Connection or Technology

Connection or Technology

Tony E Hansen

10 Nov 2012

Technology has been helpful with increasing our communication capability and has undeniably altered the way people interact.  With the increased capability via the myriad of devices, we have seen a change in how people interact and in how people view patience. Further, people seem to have replaced compassion with a text. We forgo the personal interaction for the instant communication through our devices, and we forget how to self-reflect.

In Sherry Turkle’s TED talk “Connected, but alone”, she describes the profound nature of technology intersecting with human intimacy that is worth our attention.  She asserts that messages can be like getting a hug when you need it, but too many can be a problem. Turkle posits that “if we’re not able to be alone, we’re going to be more lonely” because we have used technology to replace the human intimacy and connection. This is a revelation about how people have turned toward using these devices to building connections rather than understanding parts of our inmost being. 

With chat rooms, messenger programs, social media, and our devices, technology has provided ample opportunity for communication. Technology can be exciting so much that we sleep with the devices and we take them on vacation with us. Yet, is that technology helping us to understand ourselves? 

Technology changes what we do as well as our perspectives, and if we do not take care, it can change who we are.  Etiquette of using these devices has changed what we consider as proper behavior. Consider the perspective of being able to get instant communication on 2-to-5 inch diagonal screen. Your focus is there in that semi-private conversation (regardless of where you are) rather than observing what is around you and learning from that. 

It was only a few years ago that this instant communication was not possible, but easily, one can find a group of friends that are together in a room but having their conversations with completely different people not even in the same city.  Whether at funerals, at the dinner table, during a movie, or during work meeting, messaging removes us from the location and the experience of what we are doing (whether grief or enjoyment). We should think about what is so important that we forgo the experience before us with the often grammatically incorrect bursts coming from our devices. 

In Star Wars, Master Yoda spoke to Luke Skywalker, “All his life has he looked away… to the future, the horizon. Never his mind on where he was” and later, “always with you what cannot be done.”  Luke was so focused with what was missing (regardless of relevance) that he would easily forget the graces and resources that were there with him. 

We are lost in our many bursts through our devices that we cannot see what is beautiful here. Where does self-reflection happen if you are never alone? Further, real-time observations and notations are not required because we can present things in the way we want to present them at the pace we can control.  Real-time conversations and human relationships lose their richness and rewards but instead become more like annoying attention demanders. 

Messaging is good for getting small bits like saying “thinking of you”, but they do not help us truly gain a context for the person (learning and understanding differences). Yet, people will easily prefer texting over talking. As well, if a message response is not fast enough, people may be offended via the assumption that the bits of texting is automatically more important than the other person enjoying or learning where they are at that moment (never mind possibly driving).  Thus, enjoyment and learning of the moment are forever lost in the inferred priority of perpetual bursts from unrelated elements. 

We can attempt to “hide” our real emotions by ignoring the current circumstance via instant gratis with people through our devices.  Contrastingly, some vividly show their pain and vulnerability in the online-self that you would think their world is infinitely a disaster. Do these not ultimately reflect what people expect from the technology or from others? What scares us that we immerse ourselves in our technology instead of intimacy? What illusions trap us in the technology that we avoid our basic humanity?

Perhaps, we think “no one is listening”. Perhaps, we must “spend time with machines that seem to care.” Maybe, something is happening in the world (drawing our attention) that we would rather be doing at that moment. These can be captivating questions about personal vulnerability and comfort. We could choose to “unplug” for a while and attempt to rediscover the humanity within ourselves. Whether one intentionally chooses to “unplug”, people will ridicule those for being “offline”, but again, why is that considered odd behavior? Consider why people go fishing or hunting. Some enjoy the game, but many will relate to the quietness of being somewhere without disturbance, of being able to self-reflect without noise. 

Ms. Turkle also advocates “reclaiming” spaces at home and work where conversation is primary. I can relate to this because my kitchen table is a place for dinner or coffee with conversation, often over a card game of gin-rummy. Here, my husband and I can relate with and learn about each other. Here, we can build upon each other without technology interfering. 

