As an interior designer, I see more and more technology in homes today. There is a trend of squeezing as much technology as possible to the blueprint of a home i.e. larger than life TVs, smart app and voice-activated lighting, HVAC, and interior/exterior electronics.
But, overall I embrace it like Science, and agree with Mr. Hills, that it will be used for both good and evil. Humans have an addiction for invention and competition.
I always try to sneak in some calming, serenity component to the interiors we design. More than not, clients love the idea of a library room or no technology room for meditation, peace, self-growth.
I love the entanglement notion—my only comment would be for us to consider how we are coming to idea of an “age of entanglement.” The issue at hand is perhaps not that we are NOW entangled, but that we have, as a social structure (at least in western culture), long pretended we are separate from what we come from and what we create, and that this disassociation is the root to much of what we struggle with today. Today’s “artificial” is an outgrowth of past versions of “artificial.” What if Entanglement (which surely exists), is more an outcome of a reckoning of our connected existence relative to environment and reality, rather than a sudden melding of separateness?
What if the problem is that we have never been separate from it, and this false disassociation is the cause of our struggle with entanglement? What if it is that we are not changing, but reckoning?
We continue to grasp at a reasonable means by which wealth can be distributed in an equitable fashion, not only so that each has the means of survival and opportunity that a wealthy and democratic society wishes to purvey, but the very meaning of wealth reflects its many forms. The concept presented here re-frames the economic argument for a sharing economy as a philosophical one, and does so rather well.
With the exception of the powdered wigs, the authors of the Constitution are little different (just fewer) than the authors of wikipedia: almost entirely white guys, mostly in their 20s.
(As much as I enjoyed Danny's article, and have been following his writing since Day One of The Media Lab, I am disappointed he plays PC politics here. I'm looking forward to the "Age of Entanglement" for at least that reason: less PC, more collaborative reality.)
I think you overstate your case. While it is true that the demographics of WIkipedia contributors are very different that of the general population, it would be difficult to argue that they are not a vastly more diverse and inclusive group than the authors of the US constitution. They do tend to be white and male, but the are many important contributors and leaders who are not, and it is not true that they are "mostly in their 20s".
What is needed is a science of collaboration that combines diverse sets of machines (eg ensemble theory, random forests), with diverse sets of humans. In contrast with the rhetoric of Singularity, one might call this Multiplicity.
An interesting piece but is there any evidence that humans have ever NOT been intimately intertwined with their creations? If not the rest of the article falls rather flat on its face. One only has to look at the artefacts in the recent celtic exhibition at the British Museum to recognise the degree of physical and emotional investment in objects produced several thousand years ago.
We certainly had physical and emotional investment in our creations in the past, but there was little difficulty drawing a distinction between the character of the created and the creator.
Mr. Hills, your article is wonderfull!! The most natural in our world today is technology. This is our nature,
I totally appreciate your vision. I agree that the article is excellent.
Can we really say that technology is our nature? This makes me shutter to think: Is synth the new, natural form of music, casting aside the instruments that brought about the sounds?
One of the issues hinted at here and very critical at present is the issue of authorship. Where does any given idea come from? Who is responsible for it and how should they be recompensed? How can we even begin to work that out?
There's a lovely little book by an artist called Daniel Spoerri, called 'The Topology of Chance'. It was published in the sixties*. In it he looks at the plate of food on the table in front of him and traces every particle - including plate and cutlery - further and further back. Where was the plate made? Where did the clay come from? How is clay made? etc. What's so nice about it is that you realise that everything, even the most mundane thing, has roots going back and back to the dawn of time; and that almost every natural process somehow impacted on its development. The more I think about the genesis of 'creative work' the more I recall that book. Tracing where any piece of art or science comes from is astonishingly complex and ultimately futile - because even if you could name all the threads in that tapestry you can't retrospectively assess the relative value of them. It's chaos theory worked backwards. All of us who make our living from some notion of 'ownership' of ideas - like copyrights, for example - are starting to recognise this dilemma. Indeed, one of the big challenges of Entanglement is how we pay for things and get paid for them. It isn't a trival question: I imagine that our solutions to that problem will entail some new kinds of thinking that may lead us to a whole body of new philosophical ideas - economics leading philosophy. Wouldn't be the first time (whispers Karl Marx).
