face. She simply couldn't imagine how we could entertain ourselves with just a couple of Lego pieces or toy tea sets. Yet here we are, all grown up without the Internet until perhaps a little later. And even then, we didn't have facebook. Having an email was like a pretty cool thing but simply non-essential.
Today, not having an email address seem like a miracle. But The Economist argues it's difficult to generalize the 'net generation' or to think of these kids as being much different from the previous generations.
Yet, there's something more miraculous than not having an email today. It is the fact that we are constantly being bombarded and surrounded with energy that goes unused - what we term 'ambience radiation'. Imagine if we could harness this little-but-constant stream of energy to power our low-power devices. It is now possible, and we could run our clocks, sensors, possibly our transponder devices as well. It'll be great energy savings and perhaps we could get our ordinary calculators to run on them as well.
Finally, while the straw hut didn't work against the Big Bad Wolf, it has proven steady during earthquakes. The tech quarterly from The Economist this time didn't disappoint.
2050 – more of the same?
By Wei Seng
If only we knew when to exit
Another of Time's '10 Ideas for the Next 10 Years', Michael Lind asserts that we are currently living in a "boring age" where there will not be much changes to come as we desire in the next decade, or even by 2050. We often think that the future will hold plenty of promise and many things will change, but chances are the future will be more of the same old and not as envisioned in science fiction. It is probably too naive to rely on science fiction as a projection of the image of the future, but life today is very far from what science fiction predicted would be today back then.
Sure, life has improved over the decades (very much as a result of improving technology) but nothing particularly game-changing has appeared thus far. It does not help that there tends to be a long incubating time for such game-changing developments, such that if anything potentially game-changing were to occur say, 40 years down the road, the technology would have to be unearthed and put into experiment / in place right now. Referring to Wikipedia, if we take the Wright brothers development of the aircraft as the time modern aviation began, it took 50 years from 1900 to 1950 before the advent of the jet age of ultra-modern aviation, and even then it took another 30-40 years for commercial flying to become really popularised and accessible to all. According to Wikipedia as well, the development of the predecessor of the Internet (by the American military) started in 1958 and it took 30 years before it was opened to commercial interests in 1988. And the usage of Internet could be said to have only exploded beginning in the late 90s.
In particular, transportation and energy technology has been stagnant with nothing much particularly breath-taking or any significant breakthroughs thus far, with worrying consequences for the planet's future given the unhealthy state of the planet today. Sure, there is the electric car and carbon sequestration for example but it remains to be seen whether anything game-changing has emerged. The difficulties of developing something game-changing is such that there needs to be a catalyst to spark explosive growth of demand and usage of the technology before it can really undertake a transformation or revolution. Inertia often plays out amplified in bigger groups of people, and inertia to change can often be encountered, perhaps less often in terms of technology but very often in other aspects of life such as in society.
Even in politics, Lind predicts that there might not be as much change as expected: the US might not decline as much as we have predicted it would for the past years and in the upcoming years as we see the rise of China. Lind's predictions for 2050 are decidely boring and very 2010, which means more of the same rather than more change... good if you like the status quo, but very dangerous if you think the planet is already in peril today.
Wrong Concoction
By Kevin
Same?
Historically, technological advancement combined with economics have helped to push civilization towards greater levels of achievements; yet too often, there are times when they are combined in the wrong ways that produces somewhat problematic results for the aggregate society. An example would be the problem of counterfeit products, which is recently featured in The Economist. Interestingly it has extended beyond just luxury goods, luxury consumer electronics to the more sophisticated stuff like cars, computer and machine parts. The chief argument against counterfeits is not so much that they are unsafe. As technology advance, counterfeits that are of low quality would naturally be abandon by the market anyways. The reason for the market's embrace is a result of their avoidance of taxes and the willingness to accept lower margins, which allows them to price way more competitively.
Another time when technological advancement is combined with skewed human intentions is the gender-based abortion that The Economist is hinting at. The distorted sex ratio have potentially disastrous consequences on society at large. Unfortunately the imbalance is already a fact and will take at least a generation to restore some balance so in the meantime we will probably have to put up with way lower rates of marriages (if rates sustain, it would only be because divorce rates have also been increasing; which implies re-marriages).
Well, more arguments for big governments, or if not, intrusive ones.
Dot.con
By Kevin
Popped!
I've recently finished John Cassidy's Dot.con I got from library many days back. John Cassidy is a staff writer at The New Yorker and I always liked his writings about Economics. I'll probably find a chance to lay my hands on his latest book, How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities soon.
