WORMHOLES
Reason #145 I want to go to MIT
An MIT team has designed a sleek spacesuit that relies on mechanical counter-pressure instead of using gas pressurization.
A bold new book tackles the ultimate thought experiment: what if there were no humans left?
Walter Haut, the now-deceased former PR representative at the Roswell Air Force base, issued an affadavit to be opened after his death, the text of which has just been released. It concludes: "I am convinced that what I personally observed was some kind of craft and its crew from outer space".
"We're kind of a big deal"
Giant Penguins Once Roamed the Earth
Researchers report in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that they have found remains of two types of penguin in Peru that date to 40 million years ago. One of them was a 5-foot giant with a long sharp beak.
The Robotarium X in Jardim Central, Portugal, is the first zoo for artificial life. It houses a revolving cast of creatures powered by photovoltaic energy. Unlike with a real zoo, the Robotarium is the ideal environment for its residents, with plenty of sun, smoothness, tranquility and attention. There are no fights or aggression and the only competition is to assure a place under the sunlight.
Lake Dissapears in Central Chile
One casual theory is that an earthquake opened up a fissure in the ground, allowing the lake's water to drain through.
Bacteria Could Help Steady Buildings
Soil bacteria could be used to help steady buildings against earthquakes, according to researchers at UC Davis. The microbes can literally convert loose, sandy soil into rock. And men TO STONE!
I never thought such a thing was possible. Thanks N. Gitomer for the enlightening link.
Check out this joker's spacecraft
As private companies rush to the space travel industry's big bucks, we begin to enounter shitty spaceship design. Thanks Rosten Woo for the link.
LATEST POSTS
CATEGORIES
animal life (3)
earth life (11)
human life (21)
Mathematics Life (1)
outer space life (18)
sea life (2)
skullface life (5)
technology life (6)
UNIVERSE ARCHIVED
July 2007 (1)
June 2007 (2)
May 2007 (3)
April 2007 (3)
March 2007 (5)
February 2007 (3)
January 2007 (7)
December 2006 (1)
November 2006 (2)
October 2006 (3)
September 2006 (3)
August 2006 (4)
July 2006 (6)
June 2006 (3)
May 2006 (3)
April 2006 (3)
March 2006 (3)
February 2006 (4)
January 2006 (6)
December 2005 (5)
Complexity
Archived From September 26, 2006
Or, In which two primary concepts of modernity are introduced, batted around, and compared, without much of a resolution to speak of.
In the year 2000, Stephen Hawking wrote that the "next century will be the century of complexity." Of course, he wasn't referring to political quagmires or environmental degeneration, although he might as well have been, because all that shit is getting brambly. "Complexity" is a theoretical term, referring to systems whose behavioral phenomena cannot be easily explained by any conventional analysis of their constituent parts. Buckminster Fuller called it "synergetics:" the output of a system not foreseen by the sum of its parts. In practical application, there's not much worth mentioning, except for the continually unprovable String Theory; in the sciences in general, the term "complexity" is a common metaphor, referring to those systems -- physical, biological, economic, even social -- that operate in a region between order and complete chaos. Despite its ambiguity, it has come to be a buzzword in many disciplines, spanning most dimensions of the socio-scientific-cognitive sphere.
Certainly, many things in our world are inherently complex: the delicate balance of the ecosystem, for example, or the subjectivity that shrouds history, not to mention what happens inside of your brain whenever you look at an object. The prevailing cultural ontology represented in the media, too, is of a world culture defined by its increasing complexity: as though instant communication and the floodgates of information thrust open by the Internet were the harbingers of a new, uber-complex world. Assuredly, the structure of our social lives is experiencing an overhaul; buddy lists, speed dial, and Myspace comments are the new benchmarks of a successful social life, while popularity is often measured by the size of one's email inbox.
However, it does seem a little facile to immediately peg the "Web 2.0" -- you know, that second-generation of web-based services that let users connect on a more peer-to-peer basis -- as a figurehead of a new sociality of complexity. We are easily fooled by social networking websites like Myspace and Friendster, which joyfully show us our place within a whole structure of seemingly intricate relationships; they lead us to believe that we are part and parcel of an intimately interconnected social fabric. In concrete terms, what we're really intimate with are our computers themselves.
Part of me thinks that the reason we decorate and coddle our computers is that we're priming them to represent us out there in the digital sphere, the same way parents dress and educate their children. They're really the ones we're interacting with, blindly anthropomorphizing. I think more people than we realize think their computer is watching them somehow; we're all guilty of speaking forthrightly to our machines. I myself used to tenderly pet and soft-talk my modem so that it would go faster.
