Care to Elaborate....

How do the kids know and what do we say

2009-11-08T23:03:00.000-08:00

I’m curious to hear how the knowledge you gain from this site or others regarding emerging technologies translates to your kids. If you don’t have them have you thought about them in relation to the larger topics? As adults we talk about emerging technologies, but I wonder how much we factor in kids and their futures in our discussions. I’m not talking about designer babies. I’m talking about things like life-casting, global catastrophic risks and human enhancement to name just three that popped in to my mind.

With life-casting, I’ve looked at the articles, very interesting stuff. I’ve been wrestling with my opinions about it and whether or not I think I could do it or not. Then tonight, it hit me. If this takes off and people in society at large do adopt it, when exactly do we want those memories we are recording to start? I could have missed this discussion and if I did, please send it to me, but how would it be to have kids life-casting? What are the ethics involved in this? Not to mention what was life like as a child that I would want to see again. Nostalgically it would be great to have documented my life and be able to go back and see my mother young and illness free. HOWEVER, there is that whole awkward grade school & high school phase. My last name was Winternheimer, so there was a bit of name calling.

Aside from the awkward childhood moments, how young would we, as a society, be willing to go? Would there be a legal age and if so when? What about implanting a recording device in utero? It would be very cool to see that experience and then on up through life wouldn’t it? But just because we can, should we? I don’t have the answers yet myself.

So let’s move to global catastrophic risks, a topic that is something that deals, in my opinion with some educational issues. Are we talking about these types of scenarios and plans with the next generations? Or, better phrased, are we talking about science, math and applying critical thought to future scenarios? So that they can weigh in the options of what just might come about and how we can help out our fellow man. I read recently the idea of we need more cool scientists, something the kids want to be when they grow up. I know some of you, and damn it, you’re cool! You have a passion for what you do, and kids need to see that passion and feel that passion. (Read the intro to The Canon by Natalie Angier)

Finally, human enhancement which is a topic that kids probably have heard more about even if they don’t directly know they have. So, what do they know? Is it worth a discussion with them? I think so. I think that there is value in talking with them about grandma’s heart that is a machine and not the one she was born with. I go back again to the wonder of science. For example, when the time came when my mom was ill, I talked with my son about science and technology. We talked about what helped keep her alive and with us much longer than she should have. When Obama talked about science & technology in regards to medicine, my son knew what that meant for people out there. Is it using the terminology of enhancement that makes people step back? There are many different types of enhancement where are we in society when it comes to the discussions with kids?

The point I’m trying to make is that there are lot of questions to be asked and it seems that the discussion is an important one to have. It would be nice to see abundance in the next generation that is able to understand the technologies that are discussed, but to also be critics and skeptics as necessary.

Part II: Jon and Kate Plus Truman

2009-10-19T12:36:00.000-07:00

It’s been four months since I mentioned there would be a Part Two of Jon and Kate Plus Plastic Surgery. Since then I have learned never again to make a promise to a sequel article. The sequel has haunted me and set expectations of what to write I didn’t want to live up to. So here it is. I hope the stream of consciousness works for you the way it works in my head.

To start off, I must address what I promised in Jon and Kate, for this second part I wanted to move to the kids. When I think about the kids I can’t help remember watching The Truman Show. When The Truman Show came out it was stunning to me. The film was illustrative, to me, of what happens when we get a great technology, don’t think about the technology, and decide to use it however we see fit. In the film, it shows how, in the beginning of the show there was the in utero camera to watch Truman. From there it goes on to show, how with each recording technology that was invented, the producers where able to watch more and more of Truman’s life. With the growth and adaptations of the technology the viewers or voyeurs were able to become a part of Truman’s life and his journey’s right along with him. A huge building was resurrected to contain Truman and until the very end the audience watched with anticipation. In the movie, there was only the one voice of reason that continued to point out that the situation was wrong, Truman’s love.

No what in the world does this have to do with ethics and emerging technologies you might ask? Well, while it is not super cool nanotech or dealing with global catastrophic risks it has to do with the technology and society of the present. Because even though people saw The Truman Show, felt for Truman in his captivity and was upset with the voyeurism of the audience. Even though as a movie audience we might have walked away thinking, well, that was just wrong of them to do when they had the technology and vision to do it. We did not heed the movie’s point about doing it. Now, I realize you readers might not be fans of Jon and Kate Plus Eight, but I’m sure you’ve seen the headlines. An audience, admittedly me included up until the last year, we watched these children. We didn’t stop and make an action to the fact that maybe we shouldn’t be so involved in these children’s lives. We watched every week waiting, like the Truman fans, for what the Gosselins did this week. Truman got out before things went too far. The Gosselin 8 are not out of it yet, and we still watch and they are still in the news.

