ENGL 5380: This is My Consciousness, Digitized

[whysojaded-blog1]

Course Post #9: Childhood Nostalgia and Transmedia Narratives

*WARNING: Childhood Nostalgia*

The Following Images and/or Content May be Annoying to Some Readers… Reader Discretion is Advised.     

In recent years, discussions have taken place amongst a large portion of the younger millennial generation regarding childhood cartoons. Most of these conversations have transpired on popular social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, mostly Twitter though, because most of the younger population doesn’t exactly want older family members virtually witnessing their social media affairs. These conversations about our favorite childhood cartoons have essentially led to one overarching debate— Which T.V. channel had the best cartoons during the late 1990s and early 2000s? Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network?

 From the late 1990s to the early 2000s, I was an avid Cartoon Network viewer even though as a 5 or 6 year-old I was probably a little too young for some of the channel’s shows. Some of the more popular shows (at least my favorites) consisted of Dexter’s Laboratory, The Powerpuff Girls, Cow and Chicken, Ed, Edd, and Eddy, and Courage the Cowardly Dog; most of these series were started during the late 1990s and ended in the early 2000s. As many of these series started to come to an end, Cartoon Network began replacing these series with newer ones, and it was at this point I made the dramatic switch over to Nickelodeon.

 During the mid-2000s, I became an avid Nickelodeon viewer. I was introduced to some of the greatest shows: Spongebob Squarepants, The Fairly OddParents, Jimmy Neutron, Hey Arnold! etc. The one thing I always appreciated about Nickelodeon was the element of interconnectedness all of their cartoon series shared. Nickelodeon created several crossover, or “mash-up”, specials and films—something that Cartoon Network never did. Nickelodeon incorporated elements of transmedia storytelling in their mash-up specials and films, which helped create an overall unity amongst Nicktoon characters. For example, in 2004 Nickelodeon released a mash-up of The Fairly OddParents and Jimmy Neutron called Jimmy Timmy Power Hour. As a 10 year-old, I remember this being one of the most mind boggling television experiences of my life because Timmy Turner and Jimmy Neutron essentially switched dimensions; Timmy was in Jimmy’s world and Jimmy was in Timmy’s world! Of course, a part of my astonishment stemmed from the fact that Timmy and Jimmy had inhabited two completely separate narratives and worlds, and now all of a sudden they were merged. 

Even aesthetically, Jimmy and Timmy were different; Jimmy was now animated to fit Timmy’s world and vice versa. The multiplicity aspect of transmedia storytelling in Jimmy Timmy Power Hour created this sense of interconnectedness between the two characters; it made two completely different narratives and universes parallel. Multiplicity allowed Jimmy and Timmy’s story lines and universes to be expanded in the minds of viewers by “exploring the opportunities that could have been brought on by making different choices at the times of difficult decisions made during the plots” (source). Up until this point, viewers could not conceptualize Jimmy and Timmy inhabiting different worlds or narratives other than their own, but suddenly the possibility of this happening was actualized, which created the illusion of all Nicktoon characters being connected in some way; the actions of one Nicktoon character in a narrative could have an impact on the narrative of a completely different Nicktoon character.

 Reflecting on Nickelodeon’s use of the transmedia storytelling technique of multiplicity, I now understand why so many of the channel’s shows resonated with such a large part of the young millennial generation. Nickelodeon promoted a sense of unity and interconnectedness amongst all of its cartoon characters, which is something Cartoon Network did not do with theirs. Nickelodeon’s use of transmedia storytelling also allowed the Nicktoon franchise to promote itself as more of a brand by creating merchandise such as video games, toys, and clothing.  

Although I express nostalgia toward both Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon cartoons, Nickelodeon, in my opinion, has definitely made a  more lasting impact on the younger millennial generation as a whole.

[whysojaded-blog1]

Course Post #8: Exterminism: A Present Reality or Speculative Future?

“I don't want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share.”-Stephen King

As stated in many of my previous posts, capitalism opens up the doors for many of our existing social inequities dealing with race, gender, sex, and class. Our capitalistic political system in the United States specifically works to permanently hinder and oppress many groups such as racial minorities, women, queer and trans communities, and impoverished communities in order to permanently elevate the elite 1%. In his book Four Futures, Peter Frase discusses several speculative alternatives to transition into a post-capitalistic society. In my last post, I discussed Communism and one of its possible downsides. I would like to ponder one of Frase’s darker alternatives— one that no individual who is a part of the working class would like to see unfold— Exterminism.

