Filed under: Technology | Tags: history, humanity, identity, information, internet, media, radio, research, television, The Spigot
“Life imitates art far more than art imitates Life.” – Oscar Wilde
This week, an e-friend of mine, Steve J. Moore, proposed an interesting question: Does the Internet reflect Humanity or vice versa? To start the discussion, we will take a look at life before Internet. Then, we will examine the life after Internet and its impact on the individual.
Information is power
Nikola Tesla began tinkering with the wireless transmission of information in 1891. The first television broadcasts were transmitted in 1928 to mechanical tv sets with horrible picture quality. In the mid thirties to the beginning of the forties, mechanical sets were commercially available for home use, but production soon stopped as manufacturing efforts became focused on World War II. After the war, the technological boom began to pick up speed again. The first full-color set came in 1954 and cost $1,000. Today, one thousand bucks buys you a 50″ flat screen tv like this.

Figure 1.1
There seems to be an inverse correlation between the availability of information and its value (see Figure 1.1). In other words, the easier accessing information becomes, the less we are willing to pay for it. To learn more about this correlation, read Thomas L. Friedman’s book, The World is Flat. The expansive virtual bank of knowledge has made the world seem much smaller. Thanks to Mobile 2.0, we expect information to be readily available to us at all times, to the extent that even email is considered an inferior form of communication. I drew Figure 1.1, photographed it with my phone, sent it to my email address, and uploaded it to the blog in less than one minute. We want information now, and we want it to be free.
The Shape of (Human) Things
I am twenty three years old. My first vivid memory involves my father busily working on a thesis under the blue glow of a Tandy 1000 computer screen, my curious finger, and a large red reset button (I’ll post the whole story sometime). The internet, in a relatively archaic form, already existed. But even in my youth, when I wanted information for an Earth Science research paper on volcanoes I made photocopies of encyclopedia entries in the school library. The card catalog was not computerized until I was in high school. Back in my day, you had to be patient – you had to wait for information to come to you. Back in my day, you had to be dilligent – you had to spend countless hours scouring tiny print and irrelevant factoids in search of answers. Back in my day, you had to respect the information you sought.
Today, the quality of content published on the internet spreads from precise, powerful information to pure unsolicited crap. Because the good stuff can be accessed through the same medium as the bad, it has to be free and effortless.
With regard to the value we assign information, I say that Internet reflects Humanity. Internet – 1, Humanity – 0.
16 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Ah, but where did the Internet come from? Al Gore? No. But it did come from humans. Which came first, the chicken or the egg, the computer or the programmer, the video game or the addition?
The availability of information is one thing, the cost of the availability is another. As I was doing research today I wanted to know how long it takes to build a space shuttle. I had the answer within a few seconds. It cost me very little to get that answer, just a computer and Internet connection. Yet it cost NASA a lot of money to come up with that answer.
Comment by Steve Orris February 3, 2009 @ 4:49 pmThe Internet has changed my life. I used to be in construction, now I can work online. As I share ideas on my blog and web site I can use the Internet to change others peoples lives. So does humanity reflect the Internet? Or does the Internet reflect humanity? Hummm?
Can you shake my hand if I don’t shake yours?
Great comment, Steve! You’re asking the right question. This post is the first part of a discussion with Steve Moore. It would be great to get your economic perspective on this issue in a post on your blog. This could be a great 3-way discussion.
Comment by aboyandhispiano February 3, 2009 @ 5:03 pmI’m not clear on what you mean by reflect… you mean the medium imitates what happens independent of it? Is the question really “where’s the originality come from?” I’m going to assume it is, mainly because I already have something to say about it!
Many teenagers (and, unfortunately, adults) base their life (specifically culture, knowledge, values) on what they see on television and in movies. By defining themselves by what goes on in this media, they become a reflection of this media.
By that same reasoning, if I spend my days online reading news sites, social networks, and discussing things on blogs, then I’m also a reflection of the internet. That is, who I am and how I think are affected by what I come across online.