So my concern is with the general public and us and the decisions we make went it comes to emerging technologies. When a new technological tool comes to us, are we going to think, or are we just going to use it. Are we thinking about the people involved? How shameless of me to say think of the children, but in this instance what of them? Were they really thought of over the dollars, over the ability to do something? Once the wheels of the show, for example, were set in motion it’s not very easy to stop. These children, unlike Truman, can’t walk away when they figure out what is going on in a larger context. The importances of discussions by the IEET are to explore and discuss ideas of emerging technologies, global catastrophic risks, etc. before they become an everyday reality. The societal aspects of interaction with the technologies and use of the technologies seems important too. I don’t want to be stuck in the sphere with Truman and the Gosselins.

Artificial Intelligence and "Waking Life"

2009-08-11T08:57:00.000-07:00

I am little late to the scene, but I recently read Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs by Chuck Klosterman. A fantastic read for those who haven't read it yet. In the book he talks about several movies which I am going to try to watch. The first one I watched was Waking Life. Wow, I'm glad I saw this movie. I was a little disappointed by the ending, but hey, the rest of the movie was incredible. What was really fascinating for me was the ideas this film conjured up and questions that I had as I watched it.

This inspired me to post this blog because I am curious if any of you know any of these answers, since you are a thoughtful bunch.

The first of which pertains to artificial intelligence and robots. It was great to read Mike Treder's article today Making Dogs Smarter than Humans about creating articial intelligence like our good best friends, dogs. Well-timed for what I'm asking I think. I was wondering if time would be or is a dimension for artificial intelligence or robots? Do these 'minds' know time as it passes or will/are they a creation that will transcend this dimension? Does time apply to them other than the needs of us humans?

In Futurama, Bender is unaware of time. In Neuromancer the artificial intelligence, Armitage, and The Dixie Flatline also have no concept of time, it's a joke even, "where have you been?"

And if artificial intelligence doesn't 'know' or need time, then what are the affects for us? If there are any. What does this mean? If anything.

Thoughts inspired by the news of the day

2009-08-04T20:25:00.000-07:00

School should teach or at least educate in science and the cool facets of technology and science. Show kids the wonder and beauty of it, to appreciate it for what it is. I know we need to know the meat and bones of it. I know that. But for all my years of science in school, I didn’t truly appreciate it until I was older, when it was shown to me in a new interesting light. The fascination was a drug for me. I fell in love with fractals, dimensions, virtuality, flowers, animals, everything around is a wonder. Something I pass on to my kids. It didn’t make me want to become a scientist that is not my area to be in. But there are others areas of science to be involved in. That is why I was drawn to the IEET. So that I can do what I’m good at, this is examining and talking about ethics and emerging technologies. Those that can do and those that can’t teach, I can’t so I’m a grad student and a journalist for h+. It satisfies my loves and passions. But going back to what I was saying about science. There is so beauty, mystery and excitement to be had by those involved in teaching and exploring science and its wonders. People dedicate their lives to one solitary thing that may or may not affect us all and even then that affect may be small or large. It doesn’t matter though. Kids I don’t know if they get that. There are roles models in sports and there are the people on TV that they see. But in school are they getting this? Are they getting that there are people out there doing fantastical explorations of minute things? Is science a part of our culture? Technology is, but only on an adoption level. The hype is created and the adoption comes after. Does society think about what technology should be or what they want? Or do they wait for the “creators” to come up with it and the marketers to tell them what they want and why? Do they depend on people to filter through these decisions for them in a back seat approach to their lives? What if a great invention comes along without any funding or marketing and dies, does anyone care? A global catastrophic risk is something I know, but don’t understand enough. This doesn’t make it unimportant, if fact I think it is important for people, me included to know more about.

Jon & Kate plus Plastic Surgery

2009-07-07T18:19:00.000-07:00

I have watched Jon & Kate plus 8 since the beginning. For those of you who don’t know this is a show about a mother and father who had a set of twins and then a set of sextuplets, totaling eight children. For those of who are wondering why I am doing a two-part musing of this show and don’t like reality TV I say give it a chance, again. There is a lot to see in reality TV other than people making a debacle of their lives and I have watched my fair share of it.

For this first part of my look a Jon & Kate plus 8 I am going to focus on the cosmetic plastic surgeries that have taken place within this husband and wife. I am going to look at the possibilities that these procedures affects on the relationship of the couple, their family and ultimately as we now know the downturn of their marriage.

Ok, back when this show started we were able to see into the life of a regular couple and how they were coping with raising eight kids. This was no easy feat and the mother, Kate, was a controlling mother. In her defense to those who do not like her, it’s hard to maintain order, organization and cleanliness in a house of only three kids, let alone eight. Give the woman a break for doing it with more kids and less money. She was a normal looking mom, frazzled in sweatpants and t-shirts with baby mess on her. Her hair was low maintenance and so was her make-up. Who can fault her with eight kids? She showed us her stomach, which was nicknamed the ‘jowls of the dog’. I empathized with her and her sagging stomach riddled with stretch marks and never to look or be the same. I haven’t have six kids in my stomach but I knew what it felt like having had three and not being blessed with genes that prevented stretch marks. She was real and her stomach a testament to what she had been through. What mom out there in the same stomach boat as Kate and me wouldn’t want a tummy tuck to eradicate what Mother Nature did to us?