Frase imagines a future where automation is the main means of labor production, hierarchy is still intact, and resources are scarce, therefore making the human working class simultaneously obsolete and dangerous to the ruling elite. He poses the question, “So what happens if the masses are dangerous but are no longer a working class, and hence no value to the rulers? Someone will eventually get the idea that it would be better to get rid of them” (Frase 124). In a world where the exploitation of the working labor, this class would be perceived as an inconvenience to the elite class because its members could potentially demand more power. In a hierarchal society, the solution to this problem would be extermination. I am aware this idea should seem very fictional and outlandish; “Exterminism as a solution to prevent egalitarianism? No way!” Unfortunately, I see this postcapitalistic alternative as a realistic future, especially when considering the history of the enslavement and violence against African Americans in the United States.

The U.S. institution of slavery exploited, abused, and dehumanized millions of African Americans for over 200 years. African Americans proved to be the working labor class in the U.S., especially in the American South, in which individuals were forced into unpaid labor. The unpaid and cheap labor African Americans provided allowed the U.S. to flourish agriculturally, however, when slavery ended African Americans suddenly became a threat to many Southern whites, who now viewed them as invaluable and a threat to their financial pockets. As a result, U.S. policies associated with the black codes and Jim Crow were enforced as an attempt to subdue the social mobility of African Americans. To make matters worse, in an attempt to eradicate the black population, Southern Caucasians began lynching African Americans in order to maintain their superior status in U.S. society and erase any threat they posed to their social mobility. According to the NAACP, between 1882 and 1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred throughout the U.S. The black population accounted for over half of the lynchings (72.2%) of individuals who were lynched (source). Obviously, black Americans were lynched by white Americans for a number of reasons, one of them being to “protect white women.” Nonetheless, it proves impossible to dispute the economical threat the flourishing black population held to white Southerners.

(source)

In terms of contemporary society, Frase acknowledges that, “In the United States, the willingness to countenance the elimination of unruly surplus populations is tightly intertwined with racism, though it is unquestionably a class phenomenon as well” (Frase 135). Racially targeted phenomena such as mass incarceration and police brutality against black and brown (Hispanic-Americans) Americans have not only prevented their social mobility, but have also taken innocent lives from these groups. These horrendous occurrences have been revealed with the popularization of social media networks. In spite of this, meaningful change has still not been enacted to directly fix the problem.

Exterminism is indeed the darkest alternative to capitalism Frase suggests, however, I think it is important to acknowledge the fine line between the real and speculative in this imaginable “future.”

[whysojaded-blog1]

Course Post #7: Decommodification: A Plausible Transition to Communism in the U.S.?

“The way I choose to live my own life rates time and space as real luxuries.”- Ben Eliot

A significant amount speculation has formed around the idea of dismantling capitalism and moving into a post-capitalistic society where automation could serve as the labor market’s primary means of production. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, automation consists of replacing the vast majority of human labor with machine labor; individuals would not have to work as much and would be able to dedicate their time to other activities. Throughout the history of our labor market, automation—the idea of human labor being significantly reduced—has received a significant amount of backlash because many people are fearful of losing their jobs.

However, in his book Four Futures: Life After Capitalism, Peter Frase explains that individuals are afraid of losing their jobs to machines or working shorter hours because they believe this correlates to giving up luxuries of our technologically advanced society like smartphones, television, and the Internet (Frase 16). However, Frase invalidates this common assumption by revealing that reducing work time can actually reduce the overall cost of living because it would give people time to do activities they would normally have to pay someone else to do. Therefore, if work reduction becomes a social priority, work hours could gradually be reduced in line with increases in productivity, allowing people to work less and still maintain the same standard of living (Frase 16). This type of lifestyle, where people are no longer defined by their labor, would obviously require a shift out of capitalism. Frase suggests communism as one of the four alternatives to a capitalistic society. He doesn’t attempt to prescribe a definite solution of how society could shift from capitalism to communism, but rather speculates a few ideas that could set us in the right direction; one of these methods is the decommodification of labor.

