Category: Web

Talking about technology is one of those almost funny modern conversations where the topic somehow seems a little tired, worn out or stale despite the fact it’s quite clearly at the cutting edge of human civilisation. It’s as if we have nothing to say, no answers, no real agreement over what’s going on, how to manage it, or where it’s leading. Yet, we also have very much to say as it’s affecting our lives so deeply.

Maybe it’s that we’re getting exhausted by grappling with this ever-changing force that’s reshaping so much? Maybe it’s that we’re feeling powerless; resigning ourselves to the fact that ‘this is how life is’ and we must adapt to its demands and the world it’s creating for us. Maybe it’s that, so much happening simultaneously, it’s practically impossible to pin down and work through it all to reach common ground (see Notes One).

Or maybe I’m misreading it? To me, these conversations spin and churn with often intense energy, concern and emotion, yet never quite connect that purposefully with reality. As if we’re expending a lot of energy trying to keep up with something we don’t quite understand. We see and feel the impacts, and our brains naturally want to see what’s going on so we can respond well to what life’s throwing at us; but it seems it’s almost too much, too diverse and widespread in its manifestations to elicit simple, universal answers.

Because, in many ways, modern technology’s simply changing everything. It’s taking how society was and developing new solutions or systems to manage, improve, streamline, reorganise, speed up, coordinate all these patterns of activity that make up our lives. Which is essentially taking complex realities and reducing them into something simpler, more integrated or accessible.

In a certain light, it’s cutting corners: taking processes that were once known, embodied, and understood and placing them behind closed doors for our convenience or enjoyment. Any tool likely exists to make things easier that way, to cut corners and save us time and energy for other things.

What I find interesting with that, though, is the question of whether we still know what was on all those corners. And, whether that’s important or not. We’re being ‘saved’ from having to do or understand all these things, and that gives us this whole new raft of opportunities for how we might live and relate to the world around us. But, do we actually know what we’re doing? Is there value to knowing what we’re doing? (Notes Two)

It’s like those who’ve lived through the shifts within banking: from very manual back-office cash handling through gradual mechanisation, as once intensely personal and considered relationships drifted through this process of digitalisation into quite different, impersonal estimations of our worth or capacity.

Those who fully understand what’s going on can act very confidently within it; but to those who interact mainly with deceptively simple interfaces the risks and realities of what lies behind them can be hard to comprehend.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Technology & the lack of constraint
Note 1: Desensitised to all we’re told?
Note 1: Cost and convenience
Note 2: Where would we stand if this were lost?
Note 2: Is anything obvious to someone who doesn’t know?
Note 2: Market forces or social necessities

In a strange way, this relates to What if it all means something? which also touched onto ideas of understanding, intention and consequences.

The sense in which ‘being human’ is linked to the development and use of tools seems one of these age-old markers of our development: that humanity began looking at the environment, their relationship with it, and how best to work with that effectively and productively.

It’s this idea of human mastery, agency, and ingenuity in the face of physical existence: that, as thinking beings, we looked around us and began seeking ways to better achieve our aims or streamline the practicalities of life. Whether that’s an axe, an arrow, a plough or some form of computing, the principle’s essentially that of understanding context, intention and outcome in order to improve upon our methods.

But, with technology, those questions of agency and intention seem altered in the present day. I’m not sure that in the past anyone was concerned about the psychological risk of axe design, or woke up late at night to compulsively check their tool shed. Which is this sense of how tools have a design, they have workings and demand a certain way of thinking in how we approach them if they’re to be used wisely (see Notes One).

It just seems almost deceptively simple to view modern technology as a natural, unquestionable extension of humanity’s working relationship with tools. As if nothing’s fundamentally different here. Because the foundations of tech are a very specific way of thinking, and embracing that means working along those lines and effectively being shaped and defined by those channels of reasoning.

These are some of the most powerful tools ever wielded by humans. We can directly abuse people on the other side of the world as they sit in the relative safety of their own home. We can collectively respond to advertising and form these instantaneous waves of profit surging toward the company or individual of our choosing. We can spark volatile emotional outrage or despair through media reporting.

The responsibility of that, in terms of personal as much as natural consequences, is almost unfathomable. We’re rapidly shifting the structures, patterns and forms of societies; dismantling long-established traditions and infrastructures and sweeping in with our versions of those functions based on someone’s finest, commercial understanding of how things need to work.