And then, somewhere out there a wife of a plastic surgeon saw the episode where Kate showed her stomach and thought she should do something. Actually, she thought her husband should, so they contacted Jon & Kate and offered her a tummy tuck, worth and estimated $5-7,000. As a viewer I was elated and jealous of Kate and her generous gift. Viewers watched the whole process through the series. However, something else happened after this surgery, something I don’t think that plastic surgeon’s wife, the show, Kate or her husband anticipated. Kate not only looked better, she felt better. With this newfound self-esteem Kate started to change.

Time went on and the bossing from Kate to her husband continued, only a little more forcefully with Jon. He kept nodding and doing what she said. The offers to make this couple better kept coming. On the show the couple was offered teeth whitening. They drink a lot of coffee to keep up with eight kids, again, who can blame them. So now Kate had whiter teeth to go with her great stomach.

Something else, Kate’s hair started to change, it was similar, but better. The cut was still easy to maintain, but now it had highlights and product in it most of the time. Kate started tanning to have that great glow. The sweat pants were replaced with an episode when they went to Banana Republic to buy Kate a new wardrobe.

Now, I don’t know how many of you have one spouse working and ten mouths to feed, but generally you don’t see people like that shopping at BR or having the time to go out tanning and keeping up their highlights. Kate wanted to look nicer since she could fit into clothes better again, without that excess skin from carrying six children. They were making more money off the show and had the excess cash to do all of this. Kate is not alone though, Jon was offered hair plugs and there was a whole show on that.

So, to recap, the family’s life was to be documented to show how it was to raise eight kids and through that notoriety the parents have become way better looking. The money that has come from the show has enabled this betterment of appearance and someone to be a personal assistant to Kate and watch the kids while Jon & Kate are away.

I’ve watched as this all was going on slowly growing more distant, until this summer when I heard about them separating. This was a couple that was, for what it appeared on the outside to be in a loving relationship. Tense at times, but loving, and most couples have these tense moments not in front of millions, so I will give them a little leniency. But going back to the transformation of Kate you can’t help notice that the better Kate looks, the more self-confident she gets. Of course you say, who doesn’t. However, lets look at it from another perspective, take out reality TV.

We have a homely mother who just gave birth to eight kids. She’s a normal for all intensive purposes mother. She’s not famous, she’s not known, she’s just someone who shops at Wal-mart. Her appearance is less than marketable from a procreation stand-point, with the stomach etc. She’s loved by her husband for giving up her body and self for the children. Now, you step in to this family’s lives and you give her a complete make-over and make her the woman she could have only dreamed to be before. You make her thin, sassy, fashionable, overall a desirable sexual commodity. Then you put her back in her house with her eight kids and walk away. She has great self-esteem, but isn’t it possible that with this newfound self-esteem and body she might think to herself, I’m hot! I can do better! People want me now! Even though, she’s still in the same life essentially as before.

Now, when you get this intense of a make-over and can hire someone to watch your kids instead of you being the stay-at-home mom, wouldn’t that change a person? Is it that unrealistic to see that they are splitting up? Jon has new hair, whiter teeth and new clothes, he’s marketable, and people want him. Kate has hair, teeth, skin, clothes and when she gets in the bedroom without the “jowls of the dog” it’s probably not as easy to see she laid in bed to give birth to six kids. She’s sexy, marketable and people want her too.

So I digress back to the cosmetic plastic surgery and the woman sitting at home watching the TV show, this woman whose husband was a plastic surgeon and turned to husband and said to do some good, help this poor mother of eight out and give her something that was taken away from her. I can imagine it being both a charity good deed and good PR for the husband’s company, but in the end were Jon & Kate ready for what it meant to their family?

I see this family as a glimpse further into the responsibilities that need to be taken with cosmetic plastic surgery. It makes you feel good, that’s great! I would love a tummy tuck too, but it’s about more than just wanting it. There are many other factors at play than a person and their surgeon. I think it’s time for the cosmetic surgery community and all those working in these types of vanity industries to take pause and think farther into the lives of the people they are affecting. Not just them though, there’s a responsibility even more on the people that choose to undergo procedures and to fully understand and appreciate what it is to alter their appearance, even if it is for the best, sometimes for the best of me isn’t enough.

The Death of Self

2008-11-18T18:09:00.000-08:00

Let me start off this entry with a disclaimer. This is an idea and this current blog entry is merely a flushing out of an idea. It isn't meant as a researched thought, but a brainstorming of my thoughts. I generally prefer researching and buffering before posting, but I didn't want to purposefully this time. So before you complain, you have been warned. Why would I post ideas that may have been thought before and not search them out? Because ideas are exciting! And when they first come to you it is a great feeling, a feeling that fades quickly and sadly becomes washed away with the others that came before you. SOmetimes it's not about being the first, it's about getting excited when things fall in to place and you understand them, or are set up to welcome the understanding of the ideas from others. But I digress.

