.: Have We Met Before? :.

          Humanity is constantly devising new technologies to assist in the lives of millions of people while also making them more enjoyable. So, when asked to consider the most pioneering and significant technological advance of the last ten years, what would you say? If you guessed the ShamWow ®, then I’m afraid you’re wrong (nice try, though). But if you said the social networking website Facebook, then you are correct! This digital innovation is arguably the most influential (and ubiquitous) networking tool that modernity has seen to date. Originally created to connect individuals on the Harvard University campus, Facebook has exploded into a powerful social networking tool that has drastically redefined methods of human communication. 

          Not even Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook, could not have foreseen the current level of cultural integration which Facebook has enjoyed over the past decade. Initially, Zuckerberg desired to create “an online directory that connects people through social networks at colleges” – a digital gathering space for people to keep track of others and socialize with friends. (Grossman, 2010) Fast forward 10 years and we have Facebook on our mobile smart phones, iPods and iPads, even on internet-connected televisions. Facebook is no longer ‘the future of human communication’ – it is human communication. More than that, its human communication built upon human networks, both digital and traditional. 

          In my previous writing, I expounded upon the fact that digital media and social networking could lead to the impersonalization of human communication as well as the misinterpretation of exchanged information. Although this remains a valid issue, it isn’t substantial enough to deter the growth of social networking or the adoption of this medium as a global means of interaction. In fact, as Zuckerberg discovered when creating Facebook, “people yearn not to be liberated from their daily lives but to be more deeply embedded in them…” (TIME MAG) We can already see the integration of technology into every aspect of our lives – Facebook could be the tool that will enhance this assimilation to wholly encompassing levels. 

          For example, imagine the marriage of three revolutionary elements: immersive virtual reality, like wearable VR glasses; digital auxiliary memory, such as a cranial implant; and Facebook. This digital trifecta would not only be able to virtually display immediate information about a new acquaintance or about a location in town, it could also alert you to people in your vicinity with whom you’ve interacted on Facebook. Other information, such as how you know these people and your common interests, could be accessed upon request. Information would then be relayed to your cranial implant to be archived for future reference. This prospect would literally allow you to take Facebook with you wherever you go while interacting with the world in an entirely new way: as a Mobile Social Network. 

          If you are slightly frightened at this point, brace yourself for more. In his book The Facebook Effect, author David Kirkpatrick takes this idea even further. He proposes that “the [Facebook] software could even start to make elementary decisions on your behalf.” As Kirkpatrick suggests, such software could be so intuitive that it knows who you are as well as your patterns: “Imagine I can get in my car and just say, ‘I want to go to David Kirkpatrick’s house.’ It knows who I am and can go inside Facebook, find out where David lives, and direct me there using GPS.” (Kirkpatrick, 2010) 

          This integration of technology, social networking, and our daily lives is the kind of progress that will entirely redefine human communication. To interact with the world on a physical, a social, and a digital level affords humanity an extraordinary opportunity to transform the future and employ new methods of interaction. Of course, serious issues will abound and could present problems, such as personal privacy and the value of physical human relationships. But seeing that Mr. Zuckerberg has gotten us this far, perhaps we can once again trust him to lead us to the next level of social networking.


RESOURCES:

Grossman, Lev. (2010). Time Magazine. Person of the Year 2010: Mark Zuckerberg. Online publication. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037183,00.html

Kirkpatrick, D. (2010). The Facebook Effect (pp. 287-333). New York: Simon & Schuster.

.: Follow Me! :.

          One of the most well known phrases of the last decade consists of only two words: “Facebook me!” The unofficial slogan for social networking site Twitter (“Tweet me!”) comes in at a close second. The creation of new cultural lingo based on websites is a testament to the rise of digital social networking as an important communication tool in our society. As the media for human interaction change, so do the characteristics of person-to-person socialization and interrelation. Although social networking sites allow us to form social connections that we might not have otherwise initiated, it also injects human communication with an element of detachment and impersonality. 

          In his book You Are Not A Gadget, author Jaron Lanier purports that “The deep meaning of personhood is being reduced by illusions of bits. Since people will be inexorably connecting to one another through computers from here on out, we must find an alternative.” (Lanier, 2010) Though somewhat extreme, Lanier’s statement should not be entirely disregarded. It’s true that computers and digital social networking allow us to connect and converse through technology. It’s equally true that such communications begin to remove basic human attributes that, until 2 decades ago, were intrinsic to human communication. This unforeseen consequence can be observed in the ubiquitous text message or the familiar Facebook post. Such modes of communication don’t allow for vocal inflection, facial expressions, or body language to be transmitted in a conversation. These elements are often important (and sometimes essential) when interpreting another person’s message. However, on the internet, dialogue seems to be interpreted through a limited format that only allows for the delivery of certain conversational aspects. Emoticons (such as J) and written laughter symbols (like “haha”) attempt to replace these lost aspects but they often limit the adequate representation of human emotions. 

          Although digital social networking can inhibit the interpretation of dialogue, it also has an important cultural function in terms of social support networks. In “Small World networks”, a term created by researchers Duncan Watts and Steve Strogatz, “people don’t simply connect at random, increasing the likelihood they will interact with the same people frequently, even in large networks. [This] helps create social capital [which is] that store of behaviors and norms in any large group that lets its members support one another.” (Shirkey, 2008) This phenomenon is exemplified by the website GenderFork.com, a support forum created by gender advocate Sarah Dopp. (Dopp, 2011) This site provides support and advice to anyone facing gender issues in their lives. Social discussions and relevant resources allow users to join a community of people who are experiencing similar situations as themselves. Thanks to digital social networking, these users are able to find support in a community that they might not have otherwise encountered. 