 Decommodifying labor would provide wageworkers the opportunity to survive without having to sell their labor just to make a living. Frase cites Swedish sociologist Gøsta Esping-Anderson in explaining the decommodification of labor as, “the situation in which [people] can procure [their] basic needs—housing, healthcare, or just money—without having to take a job . . .[they] get these things as a right of being a citizen, rather than in return for doing something…”(Frase 51). Speculatively, this idea seems pretty great and fair for all, but realistically I’m not sure if this idea is very promising for undocumented immigrants in the United States. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2014, there was an estimated 11 million of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. and 8 million of them were of working age. Moreover, in a study conducted in 2016, undocumented immigrants were found to provide $500 billion of economic output per year (source).

 These statistics state the obvious: undocumented immigrants make up a large majority of the U.S. labor force. Therefore, if society were to utilize the decommodification of labor as a path to a communist society, how would this impact undocumented immigrants in the U.S.? The whole point of decommodifying labor is to create a situation where necessities such as housing, healthcare, and money are an innate right to citizens of a society. Gaining citizenship in the U.S. is unquestionably difficult, time consuming, and expensive for a large portion of individuals. If an individual exists as an undocumented citizen in a communist society, where gaining citizenship is not easy, what will they have to do in order to obtain the same survival necessities as citizens? I speculate these individuals would be forced to work, probably at lower wages, in order to obtain the same necessities that are given to people who are citizens.

Ideally, the decommodification of labor could work as a possibility toward a post-capitalistic, communist society in the U.S. However, I think it’s important to acknowledge that this method would not be productive, and possibly even harmful, to individuals who are not documented in society.

[alwaysbewoke]

How “Black Panther” Is Bringing Afrofuturism Into The Mainstream

[whysojaded-blog1]

Course Post #6: The Limitations of Fashion Tech: Can Technology Completely  Merge with the Fashion Industry?

 “Fashion is capitalism, and it will be fixed by what the market demands.”- Cameron Russell

(fashionnerd.com)

In recent years, technology continues to make its way into the fashion industry, cultivating the idea that the current fashion industry is becoming to antiquated and needs a “push” to make it become more technologically savvy. In October 2017, the 4th Annual Fashion Tech Forum Conference (founded by Karen Harvey in 2013) was held in Los Angeles, California where many fashion and tech leaders came together to discuss the identity crisis currently staring the fashion industry right in the face: technology is taking over a myriad of global industries, including fashion. In fact, rapper and producer, will.i.am, spoke at the forum stating, “Fashion has not realized how their jobs are not going to be around 10-20 years from now… [Fashion brands] better start thinking of how to bring new things to people or else the G is not going to be a freaking Gucci, that shit is going to be Google” (Blaha). There seems to be a significant push back from popular brands in the fashion industry in implementing technology into their collections; the fashion industry produces what will sell to its consumers, and apparently fashion enthusiasts don’t like the idea of having a belt buckle with bluetooth. However, it’s obvious the tech industry proceeds to make leaps toward being more “fashion savvy,” especially with popularized tech gadgets such as the Apple Watch and Google Glass. Why are fashion designers refusing to become more technologically innovative with their collections? 

In their book, Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming, Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, since all design to some extent is future oriented, design should be used as a means of speculation, evoking imagination, and creating spaces for discussion about alternative ways of living, thus redefining our relationship to reality (Dunne, Raby). The fashion industry needs to develop new alternatives in their collections not created under capitalist incentives; it could do this in terms of identifying weak spots in popular fashion trends, changing them, further improving the near future. 

Some fashion brands, although scarce, are actually starting to develop technologically innovative materials to create their collections. For example, Chromat, a fashion brand specializing in architectural swim and athletic wear for women, is currently taking broad steps in merging with the tech industry. Chromat, founded by Becca McCharen-Tran in 2010, produces its collections by exploring the intersection of architecture, fashion, and technology in order to create pieces that “augment and enhance the body’s performance through innovative design and  cutting edge technical fabrics” (source). Chromat’s Fall/Winter 2016 “Lumina Collection,” collaborated with Intel Innovation, StretchSense, and Nitemind teams to develop garments that serve as an extension of the human body’s sensory systems, creating a kind of biomimicry. Since biomimicry uses nature to solve complex human problems, the garments are able to customize their shape and adapt to the wearer’s environment.  In fact, famous entertainers like Beyoncé, Zendaya, and Taylor Swift are avid supporters of Chromat. Although Chromat is future oriented to some extent, it’s not as speculative as some fashion design. 