In the time it took me to write the nonsense above the excitement waned. Basically we were watching Nova and it's about black holes, multiple universes, string-theory, etc. I am in a Darwin class, and working on a thesis dealing with an aspect of self, through in to the mix a little Hofstadter and Dennett and a happy mood...you get an idea. An idea about humans and life. The explanation to our son about us, humans, not being around forever. I'm aware of work being done out there today, but even then, will we all 'be' around forever? A link to Martine Rothblatt reminded me that maybe, but that's not exactly my point. The idea that when we die, what's dying, what's left. If you go and get my dear mother and bring her back will 'she' be back, unlikely. I've seen Pet Cemetary, *shivvers*.

So I think about the possibilities of death, I've seen it, I've watched it slowly deteriorate daily my mom, while at the same exact time watching life begin with my daughter, I was pregnant too. The polar opposites of life at the same time. It happens to many people, and for me it was one that I've learned a lot about life and living that a book can't. What is my point here? Well I'm thinking there are options being worked on...I'll get in to in a bit...right now, what's the bottom line. Death is the death of the self. The death of consciousness alone, because the rest of us, while it dies, it continues to live. The bacteria keeps on, keeping on. It's not done living, now the DNA, if you've procreated, it's good. So for now, I'm going to not go there. I just want to look at the self and the bacteria.

Ok, options. Cryonics, I loved Tanya Jones, I like the idea of Cryonics. But what am I bringing back. I'm not sure. What if what comes back isn't me or doesn't know me. I assume that'll be ok, it can be a new me, I would recommend some bodily upgrades, so I guess I can think of this as a build-a-bear situation. And I do NOT be any means intend this as a dig at those affiliated with Cryonics in ANY way. I do not know the potentiality, it's being worked on, and I think it should continue to do so. I like the idea of preserving a shell of me and I think there's potential to combine it with another option. Moving on.

Longevity, I like this, and it works for the self evolutionarily I think. It makes those bacteria keep on working for you and not running away to work for anyone else. The self mastering its biggest obstacle, the loss of it's 'host' of sorts. The goal should be one that most, all but I don't want to be presumptious, should support. No one really wants to die really unless you are miserable and in dire straits pain. I saw this end, and even with all that, my mom still didn't want to die. Her self pulled her through many times her host wanted to turn off. The self did not want to disappear, but the host could no longer sustain itself, what a crappy struggle for power. Ah, but another option is out there...

Martine Rothblatt and her mindloading. I have been fascinated with this for the past almost 2 years. Mindloading the self. I know, it's not possible, ok, fine, then move on to another blog entry, cause in this one, we're going to talk about its possibility. The idea of taking the bacteria, the host out of the equation. With research to go for sure, what if, when someone gets to the end of their straights, the pain too intolerable, the self reluctant but they get an option. One they have planned for their entire lives. Not in an all-consuming way, in a brush my teeth kind of way. Flipping one switch off to transfer and turn off another. My goodness, then if you got the cryonics, you can exist until then you can just 'hang out' in cyberspace until they can get your body back. Or skip the body, and stay in a cyber form. Wow, really, there's ideas and inventions out there working on Augmented Reality, overlaying the virtual onto the real. What if some of the virtual is us uploaded into a cyber form and then overlayed back in to the real world. What a concept! What a time. I'm not forecasting I'm just in awe of the posibilities that lay before us and the people that are working on it while we continue about our days. You could be your avatar, and there would be a new entity. This is not even to factor in the options of cyborg, AI, robots, etc. My my there is so much to ponder.

But in the end, it's all about the self, and how we are fighting as a species to keep our self right where it is. How we are going to capture something that we can't find, identify or grasp entirely? We've thought about it for many, many years, but it's there, in front of us, it's us, how I look forward to exploring this deeper as my self continues it's cycle of age and knowledge.

If you made it this far, thanks for staying with this rambling. I didn't edit, I'm always edited, I thought for this, I'd be raw and let you meet my self. This is me, I am

Wall-E takes over my Two-Year Old and what it can do for the environment

2008-06-20T20:36:00.000-07:00

So, there's a new robot movie coming out...for kids...and humorous enough for adults...don't know if you've heard or not...it's called...Wall-E?? Looks like R.O.B from Nintendo and Number 5 from Short Circut? Cute? Inescapably addictive to young children? That's the one!

Disney-Pixar is the reason for my daughter's current infatuation with, a robot. She's not screaming for a Roomba, she's completely disinterested in the Scooba, I'm not I'd love to have both. For that matter, she could care less about our Robosapian, Roboreptile, mini-sapian thing, or the other -Sapian my son has lurking in his bedroom. All it took was clever marketing, snazzy graphics, and a cute voice/catchphrase, and done, you've got the youth market in a tizzy over robots again.

