1.16.2010
draft #1
Kevin Kelly, founder and editor of Wired Magazine said that, “technology is the 7th kingdom of life,” because “the major trends in technology evolution are the same as in biological evolution—the same drives that we see, towards ubiquity, towards diversity, towards socialization, towards complexity.” But if this is true, why is it that we can’t accept imperfection in technology? One dead pixel will send a TV back to the factory. One small error on a computer will make its owner call the designer “stupid.”
The evolution of technology has typically focused on the usability, capability, and the convenience of tools. Lately, with various technological advancements, machines have become closer to living creatures in this world—they behave, look, and even feel lifelike. However, there is an ethical issue with modern technology simply mimicking people; machines start replacing people as friends, colleagues, even lovers. Is a sex doll a good use of cutting-edge technology? I think the correct answer is “no.”
Though it is not as extreme as a sex doll, recently there has been a definite effort to enable people to feel emotional connections with their electronics. A video game where a character in the game tries to emotionally connect with the game player takes the pre-stated examples to a whole new level. Like a sex doll, and like the video game, perfectly customized, even servant-like, cater-to-the-owner systems, often fail to offer us serendipitous experiences—they make the world a much duller place, a place where we can have everything just the way we want, thus making it harder for us to accept imperfection in our surroundings, including people. Can there be a more interesting or meaningful way to bond with technology than with the ways that are being done now? Can we do it without making a machine easier to use, powerful, or attractive?
In life, we come across many people but not one that is exactly like another. People have different strengths, weaknesses, personalities, obsessions, habits, and behaviors. Because it is not easy to find people that are like ourselves, when we find people that share our interests, it makes it that much more exciting. Because we are not perfect beings by ourselves, we admire and seek people who can fill our imperfection in many ways. Many times, we even like people because their imperfections make them sympathetic. Can imperfection add a touch of humaneness to technology? Can imperfections in technology be seen as unique affordances, giving more meaning to different objects in different situations, to different people? Would this be an alternative to a one-size-fits-all gadget? Would we be able to accept the unique characteristics and limitations of electronic objects? Would this be a desirable alternative to exactly copying people and enhancing them if they don’t have the abilities to do so? Would we then be able to see technology as a new kingdom of life? Furthermore, would we be able to connect with machines without facing the ethical issues we face today?
The biggest imperfection in technology as a form of life that I can identify is that it does not have, and will never have ‘consciousness’ in a traditional sense. We can impose consciousness on technology by personifying products of technology in our heads. For instance, we look at a tree and see it as an animate being because it resembles the movement of an animal or a person. We look at a pair of birds and see them as a married couple because they are flying side by side. Similarly, we know that the web camera on a computer is “watching” us when the green or red light next to the camera turns on. Clues, cues, and feedbacks let us understand what is going on with an object, and potentially personify inanimate objects.
Another thing that can help us see technology as a living creature is to use the idea of “work” and “play.” Take hotel security guards for instance. They have a clear “work” manner that they show when working, but what are they like when they are off-duty? Do they like knitting? Do they like going to rock concerts? Who knows. Similar to the ideas of “work” and “play,” technology has two states of usage; “in-use” and “idle.” The “in-use” state shall be a productive one, where it is interacting with its owner in some way. On the other hand, the “idle” state can be used to do a variety of things. It can be used to “recharge” or do “house-keeping” work. A printer self-cleaning the toner or a computer defragmenting when not in use is a good example though its down-time is still used as a utilitarian purpose. Other than doing more work, in its idle state, a piece of electronic can interact with other forms of life, enjoy music, have a hobby, or communicate with other pieces of technology. This may seem unproductive or pointless but it definitely helps us see them as a form of life.
Only when we are able to enjoy the richness of material culture does a functional and expressional piece of technology come alive. However, sub-fields of experience design, haptic feedback, ergonomics, and usability to name a few, all look at how we interact with objects when we are giving them full attention. I’m interested in the fact that we could still be interacting with technology in our absence—”interaction” in the sense that technology can do something that may impact us in a meaningful way.