 “Couture in Orbit” is a student outreach program, initiated by the European Space Agency, currently developing  materials and technology in their designs that are a spin-off from the space industry. Seeing the future human inhabitation of other planets inevitable, these fashion design students are attempting to develop garments that would be suitable for living conditions in outer space. Using materials like bionic yarn, the students are imagining a future where an age of normalized commercial space travel. Couture in Orbit has received an extensive amount of backlash from the mainstream fashion industry in claiming the garments of the collections are clunky and “costumey,” and therefore could never be considered “fashion.” 

In my opinion, the main problem remains that the fashion industry only produces collections it knows consumers will buy. Fashion consumers do not consider commercialized space travel when trying to decide between a $400 pair of Valentino heels and a $1,000 pair of Gucci loafers; they want what is “trendy” at the time. Fashion designers realize this about their customer base, and thus will not take the risk of becoming less antiquated and more technologically innovative in their collection as long as they are driven by capitalist incentives. Recent studies show that while traditionally fashion designers were expected to produce at least two collections per year, they are now expected to produce four collections per year to increase revenue (source). Although parts of the fashion industry are making significant progress technologically, speculative fashion design definitely has not developed as far as it could. As long as the fashion industry is driven by capitalist incentives, it will prove nearly impossible for fashion, technology, and speculative design to merge as one industry.  

[whysojaded-blog1]

Course Post #5: Will Hip-Hop Always Be Haunted By It’s Past?

“The past has become part of the present in ways simply unimaginable in earlier centuries.”- Andreas Hussan, Present Pasts:  Urban Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory

 Hip-hop (Rap) music, developed during the mid-1970s in New York City, can easily be considered one of the most frequently circulated music genres in American pop culture. The practice of sampling has transformed rap music into a distinctive music genre. Sampling pieces of older music (of all genres), vocals, and even quoting lyrics from older music artists remains an integral part of rap music today. Furthermore, The practice of sampling continues to become more feasible and affordable due to technological advances in music-making digital tools and of course, the Internet. 

According to media theorist Roy Christopher, “Hip-hop’s practice of sampling and manipulating sounds and voices lends itself to haunting… The DJ in Hip-hop combines and reanimates bits and pieces of old recorded history to create new compositions” (Christopher). Sampling tools provide rap producers the freedom to incorporate any type of musical composition or vocals into their work, even the voices of deceased music artists.

 For example, in 2004, American rapper Eminem produced a posthumous Tupac Shakur album entitled Loyal to The Game, almost nine years after the legendary rapper was shot and killed in Las Vegas. Eminem, after receiving the approval of Tupac’s mother, Afeni Shakur, created a whole album incorporating Tupac’s vocals on every track by remixing and modifying a cappella lyrics Tupac had recorded before his death. Also, by utilizing digital tools, Eminem was able to cut and paste the vocals to produce new words corresponding to the rap culture of the time. In this way, rap music represents a hauntology in its use of the ghosts of dead performers; they continue to release records and in some cases continue to perform with living artists made possible by holograms. According to James Bridle, our society fetishizes nostalgia too much, which is an issue because it creates the idea that authenticity is only available in the past. Bridle states, “I think we are frightened and I think we are distrustful and we are worried that things are slipping away” (Bridle). Bridle believes hauntology often fails because it asserts a “backwards/forwards” model of time, resurrecting a past that is still too enthralled in pure nostalgia.

I believe the hip-hop music industry is beginning to struggle with the idea of nostalgia slowly slipping away from its culture. In recent years, a new generation of rappers are beginning to emerge into the hip-hop industry who don’t seem to pay the same level of homage to “classic rap” as earlier rap artists have shown over the years.  For example, during an interview in 2016, rapper Lil’ Yachty told Pitchfork that Biggie Smalls was “overrated.” The new generation of rap artists do not sample pieces of older music and vocals as often as their predecessors; they are creating a new type of rap music that makes hardcore hip-hip fans uncomfortable because the music is not embracing the hip-hop community’s sense of history and lineage. As a rap music enthusiast, I can honestly say this new generation of rap artists makes me uncomfortable because they are not embracing Hip-hop as a form of hauntology. If nostalgia is an integral part of rap music, I wonder how these artists’ radical musical styles will effect the Hip-hop genre as a collective.

