In many ways, this course has been seriously helpful as a budding technoscientist. There are so many things I can praise this course for and only a few things I can criticize. Overall, I rated this course well in course evaluations, however there are a few problems with it. Luckily, the problems are super easy to fix, and they aren't with the course content. However, there are a few things that have been relatively ineffective. We can make this course better through a few minor changes.
First, this course has been extremely effective as a catalyst of productive thought and intelligent inquiry into how technology affects society. Our textbook, although criticized by many as simply Breyman selling his friend's book, has been extremely well written and generally really insightful. I never once picked it up and thought, "Why are we reading this garbage." Which is much more than can be said about other textbooks. However, it's more than just tolerable. It's actually good. I could go to it for clarity on specific topics. I could reference it in discussions. Woodhouse may be off in his own world from time to time but the bulk of the text is fantastic and the ideas and tools for thought are elegant and well described. That said, it is still a textbook. Even with the multitude of real-world examples and applications Woodhouse brings up, it still cannot deliver all of the content we need to make this course as helpful and as driven and moving as necessary. That's where the readings come in and we arrive at our first change.
The readings are overall very good, however they need some reworking on some topics. Articles and shorter pieces of media are king in today's society of taking in information as quick and as efficiently as possible. I think here we can draw from another portion of the course that I can absolutely praise. We should use more video and non-text media in the weekly at-home assignments. Any assigned reading above two pages simply did not get read. Do not throw 20 page papers at undergraduate students and expect them to even remotely tolerate them. As soon as undergrads see an academic paper and they see the page length, they tune out. Frankly, it is hard to blame them. There are so many other forms of media out there that are more pleasant to ingest. Why would they read a 20 page paper when they can watch a 10 minute video with diagrams to show them what they need to know and explain a topic. Offer supplemental readings and take some videos like the ones we watched in class, and assign those instead. In no way and at no time is it reasonable to expect undergraduates to read a research paper when they could simply type the topic into google and learn just as much or more in a much more enjoyable manor.
Back to praise, the readings that were not lengthy were generally very good. They are provocative and writing about them was not terribly hard after I became adjusted to the course and the type of writing expected. On top of that, my TA was so fantastic in communicating expectations that after about one grading period I had adjusted my reading and writing style to that which is expected of me for the course. For a course meant to teach good reading and writing skills alongside regular material, this is paramount. I personally feel I have become a better reader from taking this course. Granted that it is not due to the longer readings, which I will admit that I read very little of, for reasons described earlier.
I will move now to the most important part of my suggested reforms. Eliminate required in-class note-taking from the course. Required note-taking in class is pointless when the slides are distributed. I would get more out of lecture if I could just listen to Breyman, as he is a great speaker in my opinion, instead of having to clack away at my keyboard while I miss important points and examples which develop understanding outside of the readings. As for note-taking on readings, I believe it should also not be required, however on this I am willing to compromise. Notes from readings deliver the same content as do our blogs. However, they are very helpful to most who want to write better blogs, as they allow all the best points to be summarized, almost like an outline sometimes. So with that said, the notes should not be graded, but could be required. That is, people would turn them in, however the content of those notes should not be judged, because poor notes generally lead to a poor blog if there is a real issue and currently we are being hit twice for a problem that should only be punished once. We are hit once for the notes and then once for the blog made from the notes. Instead, just grade blogs and as a critique suggest better note-taking. This only subtracts from one grade but allows students who benefit from better note-taking to benefit while not infringing upon those who do fine without taking notes, but instead referencing the article itself. If any note-taking turn in is required, use a cloud-based platform like Evernote. That way note turn-in is as easy as typing your TA's email and hitting send. These specific critiques on the note-taking should be regarded as the most important issue I present.
The wikipedia project has been a positive learning experience overall, but only with immense effort from our TA to explain how we should be doing things. With higher clarity in the instructions, this exercise teaches research skills and good reading and writing techniques for research which is relevant to so many of us. Specifically, I would suggest better pruned resources, supplied by more than just one person and with more time. I would also suggest a more refined process to the workflow, articulating to students the phases required to process information into a summarized piece of media. For example, phase one might be dividing work among the group and two could be digesting and notating the research materials, summarizing and connecting with outside sources (read: googling the topics). This kind of a layout of the project would have made things less confusing and allowed more groups to deliver better results more of the time.