My daughter is just a hair shy of becoming three and can already do a dead ringer impression of Wall-E. If it was up to her, he'd move in with us tomorrow. We've already purchased the plate and couldn't make it through the store without constant cries of, "There's Wall-E!!", "There he is!!", "Can we get it?! MOM!!". She's two and a marketer's dream, and I know this. It's unavoidable somehow. All she's seen is the teasers like everyone's else with a TV. With the two robots, one say's "Wall-E" in it's cute robo-voice and there's some "At Last" and Wall-E in robo-love and a bra on his eyes. Somehow, that's all it took to make a two-year old fall in love with a robot. Doesn't matter if he's cold steel or if the movie's no good, which I doubt since it's Disney-Pixar, but that's the point I think. It doesn't matter, she's sold, hand's down and so is her brother who's nine.

There are a lot of big topics out there that we want to communicate to children about. Imagine if Disney-Pixar made Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth into a kids version...I'd be planting trees and walking everywhere. And buying a LOT of eco-friendly materials I would imagine. I can see the kids marketing now and product placement with Subway, because they serve healthier fast food that's moreso eco-friendly than the other fast foods. All it takes is clever marketing, snazzy graphics, and a cute voice/catchphrase, and done, you've got the youth market on track to save the environment with ferver.

It just makes me wonder, what else?

What's The Point

2008-06-01T20:03:00.001-07:00

One of the great things about growing older, is running in to yourself as a kid. Now, how did I run into myself? Good question, very existential, and this is where I was as a kid apparently. My husband is always getting on to my son for: "Being my shadow." I'm admittedly a random burst into song person at home. Admit it, some of you are too. Every time he complains I bust in with: "Me and my arrow"..."The Point" by Harry Nilsson. I put this note on my fridge: The Point. I finally went to YouTube this evening to show my husband my weirdness had a...well...a point.

As soon as I heard the songs from the movie I was transported back to my childhood. I watched this movie repeated. I LOVED it!! It's so soothing and it has a point. Old Kristi, meet new Kristi. This movie was instrumental in who I am today. (Except not nearly as mellow, I don't know how that happened as much as I saw it.)

The point that I see today is in my work and studies and interests that I carry and opine on. Most recently The Pistorius Effect. I looked online and could not find the lyrics for The Game from the movie, but if you listen and substitute in Pistorius. It makes you wonder a bit. Are we not letting him, or whoever, not play because they are without their own points? Oblio had a synthetic point that his mother knitted that worked quite well at the game with the assistance of his dog Arrow. The other kids said he's different and can't play, not a natural point (and the dog could move and help him a bit...significant advantage). When Oblio gets his point, all the other points on the citizens disappear, except for his, he finally gets his own.

There are other stories of the outcast trying to get in, Rudolph, but try a new flavor.

For all of you that loved this as a kid, or never knew it, feel fall in love, again.

"If everything has a point,
then I must have one too"

What's your's

The Pistorius Effect

2008-05-24T09:23:00.000-07:00

A lot of discussion has been going around regarding Pistorius. Should he or shouldn't he be allowed to compete for a spot in the Beijing Olympics? If he makes it, should he or shouldn't he be allowed to compete. There’s concern over what this will do to sports in general; what kind of message is it sending out to others; and how it could throw off future comparisons within the sport, making some sports records incomparable.

In Art Caplan’s Opinion piece, he discusses Tiger Woods' laser eye surgery and how he now has better than 20/20 vision. This surgery allows him to continue to compete with vision, not just without glasses or contacts, as with the first surgery, but better than that. Caplan says, "That's why it cannot just be "advantage" that determines whether someone can use technology to compete. The deciding factor is whether something confers a significant, not a slight advantage."

But what about the other sports, like Major League Baseball? What about those players who have gotten the Tommy John surgery? Have these individuals been enhanced, do they have an unfair advantage to those that have not have the surgery? Or what about those players who like Tiger Woods have gotten the laser eye surgery, and are able to tell the difference between a curve ball and a fast ball better than others.

Caplan goes on

"We don’t expect to compare the performances of today to those of the ancient Greeks, but we do expect some ability to compare what happened today to be compared with what happened yesterday, a year ago, a decade ago or even 50 years ago.

It may be fascinating to see who can go the fastest on rocket-powered legs or throw a heavy weight the farthest using performance-enhancing drugs, or genetically engineered muscles. But what you have then is an exhibition or a show, not a sport. In some ways, this is what the professional wrestling and no-rules body building already are.

To be a sport you need something approximating a fair playing field, some boundaries on the attributes of those who compete so they are comparable to one another and some ability to compare today’s performance with those in the not-so-distant past.

That is why I am not sure Oscar Pistorius should compete.

He may not have a marked advantage, but his artificial limbs make him too different from those he competes against, and too unlike those who have raced before. It's not about giving him an opportunity. The issue is that Pistorius risks destroying exactly what he wants to do — compete in a sport."

The previously mentioned surgeries also offer advantages over both today and yesterday’s competitors. Situations arise where an athlete seriously injures himself and, with modern technology, instead of having to retire they are put back together. By putting them back together, and in some cases, back on the playing field as they were before or even better, technology is playing a part in the sports world. A search for 'surgery' on CBSsports.com produced 47,500 results, I acknowledge that not all of these individuals were undergoing corrective or elective surgery to return to the game, but it is still quite a lot.