Sources: 

Roy, Christopher: http://roychristopher.com/floating-signifiers-the-haunting-of-hip-hop-by-the-ghosts-of-emcees-passed#_edn23

Bridle, James: http://booktwo.org/notebook/hauntological-futures/

[joeinct]

James Baldwin, Colored Entrance, North Carolina, Durham, Photo by Steve Schapiro, 1963

[whysojaded-blog1]

Course Post #4: (S)Exit At Your Own Risk

“Our machines are disturbingly lively, and we ourselves frighteningly inert.”

–Donna Haraway

It’s pretty obvious that our world is becoming more technologically savvy day by day. New technological innovations such as Siri, Alexa, and even sex robots are dominating mainstream social media conversation (i.e. Twitter, Facebook); people seem simultaneously fascinated, amused, and creeped out by the technological capabilities of society’s new gadgets. As I gaze over all the social media commentary concerning all of these new technological gadgets, coming from a myriad of individuals of different sexes and genders, I’ve never seen critiques addressing how femininely gendered all of these technologies are.   Instead as a scroll through my Twitter feed, I come across stupid memes like this: 

It seems to me, when it comes to sex robots anyway, that men believe women will suffer and begin to feel displaced once these male sexual pleasure oriented gadgets find their way into mainstream, everyday tech-life. That for some reason, women will be the ones to suffer the consequences of the (white) patriarchy’s attempt to “exit” the gendered social hierarchy they created and continue to reinforce. In her keynote, “Exit and the Extensions of Man,” Sarah Sharma notes that,”Exit is an exercise of patriarchal power, a privilege that occurs at the expense of cultivating and sustaining conditions of collective autonomy.” Exit is a privilege women have never experienced, considering we have always been unable to willingly leave relations or spheres that feel unjust or unfair to us. Women have always been displaced and devalued in society and we’ve constantly fought against the capitalist patriarchy in order to gain an equal foothold. Sharma claims “exit” is a male fantasy that is linked to the rising structure of feeling that relates directly to male disposability. Wealthy, white men are having to deal with the thought of losing their status of superiority…again.  

Techies are extending and further normalizing the heterosexist gendered lines when creating new technologies like sex robots in order to satisfy their capitalist incentives. Technologies like these are only created to satisfy male sexual desire and create an abundance of wealth for the white patriarchy. Not only will women not benefit from these technologies, heterosexist gendered lines will now exist in the tech-world and the real world.

 What happens when techies start to push further? What happens when techies figure out how to create an even more lifelike version of an A.I. robot, like Sophia, solely built for male sexual pleasure? More importantly, what if it can develop a consciousness and starts to feel devalued and violated like women do today? 

Proceed with caution, Patriarchal Techies. I can’t imagine how displaced you’ll feel in the face of a bunch of pissed off A.I. female robots. 

[whysojaded-blog1]

Course Post#3: Who Are the Architects of Our Future?

“Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.”-Albert Einstein 

Since I’ve started this blog, I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking about our society's technological progress and how all of it could potentially impact our future. It’s pretty obvious that my last two posts both critique Capitalism in some way and I suppose this post could be interpreted as another Capitalist critique as well. I did not intend for this blog to focus so heavily on Capitalism, but it is hard to think about technological innovation and progress without also considering what role Capitalist incentives play in all of this progress. 

Across the globe, industrialized societies are starting to make leaps toward urbanized intelligence, or “smart cities.” Optimally, the smart technologies implemented into these cities would enable governance of public spaces, greener living spaces for residents, better energy flow, easier transportation, and improved overall health of the urban population (Meadows, Kouw). The term “smart technologies” is being used as an all-encompassing term for “information and communication technologies,” (ICTs) which refers to things like sensors, big-data processing facilities, wearable technologies, and cars that drive on their own. However, apparently there’s been some backlash from scholars who argue against “techno-optimism,” believing increased control over public spaces and neglecting the participation and involvement of citizens in developing these cities could end badly. In their article, “Future-Making: Inclusive Design and Smart Cities,” Maureen Meadows and Matthijs Kouw suggest an inclusive methodology in developing a vision for smart city designs, which would increase the participation and involvement of multiple stakeholders; they believe this would create a “single shared vision of the future.” Meadows and Kouw claim that the first step in developing a vision is the “identification of stakeholders.” Basically, before developing a vision, we must know who will actively support the cause and who will try and sabotage it. This inclusive method for developing a vision of the future seems possible, but leaves me wondering who will be the stakeholders and more importantly, what will they want? 

