Welcome to my thesis blog!
Here's the link to my thesis site.

1.23.2010

Kevin Kelly, founder and editor of Wired Magazine stated, “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? The evolution of technology has typically focused on the usability, capability, and the convenience of tools. 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.”
Let’s think about people for a moment. 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 who 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.
The biggest imperfection in technology as a form of life that I can identify is that it does not have, nor will it ever have ‘consciousness.’ We can impose consciousness on technology by personifying objects. 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 think 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 this potentially leads us to 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 electronics 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.

Kevin Kelly, founder and editor of Wired Magazine stated, “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? The evolution of technology has typically focused on the usability, capability, and the convenience of tools. 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.”

Let’s think about people for a moment. 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 who 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.

The biggest imperfection in technology as a form of life that I can identify is that it does not have, nor will it ever have ‘consciousness.’ We can impose consciousness on technology by personifying objects. 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 think 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 this potentially leads us to 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 electronics 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.

Posted 1..2010

#statement