A lovely example indeed here of how "zooming" in and out of problem spaces can give us different perspectives towards a resolution. If, for example, we stay within existing / prevalent consumerist/capitalist models, we may ask: "How do we ensure authors get a "ding!" at every sale?" Zooming up however, we may ask, for example, "Is that necessary if the author's living wage is covered by the state or some other institution? As long as no one is profiting beyond recovery of costs and re-investment…" And as Mr. Eno says, nothing prevents us from finding new models at either level. In fact, I think we must.
"We can no longer see ourselves as separate from the natural world or our technology, but as a part of them, integrated, codependent, and entangled."
Codependency, in a psychological framework, generally suggests an unhealthy behaviour exhibited by an individual, who gives of oneself to another, at the very expense of oneseself, to satiate an unhealthy fear of abandonment, or as another expression of emotional need, with origins in learned coping mechanisms and survival methods developed in dysfunctional childhood environments, to respond to unmet, fundamental, emotional needs
I can only wonder then, if the author chose this word 'codependent' advertanly, or inadvrtantly, to describe the human relationship to this new world of entangled nature and technology?
Where the lines of discipline, relationship, and even existential purpose are blurred, for what exactly is it that nature and technology depend upon each other to achieve?
It is argued by many of those who work in the field of psychology that the illness associated with codependncy can be overcome through self-healing, whether mediated or self-directed, using various tools for overcoming reactionary, subconscious, psychological responses.
A critical question for humans, in the early childhood of this new age, is how do we navigate, negotiate, and direct these entangled relationships of nature, technology, and the human experience, in ways that are functional for us, healthy for us, and which meet our fundamental needs?
I am not using the term “codependent” in the clinical sense, but our co-dependencies with technology certainly have the potential for becoming pathological. Our co-dependencies with other people and with technology can confer great advantages, but they also come with risks.
All enlightened people just go into 3D and are in greed of having material golds and etheric power. And what church provides.
Reading this makes me think of a Global Constitution, i.e. a collaboratively constructed set of rules.
I think that brings about the excellent point: things become too large for any single contributor to even read, which brings about Design as Participation.
To paraphrase Henry Rollins, "I don't think we can do it, but I think you can do it."
Let's not think of a Global Constitution as the order, but rather your participation here, and my participation here, and another's participation elsewhere as the new order.
Particularly fascinating in light of the argument about the Apple v. FBI case that iPhones are more analagous to our minds than safes.
This whole article reminds me a lot of "The 3D Additivist Manifesto"
"You have constructed your own little machine, ready when needed to be plugged into other collective machines." - D&G (from 1000 Plateus)
I'm getting a type of post-humanist vibe from this. Maybe we could suprass "the human" (so to speak) instead of us being "left behind".
Science predates the Age of Enlightenment....
Isn't it the case that the Age of Enlightment IS the age of science?
Reminds me of P Teilhard de Chardin's ideas about evolution. Forward the Mind! (organic or other)
Yet, luckily, the end result may be understood by a designer to a large extent (e.g. organs in a body). Maybe the best fusion will be achieved when we learn to contribute our designer's understanding to an evolving system in real time. Rather than passively watching it.
You vastly overestimate our understanding of biological systems...
Chris, I like the poignant analogy but I think that your concern is everyone's concern. The question is whether or not we can build cultures and institutions that allow us to utilize "power tools" to engender flourishing, while simultaneously safe-guarding us against mailce and folly.
This is my concern. We are children playing with power tools -- blithely unaware of the havoc we might wreak.