Currently, our society’s corporations and institutions are driven by accumulating money and power, even if it is at the expense of the majority of society. Corporate entities and institutions are so heavily focused on exponential growth for the sake of progress, which creates unconstrained growth (Joichi Ito). This becomes an issue concerning the technological Singularity—the idea the Artificial Intelligence will eventually transcend human productivity with its exponential growth, ultimately displacing humans as a collective—because of the limited number of people in Silicon Valley who actually have the experience of using AI to solve problems. According to Joichi Ito’s article, “Resisting Reduction: A Manifesto,” mega companies located in Silicon Valley have formed a perfect partnership with digital computation because it is a knowable, controllable, system of thinking and creating that is rapidly increasing its ability to harness complex information, thus giving wealth and power to those who have mastered it. Furthermore, these individuals believe computers are capable of processing the “messiness” of the real world, just like every other problem they are able to solve. Basically, Singularity supporters believe computers can find solutions to social issues such as racial and gender inequality.

This leads back to my earlier question concerning urbanized intelligence—Who will be the stakeholders and what will be their incentives in helping create smart cities? If the incentives of our stakeholders are purely capitalistic and driven by power (like Silicon Valley’s “Singularitarians”), will smart technologies really be beneficial to all groups of people in urbanized communities? I strongly believe if we want to move toward smart cities and smart technologies, we have to start finding ways to move past Capitalism first if we ever want to rid our society of socio-economic inequalities. If the incentives of stakeholders involved in developing smart cities are to accumulate unconstrained wealth and power, how do we avoid the exploitation of a large majority of society? I think we need to consider these questions in order to truly develop a better future.

[whysojaded-blog1]

Course Post #2: “Please Sir, May I Have Some More?”

“When the people decide to live, Destiny will obey, Darkness will disappear And chains will be broken.” -Paul Mason

Since 2007, Apple has consecutively released a new model of the iPhone every year, ending with their most recent model: the iPhone X. Some of the iPhone X’s new features include user-only lock screen notifications, face ID (saving time when logging into websites), fancier photo editing, and even a tap-to-wake capability (simply tapping your screen to check your battery life and the time). Of course, these are just a few of the most popular iPhone X features.

Every year, the iPhone’s design has continuously changed, but not too much -- we can always tell it’s an iPhone, but just a “new and improved” version of its predecessor. Also, we are exposed to new and improved technological features-- Apple may add a few new features, but not too many new features, but just enough to "quench the thirst” of iPhone users until their next annual release. 

It is worth noting, with every release of an iPhone, Apple makes sure present a new design that operates within what Venkatesh Rao calls the, “user experience design.” In his article, “Welcome to the Future Nauseous”, Rao states that, “the whole point of user experience design is to manufacture the necessary normalcy for a product to succeed and get integrated into the Field.” Rao is referring to the “Manufactured Normalcy Field,” which he describes as a “familiar sense of a static, continuous present.” In order for a new technological product to successfully make it into the Field, it must not be capable of altering user experiences too significantly, even if current technology has already shifted  in a radical direction. Rao makes it clear that, “just because something [a product] is technologically feasible does not mean it can be psychologically normalized into the Field.” Basically, we are all oblivious to the full technological potential of our iPhones (and other products), which is why it is so easy for Apple to give us a few “crumbs” (new features) with each new iPhone release. Each year, consumers pay hundreds of dollars for a new iPhone that will do a few cooler tricks than the previous model, but essentially they all have the same basic functions and technological features. 