Meanwhile, Dot.con have been an interesting read. It's an old book, no doubt. I believe reading about the Internet Bubble now seem rather weird given that it has happened a while back and don't appear to have any immediate relation with what I've been working on. Still, I think that events like this have lessons to offer that are often missed out and I was looking to read something a little further back given that I've been updating myself with The Economist all the time. John Cassidy didn't fail me, starting his story from the time when the technology was developing for the rise of modern Internet, describing the roles that the US military and government played in its conception, research funding and even implementation. He combines the events leading up to year 2000 with interesting comparisons of speculative manias of the past and talks about retrospective telltale signs of irrationality.
He introduced me to Charles Mackay and his writing, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. I subsequently realised I had the sections of Charles Mackay's book in my 4-inch tome, The Real Price of Everything by Michael Lewis. Those pieces have just been added into my reading queue.
Cory Johnson reveals that John Cassidy was a rare skeptical voice with regards to the Internet Boom, but failed to live up to the promise of the title of the book:
Indeed, he is unable to dismiss the most fundamental notion (a mantra among the true believers) that the Internet changes everything. Despite the stock market meltdown, almost any reading of the evolving business practice wrought by the Internet suggests that more dramatic changes are yet to come.
In a sense, the Internet is not quite exactly an illusion so to speak. But I don't think that was what John Cassidy was driving at. His idea is that business fundamentals have been abandoned during the period and it shouldn't have been. The numbers he cites about businesses losing money even as stock prices climb is startling. He might have been against the arguments of the New Economy though, and he could have supported his argument with the fact that falling prices (with economic expansion) isn't entirely an internal affair of US but a result of the external forces as well.
I've enjoyed the little stories told by Dot.con surrounding the whole boom and crash of the Internet, especially those about individuals trapped in those industries contributing and taking part of the boom. Besides that, Dot.con serves as a good look at human behaviours during a speculative mania.
Printing Stuff
By Kevin
Cheaper way of lighting up...
Imagine you need a square meter of light, perhaps for a single 'tile' on the ceiling that emits lights at your building. You'd probably get contractors to make a box with circuits inside that connects to a couple of fluorescent tubes (or if you're quite rich, a couple of LEDs) and then cover the thing with a translucent white piece of acrylic. The entire structure is bulky and probably quite energy consuming. Now, scientists have found a way to make a 'sheet' of LED that would allow you to make that 'lighted tile' much more easily and is also much more compact. Essentially, the technology allows you to print a circuit that is wired in a way that acts as a diode, and one that emits light.
And since we're at the issue of printing stuff; we mentioned previously about industrial prototyping machines that churns out 3D structures/models. I was quite intrigued by the idea of being able to print out a peg for your clothes or even design a shoe that fits you perfectly. But perhaps even more amazing would be the ability to print out cells, tissues and even organs as reported by The Economist.
The article mentioned about growing organs from scratch and raised the example of bladders being grown from original cells of patients. Essentially the patients are donating organs to themselves; the same applies for the printing of organs. The idea is appealing because there's nothing artificial about them beside the involvement of doctors in the process of growing the cells and putting them together - ultimately the organ is still organic and from the patients. Perhaps then, Iran's model for kidney donation won't be so appealing anymore.
Serious thinking on the Internet
By Wei Seng
Serious thinking time!
The Straits Times, on 19 February this year, republished an article written by Adam Cohen of the New York Times. Cohen's article reminded me about some of the benefits of the Internet which many often overlook in view of the tremendous upwelling of "junk" (for instance, rag and gossip made more accessible online) on the Internet.
Cohen argues that some feel the Internet may be "driving culture ever lower", but it is also allowing "a wealth of serious thinking". He uses the example of a BBC podcast "In Our Time" which delves deep into history to examine "arcane topics from history, literature, science and philosophy". This certainly would be the other side of the "Internet coin", the benefits that could be accrued to laymen and academics alike. Albeit one needs to be interested before one can actually be open and be exposed to such "high-brow" knowledge, but at least it provides avenues for those interested to be enlightened.
While I admit I am not in the least interested in the "arcane topics" listed above, I am myself a beneficiary of the Internet in terms of exposure to "serious thinking". TED.com is a good example. Short-form for Technology, Entertainment & Design, the website devotes itself to "Ideas Worth Spreading" by broadcasting presentations relating to these spheres and more, allowing netizens access to a more interactive / interesting showcase of what might be normally deemed inaccessible and arcane, meant only for academics and to be showcased in libraries and institutions. I have watched lectures / presentations that have amazed and enthused me about issues that interest me but would not propel me to borrow books from the library about it, such as on HIV/AIDS.
So... if you are bored, dont just watch paint dry on Youtube, watch something educational on TED.com and dont let your brain rot and idle.
Biz Connect
By Kevin
Buzz Who?
