We have not yet established the rules of engagement for an Internet of things, and the ethics of mass connectivity are still being moulded. How then can it be a good idea to live in a world of 7 trillion objects that are all communicating with each other? Call me old fashioned, but I just can’t identify the void that says we should implant RFID chips in inanimate objects, rendering them not so inanimate. There are a number of problems and benefits that have been identified, however when it is being argued that an Internet of Thing will increase efficiency I cannot be blamed for being skeptical.
Over the last 50 years nearly every piece of technology that has been invented has been done so in the name of efficiency. And yet, 6 million children die every year from starvation, media moguls get exponentially richer while the other 99% live day to day, corruption, greed and selfishness have not ceased to be part of human nature, dictators still rule, racism thrives, women are still mistreated in many countries… this list goes on. Basically, what I’m trying to say is that efficiency is not the answer. It won’t solve the fundamental problems that we’re already struggling with. If anything, it sounds putting in place this kind of network will intensify the already present rift between dfferent socio-economic groups of people. Gerald Santucci explains that power relations will be change and the Internet of things “enables growing groups of media and sensor literate individuals to organise themselves through the Internet and through new data gained from smart objects endowed with sensing and actuating capabilities.” In other words, those with the resources to can exploit the power of the information gleaned from this network.
Ted asked the question in the lecture about what all this means to being human? I think if we got to the stage that ‘David’ is at in video, our experience of being human would be profoundly altered, our reliance on so technology so intrinsic that our connection to nature would be severed. I don’t know about you, but it sounds too much like a Brave New World.
Spoken like a true activist, well done! I think you have a valid point... efficiency may not be the answer but it is what drives people to advance technology. Technological advancement is inevitable. The only way that we would be able to combat all these horrible human right violations would be to force those working on advancing technology and those of the working population in general to use all their energy in stopping such things which in turn is violating their human rights. Catch 22. So all in all I think we should just really embrace efficiency and technological advancement along with it.
ReplyDeleteI love this post Jess!! It relays a lot of my thoughts about the matter. I'm not sure how we can justify a future where our oven can text us bout dinner when last week we were learning about people being tortured simply for protesting for basic human rights! Surely more effort and resources can be put on minimising the digital divide before we embrace sci-fi fantasies that seem both unnecessary, and possibly quite detrimental to society. I do think that the clip that Ted showed us is cool, and even more cool to think that this is possible in our lifetime. I just believe that there are more important things in the world that technology can help us with.
ReplyDeleteI like your argument Jess. Like Em King I also believe that there are more important things and issues happening in the world that we should focus out attention on. I also agree that technology will help with these.
ReplyDelete