The Manufactured Normalcy Field is what fuels Capitalism. In his essay, “Parasites on the Body of Capital,” Steven Shaviro describes Capitalism as  one big paradox because it operates by creating abundance, but then transforms this abundance into an imposed scarcity (46). Capitalism creates abundance, but then creates scarcity, to make everyone believe we live in a society where resources are lacking. This is essentially what Apple does to its consumers in terms of the technological potential of its products. Apple plays on a weakness we all share: infinite desire. In the words of William Blake, “less than All cannot satisfy man.” In other words, we are always wanting because we believe resources are scarce. I’m sure Apple has long discovered the full technological potential of the iPhone, which creates a sort of mirage amongst its consumers, making them believe that Apple is actually making new yearly technological discoveries to incorporate into its products. If Apple showed us all the cool, tech-features they’ve been hiding up their sleeve all at once, they wouldn’t make any money. This is their business strategy. 

In my opinion, if we gathered every iPhone user around the world and revealed the full technological capabilities of their “pacifiers,” the smell of vomit would be unbearable and we would definitely need a plethora of mops and Pepto-Bismol.

[technocular]

Long dead poet brought back to life with AI

A new animated facial reconstruction of the Scottish poet Robert Burns reciting one of his own poems has been created.

Researchers recreated the famous poet’s face using the latest 3D digital technology from a cast of Burns’ skull.

Robert Burns was born on January 25 ,1759 and died on July 21, 1796 and is widely regarded as the national poet of Scotland.

He was a high-ranking member of the Freemasons.

With the rise of extremely life-like robots, 3D augmentation of dead people could soon be merged with AI ‘bodies’ making things that much creepier.

[whysojaded-blog1]

this... makes me uncomfortable. 

[whysojaded-blog1]

Course Post #1- Automation: An Automatic Solution to Prevent Future Inequality?

“I believe profoundly in the possibilities of democracy, but democracy needs to be emancipated from capitalism. As long as we inhabit a capitalist democracy, a future of racial equality, gender equality, economic equality will elude us.” -Angela Davis

For about 200 years, Capitalism has been the only economic and political system to operate within Western society, especially the United States. Of course, in a society primarily dominated by wealthy, upper-class white men, upholding the Capitalist economic structure has always been the primary goal of our leaders. Without Capitalism, the United States’ rich, white male leaders would not be able to become wealthier and in turn, American minority groups wouldn’t be subjected to racism, sexism, and poverty. 

Drawing on William Gibson’s famous quote, Tim Chatterton and Georgia Newmarch’s article, “The Future is Already Here-- It’s Just Not Evenly Distributed,” explores possible technological solutions to prevent a future where our current societal issues involving racial, gender, and economic inequality would no longer exist. One of the main methods Chatterton and Newmarch suggest in preventing inequality from trickling into future society is to change and restructure our current economic system; they suggest we should move into an era of postcapitalism. They believe one of the most obvious ways to do this is through automation. Automation: The use of largely automatic equipment in a system of manufacturing or other production process. In other words, the amount of labor the working class would have to endure would decrease exponentially because of labor-eliminating technologies doing the majority of the work. Therefore, the unemployed and working class would have an opportunity to determine their own futures, while participating in society’s future narrative. Chatterton and Newmarch suggest automation would provide a reprieve to the current problem involving the division of labor within our society and would ultimately create a, “fully automated luxury communism.” Ideally, I would love to see these changes happen. No more racism. No more sexism. No more starving and homeless Americans. However, would there not be some kind of backlash from completely adopting automation into our society? Would the wealthy, powerful, and privileged citizens of our society not fight to the death to secure their places in the upper echelon? 

A large majority of existing sci-fi narratives involving future technologies such as AI, cyborgs, robots, and androids depict this exact narrative. In these not-so-far-off futuristic narratives, the people benefiting from a current, unequal socio-economic system suddenly start to feel disempowered, resentful, and fearful because they see their wealth and privilege escaping from their greedy grasps. Realistically, isn’t this the same concept that encouraged racist policies like the black codes, Jim Crow laws, and even the horrible lynching era of black Americans after slavery became outlawed?

Do I agree with Chatterton and Newmarch’s suggestion of automation in the labor market? Yes. I think this idea would help give EVERYONE an equal foothold in the future of our society. However, it is hard for me to believe that implementing automation would provide a speedy fix. I think other institutional structures would need to be dismantled before we could tackle the hairy beast called Capitalism. 

[whysojaded-blog1]

[whysojaded-blog1]

[cyfiware]