And really there’s not much choice but to go with the flow. Change happens, and you either jump on board or risk getting left behind. Much as individuals, social realities, governments, essential services, and commercial entities are all grappling with the right form for modern life to take and how best to rise to the challenges and opportunities of technology, there’s really no going back.

Obviously though, we’re experimenting with the very fabric of society and human existence. This is a tool with highly effective applications throughout every avenue of life; its impacts ripple through our shared realities in ways we might not yet fully realise. Whether that’s exciting or daunting might depend on our capacity for navigating uncertainty and risk. Also, on our understanding of human and social realities themselves.

Notes and References:

Note 1: “Response Ability” by Frank Fisher
Note 1: The web and the wider world
Note 1: Where would we stand if this were lost?
Note 1: Pre-tech in film
Note 1: The potential of technology

Some of the ideas here were also picked up in a slightly different way back in Intrinsic values on the paths for change?.

What do we stand to lose, as people? Presumably that’s the line of reasoning for assessing any form of risk: what’s at stake; how easily could we replace it; what would it cost to do so; and, can we afford that? This idea of imagining what might happen and somehow making our peace with it, financially as much as personally. Turning it round to look at modern society, where does that reasoning lead?

Because it seems we’re quite clearly shifting toward running most, if not all, of our essential social functions through the medium of technology (see Notes One). Naturally, I’d imagine. Every civilisation probably took its tools and turned them toward the problems of life; reconfiguring their existence to some extent around what was becoming possible. In that light, technology is simply the most recent manifestation of progress.

But then, it’s evidently a tool that operates on a scale the world had never seen: reconfiguring international patterns of communication, commerce and cooperation; redistributing resources, products and functions; shifting ideas at an astonishing pace, and conceivably changing how we are as people in ways no one can entirely predict. Possibly the first tool humanity’s ever had the luxury of wielding that has such huge reach.

Our previously distinct, relatively isolated communities are seemingly now merged by many visible and invisible means; creating countless sub-communities and common interests that transcend our national borders to interlink us all in ways we might not fully realise. The complex reality of this modern, global community is fascinating to contemplate, much as we no longer actually see the impacts we’re having on others (Notes Two).

What does it all mean? What is it that we’re deconstructing on the local or national scale and confidently rebuilding on this global one? What way of thinking about life are we transposing there, as we effectively reshape all these corners of the planet with our activities? What ideals or beliefs around the value of human life and the significance of our existence are we using as the foundation for all this?

And what does it mean that we’re so often removing local infrastructure such as high street retailers, accessible offices, and other tangible functions and services around which our physical communities were built? Surely, at the core of it all, we’re still humans with a sense of place, belonging, warmth, interaction, and the value we add through our actual physical presence and contribution? (Notes Three)

Within all this, our choices are inevitably adding up; potentially chipping away at some quite fundamental aspects of what makes us human and connects us meaningfully, purposefully, respectfully with one another. All these small shifts and compromises must be changing things in countless untold ways as society gradually takes on these new forms.

What are the forms, functions and values underpinning this way of life and how we’re going about things now? What are we taking apart in the physical world and shifting into this other, virtual one? And, where does that leave us?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Market forces or social necessities
Note 1: Technology & the lack of constraint
Note 2: Value in visible impacts
Note 2: Community as an answer
Note 3: At what point are we just humans?
Note 3: “Wisdom” by Andrew Zuckerman
Note 3: Obligations and contributions

The West clearly embraced the idea of the marketplace, of letting those forces shape much of what’s happening within our societies. And maybe that’s fine, maybe it’s the perfect way to structure human communities and will naturally lead to widespread improvements, bettered standards and high-quality choices. But are there points where it crosses lines and causes little more than problems?

Obviously marketplaces are complicated, with countless actors and trends constantly flitting about to the next new thing. The ins and outs of all that are honestly a little beyond me. But, as an interested observer, its outcomes and general directions often seem questionable (see Note One). What is it we’re creating here? How are we using the world’s resources to meet our very human needs? Where’s it all leading?

Then, to focus in more specifically on the crossing of lines, where’s it leaving us as individuals existing within society? Making everything – culture, relationships, access to services and information – subject to market forces and the tendency toward higher tech solutions seems to risk stripping away essential human and social functions from what’s commonly available (Notes Two).