The important difference is that, due to the massive amount of information online, I have even more control over what and who influences me online than through traditional media where there exist Gatekeepers (woooo Intro to Mass Media!) I guess what matters is authorship.
Comment by chuckmo February 3, 2009 @ 5:23 pm“Can you shake my hand if I don’t shake yours?”
Beautiful, that’s the spirit of Ubuntu in a nutshell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(philosophy)
A Person is a person through/because of other people. It’s a beautiful concept that I only recently discovered the true meaning of.
-Steve J. Moore
Comment by Steve J. Moore February 3, 2009 @ 9:44 pmI hope you take that angle in your response next week, Mr. Moore. I think you can definitely make a case that humans and internet must coexist in order to enrich each other. After all, the internet is user-defined, and cannot propel itself.
Comment by aboyandhispiano February 3, 2009 @ 10:35 pmChuckmo:
Comment by aboyandhispiano February 4, 2009 @ 12:07 amSo if we find our identity through the media with which we interact, then it must be more possible today for a person to create and manipulate their own identity (given the availability of information and the online social media revolution) with greater ease. It is also much easier now to find other people who are, say, into birdwatching and vampirism, than it was in the past. Niche groups and specialization provide us with an unlimited identity to create, adapt, and even abuse. That said, if pedophiles can create internet identities to coerce children, then is the limitless internet creating more pedophiles, or were they always a part of our culture, waiting for myspace and chat rooms to pop up?
We are all born with the capacity to choose right from wrong. Our default setting is set on wrong. (I have four kids. I didn’t have to teach them to lie and be selfish, that comes naturally.) I don’t think the Internet is creating more pedophiles or bird watchers but it does provide an opportunity to seek out the fulfillment of your dreams, whether they are good or bad. Someone may have a desire to do something but be too lazy or afraid of the consequences without an easy way to realize their dream. The Internet may unlock a “door” but the person still has to walk through it.
Comment by Steve Orris February 4, 2009 @ 12:29 amSteve O:
Comment by aboyandhispiano February 4, 2009 @ 12:38 amMy son turned six months old on Sunday, so I’ll get to experience the innevitable misbehavior in the years to come. As parents, it is our job to make sure our children aren’t on the other side of the wrong door.
I have definite guidelines I expect my kids to follow. (Darnit, Now I have to be a good example.) And I do teach them right from wrong. But I like this quote too, I wish I remember where I got it.
“It is more important to teach our kids how to think than to teach them what to think.”
Comment by Steve Orris February 4, 2009 @ 12:46 am@chuckmo
You’re getting at exactly what made me frame this question in the first place
Good insight
Comment by Steve J. Moore February 4, 2009 @ 9:23 amPart 2 is up http://thespigot.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/the-ghost-in-the-machine-part-2/
Comment by Steve J. Moore February 4, 2009 @ 10:28 pmI like where this is headed, in a big way. Great comments also! I will save my insight for now, until Part 4, when I will unleash my opinion on the unwitting public.
Comment by kylebaxter February 4, 2009 @ 11:00 pm[...] 1 was posted over on NonDeScript first, Nathaniel Carroll’s budding blog based in Springfield (like me!). I suggest that you [...]
Pingback by The Ghost in the Machine: Dialogue on the Influence of the Internet, Part 2 « The Kyle Baxter Project February 4, 2009 @ 11:24 pm[...] post is part of an ongoing collaborative conversation. You can view Part 1 here, and Part 2 [...]
Pingback by The Ghost in the Machine: Part 3 « theSpigot February 9, 2009 @ 12:41 pm[...] post is part of an ongoing collaborative conversation. You can view Part 1 here, and Part 2 [...]
Pingback by The Ghost in the Machine: Dialogue on the Influence of the Internet, Part 3 « The Kyle Baxter Project February 9, 2009 @ 7:09 pmI suggest you add a poll on this topic.
Comment by LauraLee February 12, 2009 @ 10:54 am