Just recently, The Economist was tabulating the impacts of social networks and featured significant discussion on their impact on the business. The Big Money has a list of top 50 brand names (they call them 'companies') that has been doing well on Facebook as a social media vehicle for their brands. It appears that Facebook have become some sort of brand management tool that is carefully balanced with fans/consumer followings and interactions. As applications proliferate on these social networking platforms, there is a risk that all these commercial stuff are crowding out the actual social messages that are being sent over it. While
Google recently produced Buzz as I've highlighted previously, and The Economist thinks that it'll hardly do much to dent the influence of Facebook and Twitter.
Diversity & Sophistication
By Kevin
Just like societies...
Economics have been a subject troubled with the idea of scarcity and thinking about means of distributing resources to produce what we call 'wealth'. Scarcity is a clear-cut notion and 'abundance' represents the other end of the spectrum. The problem is that we are so familiar with scarcity we cannot be quite sure what really represents abundance (infinite, in short run or long run?) and thus, we actually have a problem quantifying wealth. What constitutes richness? Money? Gold? Having the most expensive resources? Having in abundance the most useful resource? Having the most diverse resources? Having human capital?
We've seen that most of the rich, developed world appears to be the same, with the similar institutions, rule of law and informal market rules; most of them produce certain complex niche products while importing a variety of inputs as well as many other consumer products. On the other hand, developing economies appears more diverse. This shows that the end state of riches can probably be attained through different pathways. The Economists' latest Economic Focus discuss how recent research shows that sophistication in the economy signals at the potential of an economy.
The Product Space map that the researchers came up with shows that an economy producing at a more centrally located product zone where it is easy to diversify into many other products would fare better than one in an isolated region. However, the isolated products often yield greater profits because they are probably rarer and so competition amongst economies leads to evolutionary forces pushing certain economies into these corners of product space possibly at the expense of potential. In any case, versatility is treasured and flexibility in production will aid economic growth.
Automated Eyes
By Kevin
I stumbled upon Tineye, a 'reverse image search engine'. It basically allows you to upload an image and then perform a search for pictures that are similar to the image. This is the beginning of answering a question my friend have posted me a couple of years back when he asked if the Internet can help us find out the name of a person from a photo of him/her. Alternatively, if you have a picture of a place, you might want to upload the image to search for where exactly it is. Alas, Tineye is not yet capable of all that, to quote from the Wiki article:
A user uploads an image to the Web application search engine or provides a URL for an image (or for a page containing the image). The search engine will look up other usage of the image in the internet including their time of appearance and including modified images based upon that image. Tineye does not recognise objects or persons in an image, it recognises the entire image, and some altered versions of that image. This includes differently sized versions of the image.
The search engine is provided by Idée, Inc., a Canadian firm that also produces other image-matching technology products, like PixID. A demonstration of the power of this product is shown in this video that follows:
It purportedly helps client tracks usage of their photographs or images online and print publications to manage image license and also to 'uncover unauthorized image usage', and it kind of reminds me how it makes patent trolls' job easier, reflecting a worsened state of gridlock. In other words, while the software may help to raise the opportunity for transactions and thus contribute value to creators, it might potentially discourage mashups in the area of graphic designs. Of course, it has a potential for good as well; scanning through a film can help the production crew find out whether they have obtained permission for all the images or clips used and would thus know what to filter out if they are unable to identify the owners.
The potential of such technology always works both ways and eventually it will be up to Economics to resolve the issues.
Topics
- Anecdotes
- Article Featured
- erpz News
- Headlines
- Lifehack
- Mind Tricks
- Reading Packs
- Reviews
- Stuff
- Tackling Tests
Study Resources
- Caught In Geog
- Cliffs Notes
- Economics Help
- Fiveless A Levels Notes
- Mastering Maths
- Mises Institute
- Mr Koh's Maths Site
- Progress in GP
- SparkNotes
- Tutor2u
Friends' Sites & Blogs
Writer's Blogs
- Dan Gilbert's Blog
- Freakonomics Blog
- John Kay
- Julian Baggini's Blog
- Malcolm Gladwell
- Michael Perelman
- Paul Krugman
- Robert Skidelsky
- Tim Harford
Academic Blogs
- Becker Posner Blog
- Daily Capitalist
- Marginal Revolution
- Modeled Behavior
- The Good News Economist
- Tran Harry Economics 101
- Twenty Cent Paradigms
Recent Comments
- Morality & Incentives « ERPZ on The Question of Pay
- Kevin on The Question of Pay
- Derrick Tan on The Question of Pay
- Daily SG: 8 Sep 2011 « The Singapore Daily on Failure of Competition
- georgeyeo -not that guy on From Sarcasm to Absurdum