Selling Ourselves

As we “progress” technologically, it seems we are forfeiting our individual identities. To what? An enormous, impersonal “pattern” of collective behavior which capitalism preys on with reckless abandon.

On the one hand, this seems to lend itself very well to efficiently and effectively addressing consumer demands thus maximizing each individual's utility. On the other, it seems to relegate us to that of mere machines whose only purpose is to produce and consume "stuff", lacking a distinct “human” element of individuality and identity. 

One of my concerns with regression analyses to determine consumer preferences deals with free-will. If a given analysis determines that it is likely I will make a certain choice and interferes in my life in such a way as to test this prediction, might this interference itself compel me to choose it*? In this case, it seems this prediction becomes self-fulfilled prophesy.

If so, is my free-will really free?


*Perhaps this is a nice corollary to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

Is Man But Machine?

In many ways, it seems that as we progress technologically, our machines become more like us and we become more like our machines. Our purpose in life seems relegated to being nothing but vehicles to produce and consume “stuff”.

As confirmation of this, one might pay careful attention to the implicit or explicit indicator of a society's success which is almost always based on whether its economy grows from year to year. At some point in the future will we and our machines be one and the same? Or are we already?

Playing God

As we figure ways to quell or at least moderate the debilitating effects of diseases and birth defects, might we be playing God? If so, how do we justify it? Is He happy about this? Or merely indifferent?

If we are not playing God through our intervention, what might this be construed as then? How is this any different from the idea of “custom designing” babies, a.k.a. Aldous Huxley's “Brave New World”? What if God has things just as they are because He wants things just as they are? If all outcomes, both good and bad, are God's will, then perhaps we should just let the chips fall as they “will”.

Now many will of course claim that “designing” a perfect baby is wrong but to “fix” a “broken” one is encouraged, perhaps even obligatory. However, what if at some point in the future, a “broken” baby is one who today would quite comfortably be considered perfectly acceptable? Is this speculation unreasonable ? I don't think it is in the least.

This once again points to the lack of any absolute standard in which to determine whether a baby is in an acceptable state or not. What is the minimum state of a baby such that in one situation we can engender changes by justifiably “playing God“ whereas in another we can not justifiably “play God” because this would most certainly entail vain pursuits sure to anger God?

I have discussed previously that as we progress technologically, socially, morally and perhaps in any and every other way, it seems we get farther and farther away from “perfection”. I do not think we are actually moving farther away from perfection, rather I think we just become evermore aware that we are much farther from perfection than previously thought.

Furthermore, as I have exhaustively argued in other writings, I think perfection is in principle impossible to achieve! Hence the reason we will never attain perfection. Kind of like the wisdom of one who knows he knows very little as opposed to one who thinks he knows much but actually knows very little. If there is no absolute way to determine whether any particular person's playing God is acceptable or not, perhaps we should let either everybody or nobody play God?

Is Technology A Blessing Or A Curse?

Does technology really improve our lives? I think it is essentially an even trade-off. It seems to me that for every 10% increase in productivity due to technological advances, we as a society effectively increase the burden placed on ourselves by 10%, possibly even more. In this case, we get nowhere or possibly even surrender “progress”.

Some may disagree and point out how technology has made traveling and communicating much more efficient and, hence, has greatly contributed to productivity and happiness. But if we never had any of this stuff, we wouldn’t know what we were missing and might be just as happy, perhaps even more so. What about medical advances? Well, even if the average life span of a human, which is now about 80 years, was only 30 years because we never progressed technologically, what “better” standard would there be to compare our “mere” 30 year lifespan to? We would only ever expect to live approximately 30 years which would seem a relatively long time. Aunt Selma lived 35 years! Wow, 35 years! She must have had good genes! If we only lived 30 years, we might make better use of our more limited time anyway.

Unable to avoid digressing, I feel compelled to ask what a better use of time might mean? Spending more time educating ourselves? Spending more time with family? Spending more time away from family doing life saving volunteer work? Spending solitary time reflecting and getting to know oneself better in order to harmonize with the world more effectively? It’s all relative to each individual.

Now, it is crucial to note the difference between never having had something and having something taken away. Once we have a piece of technology, it is prohibitively difficult to part ways with it. If we try to imagine what it would be like abandoning all the “amenities” we have thus far accumulated, we will undoubtedly fail. This would likely seem very regressive and uncivilized.

The only way to experience what I am talking about is not to have had it in the first place. One might draw an analogy to this idea with the biblical story of Adam and Eve. They were instructed to keep away from the forbidden fruit lest they face negative consequences. But of course being curious and suspicious that God was trying to withhold from them knowledge in order to impede their “progress”, they capitulated to their temptation and imbibed in the forbidden fruit. Initially, they probably felt good about their rebellion. They likely felt empowered, the fruit (analogous to technology) “tasted” really good, etc. But there was a price for this new found “freedom”. They became aware of their nakedness and were ashamed.

Their reality went from one of freedom and innocence to one of feeling ashamed and regretful of the circumstances brought on by their own doing, similar to how many of us long to have the simpler lives we once had. Oh how nice it would be to go back to the days before television and video games and other such mindless “electronic entertainment” and play outside instead! Why do we tend not to? Why do we not just go back to our simpler lives? Because as I've alluded to previously, once a can of worms is opened, it is prohibitively difficult to get its lid back on.

What is my point here? Ultimately, I am saying that every decision and choice one makes in life is simply a trade-off. One will never have it "just right". We can get some of this only by giving some of that. It seems much of the time our attempts to fix circumstances cause more damage only because we do not properly account for these associated trade-offs. It is hard to believe and especially difficult to live by the overused expression the grass is always greener, or at least appears so, on the other side. In the end, it seems paramount to accept what is.

Have Video Games Truly Progressed?

The more realistic video games become, paradoxically the less realistic they become. I think this is due to the fact that as realism is approached, the standard for what is deemed realistic exponentially increases beyond reach.

For instance, when computer football games initially incorporated voice announcers like John Madden, it was the coolest thing because it was so realistic! But with each successive iteration, it becomes more and more obvious it is not so realistic.

As an example, I love doing really stupid things to expose the sheer absurdity of the supposed “professional commentary”. Let's say I'm playing baseball and pitch not even remotely close to the plate on a 3 and 2 count. Playing offense as well, I swing at it deliberately to strike out. You know what the announcer says with reckless abandon? “That was the perfect pitch in this situation!” HUH? I do not claim to be a baseball maven but I seriously doubt that was the perfect pitch in any situation.

Initially, nobody cared or even noticed that the commentary was mostly inane babble as it was so realistic there was any! But today we have a much more demanding standard as to what constitutes realism and, as such, we are really not getting more realistic.

Will computers ever be able to faithfully recreate human behavior and faces and other almost infinitely complicated things? Maybe, maybe not?