As I’ve said, I’m generally out of my depth when it comes to economic theory. But surely things need to make sense from a human perspective? Whereas pretty much anyone could access a local shop, bank or office to interact person to person, make themselves understood, and get their needs met to some degree, running ‘all that’ through systems accessible only via technology just isn’t the same.

The idea of everyone having to maintain, afford and keep pace with ever-evolving standards in computing must be an obstacle to participating freely with social or economic life. In terms of mental inclination, time commitment or various other pressures in life, expecting everyone to understand and operate wisely within these systems is quite an incredible challenge (Notes Three).

Are we really going to exclude people from participating fully in shared realities simply because we’ve let market forces dictate the speed, cost and complexity of the systems we’re filtering these functions through? Does that not make people intellectually, financially dependent on the whims of industry? Effectively creating this threshold for societal participation with a burden on all individuals to meet it?

We might argue we’ll educate and support people to gain access, and this is simply the ‘cost’ of pushing society ahead through the medium of technology. Maybe that’s true. Maybe it’s creating another whole industry of facilitation, commentary, and support services. But surely it also creates a degree of dependency, on reliable information as much as on electricity itself?

Markets may work well in motivating innovation and progress, but they also create burdens of cost and active engagement on our part. When it comes to essential functions, is inclusivity and stability also not important for social cohesion? Otherwise it begins to seem this survival of the fittest mentality where we risk becoming OK with leaving others by the wayside, buried by all the entry costs being insisted upon.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Economy & Humanity
Note 2: Culture, art & human activity
Note 2: Can we overcome purely economic thinking?
Note 2: Learning to be human
Note 3: The web and the wider world
Note 3: Using internet to construct community
Note 3: Testing times

Is there truly such a thing as neutrality? An even, objective middle-ground where nothing really carries weight and we can judge cleanly? Or, in reality, does everything, in some way, carry with it a sense of evaluation, intention and causality?

We might claim things to be neutral – knowledge, facts, technology, even opinions – but it’s all a little questionable perhaps. If we were to view those things as tools, then as soon as we pick them up and seek to use them for our own purposes do they conceivably lose any neutrality they once had?

As with anything, the nature of reality can quickly become pretty complex. All our words, conventions, ideas, scientific and technological solutions essentially carry with them a way of looking at the world and a sense of what’s justifiable in navigating that relationship from the human perspective. Within that, all we have stands on the shoulders of what’s gone before, growing out of paths we’ve taken (see Notes One).

Yet, these days, so much is simply placed in our hands: knowledge, power, and a reach far more easily attained than previously (Notes Two). It’s fairly straightforward now to engage with those complex realities, using modern tools to our own ends with consequences we may or may not intend throughout our wider social, societal, economic environments.

In that light, while the tools might theoretically be neutral our application of them can carry immense, possibly irreversible, generally invisible weight. As in Entertaining ideas & the matter of truth, there’s arguably this sense that our ability to think rightly about reality and what matters most within it is quite an important and underrated factor in life.

I mean, as soon as we take hold of anything we’re generally assigning it meaning and applying it with the intention of achieving certain aims. Those aims and meanings may be true, partially true, or completely mistaken. Time may well judge the results harshly, regardless of what we thought we were doing or hoped to achieve.

From another perspective, there’s also the way we might speak of something in neutral terms when it may need the colouring of judgement, evaluation, praise or condemnation. To convey something neutrally, rationally, objectively when in reality it merits a strong positive or negative slant is surely an incomplete representation of reality? Some things are simply “wrong”, and to not present them as such seems highly dangerous.

It’s interesting as, in both senses, once we ‘pick something up’ it seems we might need to assign it the weight it deserves in order to apply it rightly from the human perspective. It’s this sense of how everything – facts, opinions, words, actions – sits within a bigger picture of complex ideas, people and agendas we somehow need to navigate (Notes Three).

And, within that picture, neutrality may well be this ideal state of balance that doesn’t actually exist. Could it be that everything needs this overlay of understanding, interpretation or context in order for us to respond wisely to all we’re encountering?

Notes and References:

Note 1: “Response Ability” by Frank Fisher
Note 1: What if it all means something?
Note 2: The potential of technology
Note 2: Value in visible impacts
Note 3: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 3: Strange arrogance of thought
Note 3: What we bring to life

It must make a difference when the implications of what we do are immediately apparent: when unkind attitudes are mirrored by another’s face or careless actions evidenced within our environment. If we had to live through the personal and natural consequences of all we do, it’s conceivable we would quickly learn to keep ourselves in check.