Overall, for a class attempting to teach new technoscientists to view technology differently from how literally every other course would have them look at it, this class accomplishes its goals with flying colors. I feel that this class has communicated different views of technology in so many articulate and sensical ways that have never been presented to the students by other sources. The actual content of the course needs very little work, but the student experience needs a good bit of help. I have outlined for you exactly how to fix the problems faced by students in the course. I really enjoyed the class and overall think it was a great experience and I hope this will help to shape an equally good, if not better, experience for people in the future.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Human Enhancement, or nah?
Humans have been enhancing themselves since the days of the cave men. For thousands of years, we have sought ways to be smarter, stronger, more fearsome, more deadly, more respected, more efficient, and so on. In the innovations along the way, we have created tools to do work for us, to help us do better work, and even tools to help us think better. Everything from cave paintings and spears, to computers and algorithms is a tool. Everything we equip ourselves with is a tool, even if we do not always think about it like that. Human enhancement, is no new prospect. Some might argue that enhancement can make us inhuman. However, in the frame of mind I have put forward, it is what makes us human. Using this mindset as a devil's advocate, we can critically view some proposed human enhancements.
First, let us look at smartphones as a human enhancement. The benefits of having this technology are astounding, when you break down what is really there in your pocket. All the information in the world is now accessible within a few taps, or even by verbal command. That kind of power is astounding to think about, yet it is a convenience we take for granted. On top of information, smartphones also facilitate instantaneous communication between any number of people anywhere in the world. At your fingertips is a direct line to any person you could desire to talk to. However, that capability comes at a cost; yet another thing we often overlook. As much control as we are awarded through the devices we use every day, we also relinquish some control we previously had. The platform is inherently connection based and the ability to connect to anything at will also comes with others being able to connect to you at any time. To some extent, this is a benefit, but it relinquishes control of your data. Every single thing you do on your phone is recorded and documented. There are ways to see some of the things they collect. For example, if you have an Android phone you can use a Google service to access your location data for the entirety of your time with your phone. Years and years of exactly where you were are logged and stored. Some people are bothered by this notion, but most of those people also still use their smartphone because they know the benefits outweigh the costs. However, their worries are not to be ignored. It is plain to see that this system lends itself to an authoritarian system of government and in the wrong situation, that data could be used very maliciously. Yet, we are prepared to hand over every conversation, every word we type, every phone call, every website and app, our location, and everything else collected on by our phones. We are prepared to hand all of that over to gain access to the connectivity it offers under the impression that the data collected will never be sold. Personally, I'm for this technology and do not mind having my data tracked, but in a different world with a different style of government, these innovations could make our lives very problematic.
Using the smartphone tradeoff to examine a new frontier for human enhancement, we can take a look at human augmentation. That is, the notion that we can put technology in or on ourselves to enhance our capabilities. An example of this would be bionic eyes, or HUD contacts. Another might be body-boosting nanobots that heal injuries and cure cancer. Right there, you can see just how beneficial these augmentations can be. However, we also know about these kinds of tradeoffs from the storytelling of Deus Ex. Many people believe in drawing the line before augmentation, and if you have ever played a Deus Ex game, you could see why they would think that. However, how different is giving control over our bodies from giving control of our data? How different is using this tool from using a shovel or a smartphone? We already make intense tradeoffs, and although yet again this innovation lends itself to a centralized system of government and power, it still could provide immense benefits; think Terminator or Billion Dollar Man. We might be able to step back and say now that we have drawn the line, but in the 1990's if someone had said that by 2015 all your data would be available to the government and to private corporations, maybe the line would have been drawn then. Personally, I might be for this technology for my own use, but I worry what it might entail for our children.
When these kinds of innovations happen gradually over time, people tend to allow things they would not have if they had seen the bigger picture. What is one small sacrifice for some more functionality? Not much until the Illuminati has all your data and Obama is looking at your dick pics. Hopefully we can learn from our past mistakes, and make the correct decisions regarding these new technologies.