There is discussion because he has an unfair significant advantage. He’s disabled and he can keep up, maybe not yet qualify, but he can keep up, regardless of his disability. The concern mimics the perspective I had of the American Gladiator. An average guy breaks the boundaries and competes, but hope is that the next competitor will be above average with potential to blow everyone else out of the water. Then, there is the potential for an unfair competition with not everyone being able to get or, rather, need the legs. It’s better to keep the competitors separate, the Paralympians and the Olympians, so they are on a level playing field.

The significant advantage everyone’s examining is still there for those willing to play regardless of the competition in the Olympics. Pistorius and others like him can still compete in the Paralympics with their “advantage”. Will the athletes of the Paralympics also be comparable within the past 50 years? Can the artificial limbs of 50 years ago be comparable to those of today in competition? Is the Paralympic committee ok with all of this lack of comparison or are their records already taking into account the differences in technology?

I have two scenarios; granted there could be more, please share them.

Scenario 1:

Pistorius competes in the Beijing Olympics, he places whatever. Others like him are inspired and also try out. Not guaranteed a position based on sympathy, but on capability, like everyone else. Those who can meet the competition minimums will compete, those who can’t won’t.

Scenario 2:

Pistorius competes in the Beijing Paralympics, he places whatever. Others like him are inspired by his attempt to participate in the Olympics as a result try out for the Paralympics. Not guaranteed a position based on sympathy, but on capability, like everyone else. Those who can meet the competition minimums will compete, those who can’t won’t.

Technological advances are driven by demand. Those who are already amputees are going to want better ones. Those who compete are going to want faster ones. Where will these individuals be competing? I go back to

“It may be fascinating to see who can go the fastest on rocket-powered legs or throw a heavy weight the farthest using performance-enhancing drugs, or genetically engineered muscles. But what you have then is an exhibition or a show, not a sport. In some ways, this is what the professional wrestling and no-rules body building already are.” (Emphasis added)

The Paralympics is an arena to compete in sports, even though they allow Cheetah Flex Foot for competition. Maybe they have an interesting show in their future.

“To be a sport you need something approximating a fair playing field, some boundaries on the attributes of those who compete so they are comparable to one another and some ability to compare today’s performance with those in the not-so-distant past”

The Paralympics offer a fair playing field for those with artificial limbs like Cheetah Flex Foot; where the Olympics offer a fair playing field for those with limbs (oh, and the special external technological advances they have, i.e. special swimsuits, clothing, shoes, and equipment. Which with the demand to be better will also advance)? Knowing that we aren’t going to get rid of artificial limbs like Cheetah Flex Foot, and knowing they are going to make an impact somewhere, which competitive arena will they be allowed to affect and advance?

"Autonomous Killing Machines"

2007-10-17T13:47:00.000-07:00

This post is in response to "Engineering Politics"
by Christopher Csikszentmihalyi in the Sep/Oct 2007 issue of Good Magazine
http://www.goodmagazine.com/section/Provocations/engineering_politics

I liked this article because it is why I got involved with the IEET in the first place. I think the author's concerns are valid, I held similar ones myself, but his understanding of the effort to communicate to the general public comes up a bit short. (DARPA excluded from this, what they are doing, well, only those involved know). Christopher refers to the military’s drive to come up with "autonomous killing machines”, and while I don’t doubt that somewhat (always err on the side of caution), the military drives quite a bit of the emerging technologies that we have in our lives today. Hummer’s were not made for the suburbs or driving to the mall, they were made for combat, like Jeeps. The military had a need and the scientists, engineers and thinkers fulfilled that need. Once it became commonplace for the military and they worked most of the kinks out, they sell commercially, because some people fell the need to drive a ginormous tank of gas to take their kids to school.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with the military pushing for "autonomous killing machines”, ok, so I have a problem with the “killing machines” part. But after this summer, I have a more belief in the engineers behind it, and those that I don’t, again that’s why the IEET is around. It’s for the “Ethics and Emerging Technologies” to think and do for the technology and society, to talk about it openly and question things beforehand. Christopher writes that “Progressives need to get involved in research, design, and production” we are, the general public on the other hand, may not be interested in paying attention however.

For one, the websites that I have been too are full of open information; anyone who is interested can read about, say, what happened this weekend at the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence about the Singularity. It’s not a secret. Jamais Casico put out his transcripts from his speech on his blog, not just what he thought he would say, but what he actually said, because he went back to revise it and repost. This is open. After Transvision 2007, George Dvorsky took and wrote reflections on several of the speakers on his blog, and got quite a response to it all.

What I see is that there is an effort to disseminate what information is available to the public. If the public was interested they could've went to two very affordable conferences, Human Rights for the 21st Century (East Coast) and SIAI conference (West coast), and TV07 (Midwest, whoo!), which was more expensive, but worth the price for the celebrity speakers and numerous other notable presentations, not to mention other speeches out there that have been available across the country and globe from the fine people that are part of the think tanks and engineers of the emerging technologies. They travel a lot to give speeches and disseminate what they spend the rest of their time learning and knowing, primarily knowing. They are the doers, not those sent on their behalfs.