Maybe, in a way, that’s one of society’s functions: to provide that sense of meaning, regulation and self-restraint which is arguably quite essential for any community to exist harmoniously (see Notes One). These days though, it’s rarely the case. So much is almost completely invisible, while our own experiences are being dialled up and possibly further drowning out our ability to notice what’s really going on.

It’s challenging to grasp the reality we’re involved in creating, to see how everything fits and where our choices are hitting home. Ways opinions and attitudes are being conveyed: interactions playing out, affecting others and those around them in personal realities we’re often now a part of. Then the complex socio-economic networks we may partake in without understanding fully; bearing consequences that are nonetheless very real.

I wonder sometimes to what extent “all that’s going on” would be tolerated if it had to be done directly, without the convenient mediation of technology. Having to go out of your way to say something to someone’s face, then face up to the social context of it all, presumably used to be a reasonably effective deterrent to antisocial behaviour: you saw the personal impact; you felt the disapproval of your community.

The internet seems to be empowering an awful lot of activity that communities previously used to curtail in the earlier stages (Note Two). It’s obviously something that’s getting talked about a great deal – how technology is changing modern society – and maybe because we sense it’s fundamentally important while also being incredibly hard to get to grips with (Notes Three).

To me, life is about humanity and how we’re choosing to live in relationship to one another and the world around us. It’s the thoughts and intentions we bring to bear within those spaces and the realities we’re now weaving across the globe as our lives intersect in all these countless ways. It’s the values we prioritise in that, the worth we assign to life and the ability of the planet to sustain it.

And in so many ways modern living seems to be threatening that; undermining the threads that make up society and the foundations of our shared existence. Technology seemingly encouraging us to live at such a pace where we must limit our focus in order to manage: where ignoring our impacts, disregarding so many and so much, and justifying it one way or another is becoming ‘normal’.

Is it normal? Has humanity ever lived so carelessly of its social and environmental impacts? Is it wise to do so? And what would it mean to ‘stay human’ in a world that’s almost inviting us to turn a blind eye?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Mirrors we offer one another
Note 1: Human nature and community life
Note 2: People, rules & social cohesion
Note 3: Technology & the lack of constraint
Note 3: “Response Ability” by Frank Fisher
Note 3: Reality as a sense check

Looking in a slightly different way at living within troubling times, there’s Dealing with imperfection.

As a way of thinking, few things may have changed society as much, as quickly or as thoroughly as modern technology. The theme of Web has looked at ways it’s shifting our connections with reality, awareness of personal or environmental consequences, and understanding of collective systems we exist within.

Yet those things also serve social functions: our sense of what our choices mean, their impacts, and how they reshape the essential structures we’re thereby upholding. In many ways, we’re talking about patterns of behaviour, belief and shared values that actively sustain human society.

And, of course, such change isn’t completely unjustified as society wasn’t perfect before all this. Life was slower, processes more cumbersome, communities smaller, freedom to travel or connect quite constricted, and ideas often limiting and tightly controlled. By comparison, life now is much more open and dynamic; offering countless opportunities to take more in (see Notes One).

But I do wonder to what extent we’re running risks by allowing the tool to become the master, by letting this way of thinking define our lives and social existence. After all, technology exists to make things easier by doing some of the work for us. Shortcuts based upon a thorough understanding of life and the tasks in hand. Are we ‘helped’ if we take the shortcut but forget to fully grasp what we’re doing and why?

The right role for technology within human society is something many are grappling with, from everyday life all the way up to those few powerful people making some pretty influential decisions on our behalf. Within that, this question of what it means stand out to me as important.

We might get caught up with what’s on offer, chasing the tail of that endless wave of innovation and updates; but, taking a step back, is it something we need to engage with? I’m not saying the answer is No, but just because something’s there it doesn’t mean we have to use it or play its games.

Backtracking to the idea of social function – the sense of our engagement with life having meaning – it could be said the realities, the social or physical limitations we come up against have value in telling us what life’s about (Notes Two). This reciprocal relationship between the individual and a complex world, where we find our place within it then shape our response as part of the ongoing human conversation.