First, let us look at smartphones as a human enhancement. The benefits of having this technology are astounding, when you break down what is really there in your pocket. All the information in the world is now accessible within a few taps, or even by verbal command. That kind of power is astounding to think about, yet it is a convenience we take for granted. On top of information, smartphones also facilitate instantaneous communication between any number of people anywhere in the world. At your fingertips is a direct line to any person you could desire to talk to. However, that capability comes at a cost; yet another thing we often overlook. As much control as we are awarded through the devices we use every day, we also relinquish some control we previously had. The platform is inherently connection based and the ability to connect to anything at will also comes with others being able to connect to you at any time. To some extent, this is a benefit, but it relinquishes control of your data. Every single thing you do on your phone is recorded and documented. There are ways to see some of the things they collect. For example, if you have an Android phone you can use a Google service to access your location data for the entirety of your time with your phone. Years and years of exactly where you were are logged and stored. Some people are bothered by this notion, but most of those people also still use their smartphone because they know the benefits outweigh the costs. However, their worries are not to be ignored. It is plain to see that this system lends itself to an authoritarian system of government and in the wrong situation, that data could be used very maliciously. Yet, we are prepared to hand over every conversation, every word we type, every phone call, every website and app, our location, and everything else collected on by our phones. We are prepared to hand all of that over to gain access to the connectivity it offers under the impression that the data collected will never be sold. Personally, I'm for this technology and do not mind having my data tracked, but in a different world with a different style of government, these innovations could make our lives very problematic.
Using the smartphone tradeoff to examine a new frontier for human enhancement, we can take a look at human augmentation. That is, the notion that we can put technology in or on ourselves to enhance our capabilities. An example of this would be bionic eyes, or HUD contacts. Another might be body-boosting nanobots that heal injuries and cure cancer. Right there, you can see just how beneficial these augmentations can be. However, we also know about these kinds of tradeoffs from the storytelling of Deus Ex. Many people believe in drawing the line before augmentation, and if you have ever played a Deus Ex game, you could see why they would think that. However, how different is giving control over our bodies from giving control of our data? How different is using this tool from using a shovel or a smartphone? We already make intense tradeoffs, and although yet again this innovation lends itself to a centralized system of government and power, it still could provide immense benefits; think Terminator or Billion Dollar Man. We might be able to step back and say now that we have drawn the line, but in the 1990's if someone had said that by 2015 all your data would be available to the government and to private corporations, maybe the line would have been drawn then. Personally, I might be for this technology for my own use, but I worry what it might entail for our children.
When these kinds of innovations happen gradually over time, people tend to allow things they would not have if they had seen the bigger picture. What is one small sacrifice for some more functionality? Not much until the Illuminati has all your data and Obama is looking at your dick pics. Hopefully we can learn from our past mistakes, and make the correct decisions regarding these new technologies.
Technology, Work, and Leisure
In a perfect world, there is no money. There is no higher or lower classes or castes. There are only people and there are things but their value is ambiguous. The value of people's time is priceless. This is the opposite of how human life is valued today, where time is worthless and lives are priced at $250,000. We would value, above all else, happiness, livelihood, and effort. The work done by one person, in any field, would be equal to any other. Those of us who chose to mop floors would have their time viewed as equal to those who write computer programs or manage manufacturing. There is no specific value to a profession, only to the person's time. This kind of a world is definitely considered "Utopian" by today's standards. We can't imagine a world without money or without a class system. We find it hard to believe that their could be anything besides what exists for us today. How would it happen? How could that be? It would require: A system where work is work for the good of society, not for a monetary value and a sense of togetherness between people, an educated populace with a lack of greediness or selfishness. It would deliver happy, healthy people with little-to-no poverty and an overwhelming notion that everything we do, we do for our own good.
Work and receive everything you need to be happy and healthy. Want to become a doctor? Do it. Want to become a computer programmer? Do it. Want to mop floors? Do it. All of these professions would make the same "salary." Not money, but goods and services required to be happy and healthy. We, as a society, will need a wide range of work done in order to function, just as we do today. But those who decide higher education is not for them will not be thrown to the wolves, and those who do choose to pursue an education will do so at no cost. What they are doing, in both cases, is extremely important to the infrastructure of this society. We need both students and janitors. There is no difference between the work done by one and the work done by the other, in value. Each will get a place to live, with adequate space. Firms can poll people for demand for products or services they oversee. But there is no profit to be made. They would only exist to produce for humanity. Those producers can then meet the demands of the people by putting to work the right amount of resources and work into a product or service. The people can choose what to produce. I won't pretend to know all the details, but it can be worked out.