Christopher's conclusion in the article is “But such changes will only take place if we work to connect models of a just society to specific technical directions. And if we find more progressives who aren’t afraid of a little math.” I’m honestly afraid of a little math, but that isn’t enough to stop me from caring about all of this and becoming involved. I disagree that it is the engineers alone who “determine whether a product abets democracy or totalitarianism, whether it treats its user as a worker or as a human being.” True they are the creators, but there is interest before the creation, in the conceptual stages when ideas are being tossed around, while the technology is in process of being created.

If anyone was interested in the engineering stages, they had opportunities this summer to get up to a microphone and question the creator of their choice, which was taken advantage of by several in the audience at TV07. Or, if these same questioners sat in the audience and listened to the speeches that were given and heard what I heard they may have a different understanding of those out there making this technology reality. What I didn’t hear was that the technology was being created to destroy ourselves in the future. And if this was the case, they put on a pretty good show of convincing me of the opposite. I heard that they were aware of this concern and talked about it and included it as part of the discussion. As a skeptic of “autonomous AI” I understand other’s fears of the technologies on a personal level, however, becoming an engineer isn’t happening for me in the near future, and this is what Christopher didn’t include in his discussion, options. That just knowing, being aware of the conversations, or in them, is also an option that may help change and affect the overall larger picture.

Don't think me too harsh, I must applaud him for hopefully starting a dialogue for the magazine’s audience. The audience appears to be a younger and more open-minded group. This is the type of press that is both helpful and hurtful to communicators within the emerging technologies community. Referring to my above statement of information being out there and open, it happens mainly on the internet. Eventually, the discussion needs to be viewed by the general public which means off the net and into the mass media and popular culture, and I know that this may irk some of you, since it is an academic arena. Again, as someone, who is submersed in learning more about this daily, I need to learn more. The article tells others, unfortunately not that the IEET is out there, but that the technological evolution is.

Most people I speak with are not completely comfortable about all of this. It is unfortunate, but the only comfortable place there is to discuss is online, thus my urge to franticly type this. If I talked to anyone else there is an eye roll and a “uh-huh” complete lack of interest. It is troubling that the general public is not aware, but the technology is sneaking in to their daily lives. I read Our Molecular Future by Douglas Mulhall last year and was fascinated by the future technologies he discussed. And then I went to the dreaded Wal-mart last week, another topic for another day in itself, in the make-up aisle, what did I see?? Why the electronic paper I thought I wouldn’t see for quite awhile. It was on a L’Oreal or Revlon section (not too effective as I didn’t remember that part). I stood and stared and looked behind it for the plugs, cables, etc. and none. I was astonished that it was moving and just like a screen from a computer and as thin as a coin. I watched and no one else that I saw took pause, it was another ad in a sea of make-up.

I guess overall, the communication is out there, just not in the way that people notice, the technology is out there, again, just not in a way to notice, the problem is that when they do notice, as things will evolve, there will be questions. Maybe not on the small things that are the build-up to the greater technologies, but to the "autonomous killing machines” that, like the Hummer will eventually make to a commercial state where they can protect ones home. Or there will be questions when something happens in a negative manner, a mistake or a learning curve, if you will, like how we learned about the Hindenburg or Titanic. This is what causes me to be involved. Everything has trials and tribulations. I like to think however that, with people like those in the IEET, the discussion of the ethics will go out to the public before the commercialization.

Jesus Camp strikes home

2007-08-18T08:37:00.000-07:00

I wanted to see Jesus Camp when it first came out, for a variety of reasons I was unable to. Many friends reminded me that I should take the time to watch it. Last night, I did and I thank my friends for the extra push.
Jesus Camp was VERY reminiscent of what I grew up with as a kid. I have family from Missouri and until the time I watched that movie, I didn't connect being Evangelical to what I was and how I was raised.

Starting back, I was raised a Lutheran. My mother, who is no longer with me, was a very, very devout Believer. I knew this growing up. Our family was immersed in our faith. My mother raised us three girls on everything, literally, Jesus. We had the tapes (for kids, teenagers and adult demographics), the movies (all demographics), books (all demo), Bibles in multiple formats from tape to book to CD, etc. We went to the concerts, like Jesus Jam, were even as a Christian I was a rebel and talked my way backstage to meet all the singers. I spoke about it at recess to my friends about the New Age movement my mother was always warning about. It was a very, very intense childhood.

Then I grew up, and spent many, many hours talking about my faith with my husband when we had our son at 19. We couldn't do it anymore, there was too much that wasn't believable and too much science that we were interested in. We were good people and we generally did good things, we didn't need to hear every Sunday that we were going to hell for this or that. And it only magnified things that we had a child at 19, oh man, that's a total going to hell for. Why? We loved each other and to us that's all that mattered, so what if "God" hated us for having a kid a bit prematurely, we knew we were good. We knew that evolution was a good thing and it was too much for us to spend worrying about, so we dropped it and became agnostics, and remain so today, with a little Buddhist and atheist spice to us. (Oh, and the kid thing, yeah, hell or not, we've made it 11.5 years dating, 7.5 married and are now started on our third child. I think we'll make it, but I digress).

