Thursday, November 02, 2006
Athena, Athena, Athena. If it were not for yesterday's seminar I would have drowned in her essay of incoherence. Thanks guys, for clearing some of it up. Seems like she pressed Shift-F7 one too many times while writing this essay... kidding.
"For the more technology seeks to put things in their proper place, the less proper those places turn out to be, the more displaceable everything becomes and the more frenetic becomes the effort to reassert the propriety of the place as such" (p. 135).
This notion I guess, is applicable to many technologies. The purpose of many technological advances (genetic engineering, robotics, internet, GPS, etc.) is to enhance the quality or efficiency of life. But if overdone, these technologies become displaced and the intention for their original use vanishes. Genetic engineering wants to help cure disease, but it assists parents in choosing the sex of their baby. Robots are supposed to create efficiency so humans are relieved of responsibility, but what about the loss of employment for those whose living depends on such seemingly mundane work? I'm not sure if I am going in the right direction, but this is the impression that I get.
"The challenge ... is to rethink 'technology' ... as a plural, dispersed, and discontinuous engagement as it is enacted in the following registers: biopolitical technologies ... technologies of the body ... and technologies of the self." (144-145).
So, we should consider technology in the context of this jumbled interaction. Again, this reminds me of the idea of "brain death" and whether to end someone's life just because their "higher consciousness" is dead, yet their body is still alive. Who is the gatekeeper that decides what to do with the body? Another example is whether it is ethical to utilize a human cadaver for profane yet enlightening research purposes such as "Body Worlds 2" (at the Science Centre), although that individual when alive, only consented to research in the private sphere. What would they say if their cadaver was subjected to such scrutiny and amusement by children, and perhaps the disgust of parents? Would their dead self consent to this if they perceived it as a learning experience for society?
By the way, here is a link to the Japanese android article from CityNews.ca:
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4911.aspx
"The Japanese government believes the market for service robots will reach an astounding $10 billion within the next decade."
To incorporate this subject into Athena's article, yes this technology will bring efficiency to Japan, but its implications on the rest of society must be looked at as well.
We also discussed 'open forums' and 'open sources' in class -- an article in the Toronto Star today talked about York University's implementation of "open source" Wiki-style systems with which students can edit each other's work:
"They are tuned into this open-source movement ... Now students in selected classes are submitting written content, including assignments, to the mini-Wikis, subject to input from classmates ... 'For some they might not be comfortable with the idea that they are not handing their work to me but they are handing their work to the entire class. it shifts how they think of themselves and their work in class. They come to think about knowledge production as a collaborative and public process."
Perhaps we can view the blogging component of this course as an open source forum as well. Although not nearly as interactive in that we edit each other's posts, the idea that we are putting our thoughts out there for others' scrutiny and commentary is somewhat similar to the Wiki concept.
Link to Wiki article is here.
"For the more technology seeks to put things in their proper place, the less proper those places turn out to be, the more displaceable everything becomes and the more frenetic becomes the effort to reassert the propriety of the place as such" (p. 135).
This notion I guess, is applicable to many technologies. The purpose of many technological advances (genetic engineering, robotics, internet, GPS, etc.) is to enhance the quality or efficiency of life. But if overdone, these technologies become displaced and the intention for their original use vanishes. Genetic engineering wants to help cure disease, but it assists parents in choosing the sex of their baby. Robots are supposed to create efficiency so humans are relieved of responsibility, but what about the loss of employment for those whose living depends on such seemingly mundane work? I'm not sure if I am going in the right direction, but this is the impression that I get.
"The challenge ... is to rethink 'technology' ... as a plural, dispersed, and discontinuous engagement as it is enacted in the following registers: biopolitical technologies ... technologies of the body ... and technologies of the self." (144-145).
So, we should consider technology in the context of this jumbled interaction. Again, this reminds me of the idea of "brain death" and whether to end someone's life just because their "higher consciousness" is dead, yet their body is still alive. Who is the gatekeeper that decides what to do with the body? Another example is whether it is ethical to utilize a human cadaver for profane yet enlightening research purposes such as "Body Worlds 2" (at the Science Centre), although that individual when alive, only consented to research in the private sphere. What would they say if their cadaver was subjected to such scrutiny and amusement by children, and perhaps the disgust of parents? Would their dead self consent to this if they perceived it as a learning experience for society?
By the way, here is a link to the Japanese android article from CityNews.ca:
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4911.aspx
"The Japanese government believes the market for service robots will reach an astounding $10 billion within the next decade."
To incorporate this subject into Athena's article, yes this technology will bring efficiency to Japan, but its implications on the rest of society must be looked at as well.
We also discussed 'open forums' and 'open sources' in class -- an article in the Toronto Star today talked about York University's implementation of "open source" Wiki-style systems with which students can edit each other's work:
"They are tuned into this open-source movement ... Now students in selected classes are submitting written content, including assignments, to the mini-Wikis, subject to input from classmates ... 'For some they might not be comfortable with the idea that they are not handing their work to me but they are handing their work to the entire class. it shifts how they think of themselves and their work in class. They come to think about knowledge production as a collaborative and public process."
Perhaps we can view the blogging component of this course as an open source forum as well. Although not nearly as interactive in that we edit each other's posts, the idea that we are putting our thoughts out there for others' scrutiny and commentary is somewhat similar to the Wiki concept.
Link to Wiki article is here.
# posted by Bonnie @ York : 1:36 PM