          All in all, the current forms of digital social networking tend to limit the transmission and interpretation of information. Even with such a communication deficiency, this technology allows others to create social networks where others can find friendship, support, and commonality. In the future, the integration of audio-visual stimuli with social networking sites would be beneficial to digital communication. For instance, real-time video streaming integrated with the Facebook chat feature would allow users to converse with one another while browsing Facebook profiles. As well, a more dynamic and reactional interface for the Twitter website could add a human element previously unseen in social networking websites. Even though these features are currently unavailable, technological and social evolution will soon require more immersive digital experiences. No matter the speed of advancement, we can count on one thing: social interaction (whether digital or physical) will always be an integral part of humanity.


RESOURCES:

Dopp, Sarah. (21 Feb 2011). Gender & Beauty lecture notes.

Lanier, J. (2010). You are not a Gadget. New York: Alfred Knopf.

Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations (pp. 47-80). New York: Penguin Group.

.: Digital Humans :.

It’s 2065 AD and the world is more advanced than ever before. Most notably, everyone seems to be more intelligent, more alert, and more sophisticated than in the past. They can compute 27,150 x 369 in their minds. They can store massive amount of information in their brains. Their thoughts and memories are uploaded to silicon chips. They are Digital Humans.

This scenario is David D. Friedman’s prognosis for the future, as laid out in his book entitled Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World. Although the combination of the human body with technology may seem unlikely at this point, our society is hurtling toward a technology-saturated future where the line between man and machine is blurred. In his writings, Friedman mentions Moore’s Law, which states that every 1 to 2 years, modern computing ability doubles in power. This could mean that in as little as 50 years, we will have the knowledge and ability to create technology sophisticated enough to mimic the human brain. (Friedman, 2008) This radical development could lead to the creation of advanced microchips implanted in the brain, harnessing the power of computers within the human body. Thus, Digital Humans would come into existence.

Now the question is: What does it mean to be a Digital Human? First and foremost, Digital Humans lead a sort of hybrid existence. Much of the mental processing done within the brain can be shifted onto the digital implant so as to increase mental capacity for calculations and thought. This idea can be compared to adding more memory to a computer so that it can process commands more quickly and multitask more effectively. In a manner of speaking, the Digital Human is a living, breathing computer. A major benefit would be the ability to “upload” information to the brain’s microchip. As mentioned in Future Imperfect, Friedman asserts that “over time, more and more of your thinking is done in silicon, less and less in carbon. Eventually your brain, perhaps your body as well, comes to play a minor role in your life…”

Even though this may seem to be a promising outlook, there are also some interesting issues generated. For example:

Is our humanity in jeopardy when the body is fundamentally incorporated with technology? Are Digital Humans even considered “human” at all?  Is there a risk of totally succumbing to the digital side of the brain?  Can a Digital Human turn into a “robot”?  Are they susceptible to computer viruses?  Or will Digital Humans create an improved race of beings, capable of advancing society to a better and brighter future?  Perhaps the increased mental capacity for processing and thought will allow for a more fruitful and competent society?

These dilemmas don’t yet have answers, but they are worth considering.

Currently, we can observe the basic elements of digital integration in our daily lives as seen through portable electronic devices and virtual reality. In fact, immersive virtual reality could be the first step towards techno-human integration. Philip Rosedale, creator of the online virtual reality program SecondLife, states that “the virtual world is the average of everything humans desire.” (McNally & Fedde, 2010). What we cannot achieve in real life can be realized in virtual reality, albeit to a limited extent. As of now, virtual reality only engages two main senses: sight and sound. However this is quickly changing.

The study entitled Virtual Interpersonal Touch: Haptic Interaction and Copresence in Collaborative Virtual Environments purports that “as communication systems grow to allow more channels or information to integrate psychologically meaningful ways, more and more people will come to rely on using multiple channels during remote communication.” (Bailenson & Yee, 2007) That’s to say, people will soon have the desire to engage four or five of the human senses during communication, a feature which could be provided by immersive virtual reality. This type of virtual reality will seamlessly integrate the virtual world with the real world, maybe to the point where it will be difficult to distinguish between the two. A refinement of this concept could be the cerebral microchip implant in Digital Humans, creating the “ultimate virtual reality,” one that is displayed in front of you through your very own eyes.

No matter the potential outcome, one fact remains: This technology could absolutely be available in the near future. At the very least, we must entertain such a possibility and begin to assess the different issues (both good and bad) that could arise from creating Digital Humans and immersive virtual reality. Furthermore, it would be wise to devise a way to regress Digital Humans back to “regular” humanity in the event of technological malfunction or change of preference. In the end, Aldous Huxley may have been right – it is a Brave New World out there.


RESOURCES:

Bailenson, J. N., & Yee, N. (2007, September 2). Virtual Interpersonal Touch: Haptic Interaction and Copresence in Collaborative Virtual Environments. International Journal of Multimedia Tools and Applications, doi:10.1007/s11042-007-0171-2

Friedman, D. D. (2008). Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press

McNally, Caitlin (Producer), & Fedde R.A. (Producer). (2010). In, Digital Nation. PBS.