How this tied in to Jesus Camp, well it was very similar to my childhood and how I was raised to believe, I came out of it differently, but I know that others did not. My mother, where I got my strong passions from, directed her passion to this belief. For those of you who know me personally and how passionately I get about things can understand where her direction could be a bit unnerving. She would've been a fan of the lady at the camp and the mission of spreading the "Word" to others. And at one point in time, she would've been a strong believer in the fight that would take place. I don't blame her, and it's hard for me not to sympathize with these kids. They don't know any better, and they won't unless they have the opportunity to do so when they're older.

I've heard a lot of people discuss the movie and say that it was terrible and scary and a real eye-opener, well that's what it's like to grow up in the midwest. Not everyone, but it's here. I've been to church where the spoken in tongues, lasted for hours on end and one where I got an outline to fill-in (my favorite cause I could pay attention and look up the answers in the Bible while they talked. A past-time I prefer today).

Regardless for all the fear out there of what this lady is doing and what she says, you're right it's extreme and wow! But if you listen closely to what they say, it's the same thing that people like myself say. For example, the mother that home-schools her child at the beginning before camp. She tells him the other sides wrong and we're right, because we have the Bible to tell us so. She tells him that the other side is crazy and we're not. I've been with people on the other side, becaue that's where I am and we say the same thing about them. I'm sure their appalled that I let my son see completely nude exhibits like Body the Exhibition in person. Same as I'm appalled by the torcher device they display in front of their children. It a similar argument with different reasoning. The boiled down debate is over who think they're rightest.

I prefer the scientific method, because it's grounded in the concrete, the rational, the provable, the testable, the logical. The only fallacies I prefer to tell my kids is about Santa and the Easter Bunny, but that works for me, doesn't mean that it works for everyone.

For those who are strong believers, like my mother back in the day and some of my family, ok, most, today. As long as it works for you, gets you through your day and you don't want to physically fight over it, we're good. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

Where I draw the line is when there is telling of the kids we're at war and to arm yourself for the fight and justifying by those in the middle east who teach their kids to bear arms. For a "peaceful" group, on any side, bearing arms first should not be the option. I don't want to fight, I want to live, this is part of Jesus Camp that unnerved me. I want to peacefully coexist, ironically it seems there are others out there that claim to be believers and say that I'm going to hell for my sinfull ways that would like to take people out for their opposing thoughts. I'm not unrealistic about the fact that people and wars will happen, but don't proclaim peace, love and forgiveness, to all and the practice the opposite. Whether it be others with dissenting opinions or unwed 19 year old mothers who really only want to hear they can do it, not that they're going to hell with their kid.

Till next time...

AI and my two-year old

2007-08-10T08:13:00.000-07:00

Last night I went shopping for my soon-to-be two-year-old daughter's birthday presents. She's two, so her main criteria for gifts is that it has to have Dora the Explorer on it. Not too big of a standard. We got to the babydoll aisle and were looking at the baby's. There's a variety out there for those of you without kids, from the baby's filled with beads to the top-of-the-line "real" ones. There was one that really stuck out with me and what I'm learning/doing in my interests with AI and the like.

Her name is "Baby Alive Doll" and she's quite interesting. She blinks, moves her face/mouth, drinks and poops. What bugged me a bit was that she says, "I love you, Mommy!" My daughter just sat and stared at this "baby" in the box. To her it was a real baby stuck in a box. I watched her watch the doll and it was very eerie. Not only did the doll say mommy, but it poos. My daughter is not potty-trained yet, so the idea of purchasing a doll to buy diapers for is disturbing in it own right. One is enough fo me. But it was more than that.

I saw in my daughter's eyes something as she stared into the package, I couldn't completely put my finger on it. To me, I felt like the mother in AI: Artificial Intelligence buying David. This doll would be a companion for my daughter, talk to her, keep her busy, ask to play, but...David....it's not the same, but it felt briefly similar. What if she played rough with the doll, as she does since she hangs out with her brother a lot. And after she played rough,tossed it to the side. Forever saying from the corner, "Play with me mommy!" I am not ready for this just yet. I almost feel for the doll that doesn't yet feel for itself.

My daughter not knowing any better may feel for her too. This is just a thought, but I'm curious to hear others. The technology is infantile compared to where it's going, but it's still a step in that direction, so what is to happen. Is this how we will become accustomed, start with baby and move up from there? Ben Goetzel is working on baby AI and training them. This particular doll is not able to learn, but will Ben move on when his technology's ready to putting it in these dolls and what type of impact will that have on society? Just thoughts for now, answers/insight are great for shedding any light.

2007-03-07T19:10:00.000-08:00