Furthermore, although the web is increasingly a social experience, every person views it in a singular way. Browsers, operating systems, connectivity: all these things influence how we use the web, on phenomenological level. What with the fervent, and highly personalized, organization of one's own "Bookmarks" and "RSS Feeds," the community of user-based web sociality is dependent a profoundly personal relationship with the portal to it all: the computer itself.
In theirexcellent piece in the New Scientist, Liz Else and Sherry Turkle -- science columnist and MIT professor, respectively -- point out that although "we insist that our world is increasingly complex...we have created a communications culture that has decreased the time available for us to sit and think." What Else and Turkle bravely point out is that, despite our "breathless techno-enthusiasm," our newly web-based, socially-networked society often cuts short the full breadth of our feelings. Instant communication brings with it less time to think about the subject at hand; when a response is demanded by an instant message, it must be handed out immediately, in the form of a quick text-byte. We no longer have the time to have emotions; rather, we must negotiate our relationships through emoticons. On-always communications devices enable us to embrace the complexity of social connectivity, while simultaneously abridging the depth of our relationships. At least, that is the risk.
Turkle and Else point out that, yes, we are in the thick of a communications culture, but this isn't "a culture that contributes to self-reflection...self-reflection depends on having an emotion, experiencing it, taking one's time to think it through and understand it, but only sometimes electing to share it."
Perhaps what is happening is that we are struggling to find a sense of self which can fit into the emerging model of the "social network;" certainly that anthropomorphic codependency many of us experience with our laptops is evidence that we're becoming plugged into social existence through technology. The Internet -- the Web 2.0, whatever -- is entangling us in a new framework of complexity, one that will become quickly irrelevant if we prove to be incapable of importing the full nuance and depth of our ideas, feelings, and relationships into it.
Relevant Asides:
1) If you are a Universe reader (or "Universist") and live in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Tijuana, the greater New York Area, or (potentially) Toronto or Burlington, VT, you may be interested in attending a pretty inaugural multimedia/ Power Point tour in which I am in the throes. Subjects discussed above given life through song, light, video, the whole gamut. More information here and here. It would nice to get meta-textual with you.
2) I am in the market for a new publisher. Contact universe@urbanhonking.com for more information.
<< | Posted on September 26, 2006 at 6:16 PM | >>
Comments (4):
I have been thinking a lot about this subject lately, being in a remote place from dear loved ones (I miss you Claire!). It seems so hard with the blaring individuality of people to even sort through the meanings of things. Our highly symbolic and intimate representations of ourselves aids in a psychadelic timeless form where you are instantaneously within that person. This intensity makes me exhausted! We all have to market ourselves with such furvor that our frequencies seem to be fighting eachother.
To remedy this, it seems the new trend is to start our own networking communities (like urbanhonking, and my own project the order of R. It's like we need to make our own big tipis to feel a little more safe and simple, to sort things out in a more timely manor, and more intimately. Perhaps as we go, we will be more assertive about copying our real-life social tendencies so as to make things less complicated.
Posted by ashby @ October 1, 2006 9:32 AM
Thanks for the visit, I enjoyed your company.
I enjoyed your blog as well.
Hopefully I will see you this Wednessday, if not...someday. I am interested in catching both of those shows- "multi-mediated extraveganzas".
Until soon.
Chris
Posted by Chris @ October 7, 2006 5:26 PM
Web 2.0 - I expect some form of self-imposed limitations, as so many people look back at previous forms of technology and try their hand at using their limited capabilities as a means to force a challenge and thus direction to what they want to do. The newer technology is always in a state of 'what is the protocol for using this thing exactly?' and consequently, panic and confusion lingers as people forget all logic and just use the newest technology as frantically as possible.
Looking back at an old device suggests a much more manageable relationship to technology in one's life. It's functions and flaws are all fully understood and documented thanks to the perspective of hindsight. Its limitations and finite potential is somehow comforting where such lack of definition was intimidating when the device first was available. I think some aspect of this will play into web 2.0.
Posted by solenoid @ October 8, 2006 6:38 PM
Makes me wonder what the next step ('web 3.0' or whatever) will be. Would love to find more to absorb on the topic.
PS: You should bring this multimedia show of yours a little more mid-east. Virginia would do nicely, yes.
Posted by Geoff @ September 29, 2006 11:45 AM