And another quote from this week’s reading:

We must create at the same
scale as we can destroy. The counterforce
to the scale of destruction is the scale of
communication, and . . . our legacy or epi-
taph will be determined in many ways by
our ability to creatively employ informal,
multimedia, multicultural, conversational,
telecommunications and information tech-
nologies.

Create what exactly? Scale of what destruction?  How is the rate of deforestation in the amazon being counteracted? How is communication technology counteracting the rate of extinction of our species on land, air and sea? How is the excavation of unthinkable amounts of minerals to build our communication infrastructure actually acting as a counterforce to “destruction”. Or is destruction in the name of telecommunications and information technologies allowed?

This quote from this week’s reading struck me:

“The rhetoric goes
that the ability to communicate quickly
and easily leads to greater understanding,
which then leads to tolerance and the cer-
tainty of harmony. Demonstrably, this is not
true, and arguably whether it is the goal of
prosecuting war without casualties by
remote communication… the communica-
tions network and technologies have not
had any calculable effect on humanity’s
penchant for destruction.“

It sounds like a pessimistic sentiment but it is for the large part true.  This week, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the chemical weapons watchdog, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The decision drew much criticism globally; many favoured Pakistani teenage activist, Malala Yousafzai for the prize. It makes me question why there is such apparent favouritism for an award which credits attempts for global unity.  While Yousafzai’s efforts are no small feat and beyond honourable itself, surely OPCW too deserves credit for using its communications network to safeguard humanity from those who use those same networks for potential destruction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A small piece of creative non-fiction writing, based on a real-life account. 

 

 

 

 

Visited the Melbourne Magistrates Court today to sit in on some hearings as I have to write a couple of court reports.

For three separate cases, the prosectors (mostly Vic Police) mucked up their paper work. Certain documents were missing, others were still waiting to be faxed. In one case, the register on the floor had shut the counter and no documents could be retrieved. The magistrate was quite frustrated and I was a little taken aback as well. I mean honestly, we’re dealing with a person’s innocence or guilt here, you would think there would be a bit more vigilance.

Apart from that, what astounded me was also the reliance on paper documents as opposed to digital documents in the judicial system. I can see the arguments for this; greater accountability, lesser risk of documents being lost or systems being hacked. But all the proceedings were very slow and the magistrate himself had a laptop.

Curious.

 

 

Just had a look at Adrian’s link All the Faces of Facebook.

I was quite taken aback and stupidly spent a good ten minutes trying to find faces I knew (I failed).

Adrian wrote “services are porous to each other”. I’m not sure how I feel about this statement. A little concerned? A little defensive? A bit anxious of all the bits and pieces pertaining to me that exist in the infinity of the web…?

When I was about 7 and about to create my first email address (a very big deal at the time), someone told me that I must never give out my last name over the internet because if I did, someone could track me down and find out everything to do about me. It was a threat that stuck for a very long time. I feel queasy giving out my last name even today. But it’s hardly relevant now given the existence of social media platforms like facebook in which we aren’t asked for information, but give it willingly.

I’ve never been one to over share but it’s funny how I/we deem some site to be more “worthy” of our information than others; how we can be willing participants on some platforms but sceptical of others.

In this week’s reading, Manovich writes that most computer games mask a the same simple algorithm: pass one level by overcoming certain obstacles (zombies, aliens, awkwardly shaped tetris blocks etc.) in order to proceed to the next and the next until one finishes the final level and wins. “They demand that a player executes an algorithm in order to win” she writes.

It is a grey, gloomy, horrendously windy day and assessments are raining down on me harder than the rain is.  Ahh end of year assessments, the burden of my second level of university,  that sneaky algorithm.  If only its execution were as simple as tetris.

In this week’s reading Potts and Murphy talk about the current generalization of the term “technology” in that it seems to be a broad system we “inhabit” or a system of “individual machines or devices”. However, they also speak of the commonality of all “technologies” being their artificiality- that is, that it is not a natural object but a construction by humans.

 

Following on from this and in keeping with the theme of the intersection of Technology and Culture, I’d like to share a short video of a documentary I watched a few months ago on the ancient Indus civilization of India inventing the number “0”, a piece of knowledge- technology that set them apart from their Arabic counter parts.  I think it’s good fit because the basic numerical framework we use for EVERYTHING is not something we consider as a technology. Yet, at some stage, it was constructed, invented. There was a time where numbers didn’t exist.

Watch The Story of Numbers

 

 

This arresting pictorial campaign by the Indian initiative “Save Our Sisters” is so commanding because it captures the contradictions that currently rule India.

 

This, was an interest take on the campaign. 

 

Since starting university, I have become aware of how much the traditional schooling system conditions us.  I spent the first half of my education in Mumbai and the second half in Melbourne and although, the curriculum and learning methods may have been different, the techniques of disciplining and conditioning in both systems were vitually identical.

 

I’ve encountered a number of arguments against the traditional university system upon which even traditional schooling is based on. I’ve encountered people whose parents had alternative ideas on education and have thus been home schooled or have been sent to schools with an alternative education philosophy where the traditional “roles” designated to teachers and students are seen as limiting and thus, convention is broken.

 

A friend of mine recently did a teaching placement at a primary school which taught mythology and world religions as part of their curriculum, let the children plan their own camps, and didn’t undertake standardized testing. My friend described how there wasn’t a staff room but instead teachers and students mingled and ate together on breaks, sharing a common kitchen are where the children were even allowed to cook their meals. They placed great value on independence in the formative years of a child. To me, schools such as this poses a question that is largely overseen by the mainstream school system and even parents about the conditioning effects of the structure of a school on the child.

 

Here is a link to Fitzroy Community School’s philosophy.