I know, ‘you can’t tell a book by its cover’ is the expression. But maybe you haven’t heard. Researchers at MIT are developing a technology to read a closed book. The system would use terahertz radiation. How lazy have we become?
“Charley, I want to read your book, but then I’d have to open it and turn all those pages.”
“No, just sit back and point this terahertz reader at the cover.”
And now 2017 brings us to another technology that will definitely change our lives. After a man in Arkansas died in his hot tub, investigators decided they needed to examine an Amazon Echo smart speaker to see whether or not it recorded information about his death.
“Charley, I was going to do all the traditional leg work to investigate, but, hey, Alexa says she’ll save me the trouble. I think she’ll investigate while I read an unopened book with my terahertz reader.”
Imagine the ancients unrolling scrolls. Go back further. Imagine carrying around runes or having to go to a painted cave wall or scratched rock in a desert to obtain information or to communicate.
“Charley, I wanted to show you the family pictures, but we’ll have to wait until I light this torch. The cave is dark, you know.”
“Charley, I left you a message on a rock in the desert. Walk toward the setting sun for a couple of days if you want to read it.”
And you, techie that you are (Don’t deny it; I see you reading this on a HD screen), ask, “Charley, am I really that dependent on machines and AI? Am I becoming—or have I become—a creature of technology? Am I personally transforming?”
We’re not going to stop advancing our technology, and, as we all know, that advancement will present new problems as it solves old ones. But one problem that tech will never solve is a meeting of minds. It will merely give us a greater facility to disagree.
I’ve not done any survey. Maybe there’s an algorithm for it: What percentage of technologically enhanced communication is given to disagreement as opposed to agreement? What percentage is love rather than hate?
I wonder whether we would find our world a bit less contentious if we had to find some sticks, figure our how to light them, walk into a cave with our torch, and look for ochre on a cave wall before we communicated. Or, what if we had to carry rocks with runes to convey messages? Or, even walk long distances to see a petroglyph?
Tech could enhance peace and love because it provides an instantaneous way to communicate. It doesn’t, of course. Time and space have virtually disappeared; and to a certain extent with them, love and peace.
“Charley, you don’t understand. Even though people once had to travel across place at the expense of time to communicate, they still waged wars. Tech has done virtually nothing to improve the fundamental nature of human relationships. I know that this is nothing new, that many people understand human shortcoming is independent of space and time between people. But I do wonder whether or not those who cross space at the expense of time in order to communicate wouldn’t have a slight “human” advantage, whether or not adding time and space wouldn’t put a little more humanity in humans. Probably not, but today I will imagine my smart phone painted on a cave wall, scratched in desert rock, or etched like runes on the ruins of an ancient form of communication. I might even leave it across the room to pretend I have to cross space at the expense of time just to talk to someone who is not a disembodied voice in a smart speaker.”
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2016/09/09/researchers.prototype.system.reading.closed.books
Postscript 1: And soon, you'll be kissing your phone. See http://wtop.com/mobile/2017/01/lonely-kissenger-simulates-long-distance-smooch-internet/slide/1/
Postscript 2: And is this the future of love? https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2605288/westworld-humans-robots-coming-rise-sex-machine/
“Charley, I want to read your book, but then I’d have to open it and turn all those pages.”
“No, just sit back and point this terahertz reader at the cover.”
And now 2017 brings us to another technology that will definitely change our lives. After a man in Arkansas died in his hot tub, investigators decided they needed to examine an Amazon Echo smart speaker to see whether or not it recorded information about his death.
“Charley, I was going to do all the traditional leg work to investigate, but, hey, Alexa says she’ll save me the trouble. I think she’ll investigate while I read an unopened book with my terahertz reader.”
Imagine the ancients unrolling scrolls. Go back further. Imagine carrying around runes or having to go to a painted cave wall or scratched rock in a desert to obtain information or to communicate.
“Charley, I wanted to show you the family pictures, but we’ll have to wait until I light this torch. The cave is dark, you know.”
“Charley, I left you a message on a rock in the desert. Walk toward the setting sun for a couple of days if you want to read it.”
And you, techie that you are (Don’t deny it; I see you reading this on a HD screen), ask, “Charley, am I really that dependent on machines and AI? Am I becoming—or have I become—a creature of technology? Am I personally transforming?”
We’re not going to stop advancing our technology, and, as we all know, that advancement will present new problems as it solves old ones. But one problem that tech will never solve is a meeting of minds. It will merely give us a greater facility to disagree.
I’ve not done any survey. Maybe there’s an algorithm for it: What percentage of technologically enhanced communication is given to disagreement as opposed to agreement? What percentage is love rather than hate?
I wonder whether we would find our world a bit less contentious if we had to find some sticks, figure our how to light them, walk into a cave with our torch, and look for ochre on a cave wall before we communicated. Or, what if we had to carry rocks with runes to convey messages? Or, even walk long distances to see a petroglyph?
Tech could enhance peace and love because it provides an instantaneous way to communicate. It doesn’t, of course. Time and space have virtually disappeared; and to a certain extent with them, love and peace.
“Charley, you don’t understand. Even though people once had to travel across place at the expense of time to communicate, they still waged wars. Tech has done virtually nothing to improve the fundamental nature of human relationships. I know that this is nothing new, that many people understand human shortcoming is independent of space and time between people. But I do wonder whether or not those who cross space at the expense of time in order to communicate wouldn’t have a slight “human” advantage, whether or not adding time and space wouldn’t put a little more humanity in humans. Probably not, but today I will imagine my smart phone painted on a cave wall, scratched in desert rock, or etched like runes on the ruins of an ancient form of communication. I might even leave it across the room to pretend I have to cross space at the expense of time just to talk to someone who is not a disembodied voice in a smart speaker.”
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2016/09/09/researchers.prototype.system.reading.closed.books
Postscript 1: And soon, you'll be kissing your phone. See http://wtop.com/mobile/2017/01/lonely-kissenger-simulates-long-distance-smooch-internet/slide/1/
Postscript 2: And is this the future of love? https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2605288/westworld-humans-robots-coming-rise-sex-machine/
RSS Feed