The relationships people would need to have would be so incredibly different from how we relate to each other today. There would be much more 'we' and nearly no 'I.' We would function for the good of everyone and there would need to be a universal acceptance of cooperation. Everyone in society works and devotes their energy into their profession for each and every other person's good as well as their own. That kind of mindset means that every person is kind and grateful to others around them. Think like how people tend to act towards those serving in the military. Everyone contributes for others. For example, a restaurant and its workers all serve food to people. Those people go to work and produce the grilles for cooking, the plates and silverware, the chairs, the building itself! And for all of that, they serve food in return, and their attitudes towards others would be that of those engaged in a mutually beneficial business deal. We would all immediately be friendly with everyone else because we are all working as one; in a large flowing mutually beneficial deal.
In this kind of a community people would have to labor less. There would be a job for every person willing to work. That means we all work less. The 40 hour work-week would never even be conceived. There would be no need to rush processes or be crazy efficient such as to treat people as capital. There can really be no deadlines because deadlines are scheduled for profit, mostly. We would not work on a time crunch, because time is valuable and precious and we all are entitled to our own time to live and be happy. We do not owe all of our time and emotional well being to some corporation to survive. We survive because we all deserve it.
This kind of Utopia does happen to have a name. It's Communism. It can work. But it has a lot of requirements that mostly involve people understanding the system and cooperating. We could have a society that binds together and helps others, instead of helping who can pay and turning away those who cannot. As humans we would be entitled to our own lives, not required to serve those with more only to receive less.
Work and receive everything you need to be happy and healthy. Want to become a doctor? Do it. Want to become a computer programmer? Do it. Want to mop floors? Do it. All of these professions would make the same "salary." Not money, but goods and services required to be happy and healthy. We, as a society, will need a wide range of work done in order to function, just as we do today. But those who decide higher education is not for them will not be thrown to the wolves, and those who do choose to pursue an education will do so at no cost. What they are doing, in both cases, is extremely important to the infrastructure of this society. We need both students and janitors. There is no difference between the work done by one and the work done by the other, in value. Each will get a place to live, with adequate space. Firms can poll people for demand for products or services they oversee. But there is no profit to be made. They would only exist to produce for humanity. Those producers can then meet the demands of the people by putting to work the right amount of resources and work into a product or service. The people can choose what to produce. I won't pretend to know all the details, but it can be worked out.
The relationships people would need to have would be so incredibly different from how we relate to each other today. There would be much more 'we' and nearly no 'I.' We would function for the good of everyone and there would need to be a universal acceptance of cooperation. Everyone in society works and devotes their energy into their profession for each and every other person's good as well as their own. That kind of mindset means that every person is kind and grateful to others around them. Think like how people tend to act towards those serving in the military. Everyone contributes for others. For example, a restaurant and its workers all serve food to people. Those people go to work and produce the grilles for cooking, the plates and silverware, the chairs, the building itself! And for all of that, they serve food in return, and their attitudes towards others would be that of those engaged in a mutually beneficial business deal. We would all immediately be friendly with everyone else because we are all working as one; in a large flowing mutually beneficial deal.
In this kind of a community people would have to labor less. There would be a job for every person willing to work. That means we all work less. The 40 hour work-week would never even be conceived. There would be no need to rush processes or be crazy efficient such as to treat people as capital. There can really be no deadlines because deadlines are scheduled for profit, mostly. We would not work on a time crunch, because time is valuable and precious and we all are entitled to our own time to live and be happy. We do not owe all of our time and emotional well being to some corporation to survive. We survive because we all deserve it.
This kind of Utopia does happen to have a name. It's Communism. It can work. But it has a lot of requirements that mostly involve people understanding the system and cooperating. We could have a society that binds together and helps others, instead of helping who can pay and turning away those who cannot. As humans we would be entitled to our own lives, not required to serve those with more only to receive less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)