In removing limits, where are we left? How do we decide what (not) to do, or even what decisions to make? Figuring out our path, where we stand in society and our value to it wasn’t easy even in the simpler world we left behind (Notes Three). And tech now removes more boundaries that arguably once gave life definition, leaving us with boundless choice and this strong air of freedom (Notes Four).

Finding our place in that new world seems almost as challenging as formulating our response to it all, but I’m not sure where we’ll be without it.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Podcasts as models of transformation
Note 1: Blogs illustrating ways of being
Note 2: “Education’s End”
Note 2: “Response Ability” by Frank Fisher
Note 3: Modern media and complex realities
Note 3: The web and the wider world
Note 3: Complexity of life
Note 4: Pre-tech in film
Note 4: Using internet to construct community
Note 4: The potential of technology

Taking a bit of a sidestep, Thoughts on art & on life reflected on what it might mean to rediscover our bearings in modern life.

It’s pretty much undeniable that technology has rapidly altered much of how we live and promises to continue doing so; often in ways that seem to be outside our control and maybe outside any control, given the nature of these systems. So it seems reasonable to view this as one of the major challenges facing the modern world, and as being fairly unique within the history of humankind.

This way of operating has now become so interwoven with our lives: practicalities around organisation, banking, communication, knowledge; ways we relate, think, and approach things. It really slipped into how things were, making them into this new way of being (see Notes One).

All of which clearly changes things, taking us into uncharted territories where we may come up against unexpected consequences. At this point surely everything is merely theory. No one knows the implications of changing how we relate on this scale, or of making the impacts of our actions remote, vast and essentially invisible. We might have the best of intentions, but does that carry or ultimately make a difference to the outcomes?

The world’s being reshaped by this tool we’re wielding on a global yet very personal scale. And while there may have originally been visions of it becoming a self-regulating force for good, it seems we’re more often demonstrating our need for regulation and the potency of our darker inclinations when left almost completely unchecked (Notes Two).

Indeed, it seems many of those developing ‘solutions’ in these fields actively draw on their knowledge of human nature in order to foster addictive tendencies and other behaviours that may be better off un-indulged. The fact companies are deliberately using our psychology against us seems so concerning, as this then becomes a game played on that level and bearing those costs.

When it comes to life, surely our minds are some of our more treasured possessions? This is how we see the world, how we understand society and our place within its structures; it’s how we know our own worth and that of others; how we make sense of all the information we receive in order to respond wisely out of our humanity (Notes Three). Did we really reach this pinnacle in order to undermine its foundations?

With tech, it’s a difficult conversation. It’s an industry largely driven by commercial interests, so presumably there’s less concern over the human wisdom of paths taken. It’s also fast-moving, with the risk of being so caught up in opportunity or overwhelm that we resign ourselves to a relatively passive acceptance of what’s offered; effectively entrusting ourselves to those in control, their values, and their insight into our nature.

But while it’s complex and may leave us feeling powerless, can we afford to not get to grips with this and find some ground for more conscious engagement with all it offers? If technology is a tool offered us within a marketplace, then responsibility for understanding and using it wisely seems to rest in our hands.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The potential of technology
Note 1: Using internet to construct community
Note 1: “Response Ability” by Frank Fisher
Note 2: Individual responsibility, collective standards
Note 2: Zimbardo & the problem of evil
Note 3: Need to stand alone & think for ourselves
Note 3: “Brave New World Revisited”
Note 3: David Bohm, thoughts on life

Wrapping this up, Patience with the pace of change considered the nature of change & ways technology may alter our perception of that.

Where are we headed? It’s a question I’ve asked a few times here lately (see Notes One), and it seems to apply across many different settings and scenarios within modern life. Can we grasp the bigger picture of the past into the present, and – if we can – does if offer a clear sense of what to do for the best?

To me, it’s an intriguing question: if we could fully understand reality, would the path become clear? Because when we talk about change, more often than not there’s this sense of social or financial coercion or punishment being needed in order to motivate us; the carrot and the stick. But is that true, or does it underestimate our capacity to grasp what’s required and freely act accordingly?

Human motivation is interesting, as clearly we do often tend to act for our own advantage then justify the social or environmental impacts somehow. That certainly seems an element of our psychology. But then do we do that because we don’t care enough about those other things, or because we live in a system of scarcity? It seems we feel that our worth and our survival are threatened, so we must take what we can.

The ideas we hold around society and the sense of meaning that sustains it are surely very influential in terms of how we act (Notes Two), which in turn gives form to the lives we lead together. We might receive those ideas in strange ways – woven through technologies we use, hidden within the assumptions and characterisations of stories we absorb, lying unchallenged within conversations and relationships – but they are there.

Which makes me wonder if there is a fundamental human philosophy out there, resting tantalisingly close behind the fragmented and often contorted nature of reality. Whether there are common values and a completely fair way of working through things and structuring how we live in order to exist more harmoniously. That’s clearly idealistic though, as well as elusive.

So, in writing this under the theme of Web, I’m looking instead at how values serve us there: the ways technology highlights qualities such as empathy, tolerance, privacy, restraint, and responsibility; the picture that’s painting of humanity (Notes Three). This seems both a reasonable and pragmatic starting point for considering the importance and universality of how we are.

Modern life seems to be taking place as much through the veil of the internet as through its hidden impacts on the ‘real world’, and that’s an undeniable challenge: how to bring values to bear within the echo chamber of technology. It surely requires even greater strength to be clear on what we’re doing and resist the easier paths and justifications being offered; to fully understand and picture the implications we may never see.

Which comes back to motivation: are we led by what’s offered, by knowledge of the consequences, or by our understanding? The basic human question of ‘how to act’ surely hasn’t yet been solved, it’s only found new forms.

Notes and References:

Note 1: How do we find a collective vision?
Note 1: Communicating divergent experiences
Note 1: Where’s the right place to talk?
Note 2: Culture, art & human activity
Note 2: Education with the future in mind
Note 2: People, rules & social cohesion
Note 3: Individual responsibility, collective standards
Note 3: The human spirit

In many ways, Intrinsic worth over social identity runs alongside this with thoughts on the value of human life.

The question of technology is surely one of the most challenging aspects of our times. It has changed us, is changing us, and will likely continue to do so in ways we can only try to imagine. And in reflecting on the potential of that, I’m really looking at the roots of that word: power, ‘being able’, and ideas around qualities that may be developed for future success.

In a way, technology seems to be the enshrined or codified sense of our understanding. Thought itself, logic, and a certain way of reasoning have essentially ‘become’ technology. And in seeking to apply that we are in turn recreating our current sense of understanding over how the world is and should be organised (see Note One).

Rather than being unique to technology, that’s maybe more the outcome of modern thinking: a way of life that was once deeply interwoven with our dependence on environment has gradually risen above that to a more abstract sense of mastery (Note Two). But, as in that post, there seems a risk of our starting points somehow evolving into contorted versions of their original truths.

Surely we need a very clear understanding of the paths to our present realities and the intentions behind these structures we’re replicating, if we don’t want to be ‘locking in’ something that could prove damaging (Notes Three). The fact we’re essentially changing how we relate to one another based on the tech realities we’re creating seems a fascinating if daunting experiment with human nature.

Of course, technology enables us to move forward in ways never before possible. It’s undoubtedly an incredible leap for human connectedness, knowledge and awareness. But it seems that if we’re not entirely aware of what we’re doing we risk being limited by design and possibly trapped by that lack of understanding: if the ideas we’re programming into technology are shaping us in new ways, what if we are mistaken?

Technology also has this strange ability to somehow make things simultaneously easier and more difficult (Note Four). In so many areas we seem to be grappling with the benefits it offers as much as our ability to not let it take over our lives. We clearly know it has the power to completely transform human society, but it’s also a force to be reckoned with in many ways.

In saying that, I’m thinking of how we struggle with the sheer pace and volume of content that now overwhelms us on a daily basis. Also how the changes being brought about in this way seem largely out of our control. Holding our own in a world of rapid change requires great strength and certainty, qualities seemingly undermined by the very nature of that reality (Note Five).

Technology undeniably offers amazing opportunities for communication, coordination and effectiveness (Notes Six); but not without challenging our self-control and thorough understanding of all that’s gone before. Hopefully, we are able to rise to the challenge of making this a constructive force within modern society.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Using internet to construct community
Note 2: Culture and the passing of time
Note 3: “Education’s End”
Note 3: “Response Ability” by Frank Fisher
Note 3: Culture, art & human activity
Note 4: Pre-tech in film
Note 5: “Paradox of Choice”
Note 6: Modern activism in practice
Note 6: Blogs illustrating ways of being

Beyond that, the theme of Web addresses issues around technology while “Ecological Intelligence” talks of how surroundings shape us.