Consider your holiday rituals and festivities, remember why you are there, and enjoy the moment fully.  Escape the technology for the intimacy of family and friends (regardless of irritations or boredom). Those are moments that make us human and they teach us to use what we have rather than worry about what we do not have. Those are moments that teach us etiquette, compassion and mental reflection.  Those moments are the ones that teach us real understanding and love.

Form Follows Function: An Energy Strategy

Form Follows Function: An Energy Strategy        

Tony E Hansen 

29 August 2012 

The phrase “form follows function” comes primarily from architecture, but we can see applications in music, literature and software development.  This primarily suggests that the shape of the building or “form” should be based upon the “function” or purpose where ornamentation varies in consideration to the proposed function.  In the recent few weeks, we have seen considerable attention paid to mining and to wind farms by the different political campaigns.  Both have said, rhetorically, we should have an “all of the above” approach, but those approaches tend to favor one form of energy generation over another.  Both proposals will mean a measure of jobs and technology that will be created (or not) at the expense of others as part of their proposal.  What we need to is to consider what form is following which function of energy policies both from the past, the present, the proposed and the potential future of each.  

Author Tim Berglund, in a keynote address, suggested that form and function are important to considering how we build things.  He seems to agree with the notion that we build things to a form that is prevalent, but then at some point, we become that form.  Then, someone comes along and introduces a twist on the idea. Then, we get another “form” where new designs and new innovations spur from that idea.  Until that twist, we are beholden to the limits of the current form and the functions therein.  Yet, there has to be willingness in the environment that fosters new ideas because reverting to an old idea is 1) based upon the paradigms of its time, 2) those paradigms may not exist anymore, and 3) the old idea may not be appropriate for the future.  We can think of many applications of this, but we can see this principle in the energy strategies, both historic and proposed. 

First, let us review what each party is proposing and then we can consider what has been the rule of policy for the past century in order to envision what is possible in the future.  Romney wants to end tax breaks for wind energy, wants to remove safety regulations, and wants to promote the coal and gas industries, which is primarily been our energy policy for the last several decades. That innovation stinks like the old and stale “form” of the past century without doing anything to reduce consumption.  That policy was written by the oil and coal companies, especially since Reagan’s term. Obama wants, however, to expand tax credits for renewable energy, to expand all domestic generation, and to promote new efficiency standards to bring down overall energy usage. 

If we follow the old “form” of energy production in comparison to computer industry over the past few decades, we see drastically lower innovation in the energy industry in favor of milking the current profit models using aging infrastructure. The computer industry went from large, inefficient, and room-sized units to small compact handheld devices with an exponential increase in more computing power. This old form of energy policy does not value dynamics and competition while lining the pockets of the Koch brothers and other Romney friends. Those people (and unfortunately, society at large) have become (or been beholden to) that limited “form.”  In contrast, Obama seems to be pushing towards a more opportunistic model (form) where everything is more competitive against each other with the idea that competition spurs innovation.  If the society does eventually become the “form” by adopting the opportunistic approach in energy production, then we may discover more opportunities in other areas as well.  

The libertarian side of me thinks we should eliminate all government subsidies including corporate welfare and let the markets decide which will flourish. This might work but the market forces have been rigged to support the entrenched (e.g. Koch brothers and friends). The progressive side of me wants more emphasis upon sustainable energy with a strong focus upon eliminating our dependence upon foreign resources while reducing pollution. This might favor more diversified portfolios of Mr. W. Buffet (via MidAmerican Energy) and the so-called Pickens Plan. 

The truth is that the oil, coal and gas industries have already enjoyed many tax breaks to encourage the widespread use of these fuels as part of that old “form.” Only recently, thanks in part to Obama, have we seen government promotion of alternative energy. There is clear political and financial motivation that favors West Virginia mines to be promoted over Iowa wind turbine plants. Further, the money trail leads back to a specific profit formula that relegates our energy industry to stagnate innovators as well as America to be reliant upon that stagnation. Since there also is no incentive to make the mines better or safer, that seems to be a “lose-lose” proposition.  As well, the lack of interest in new forms locks us into the mindset of the current or past functions and forms. Imagine what is possible if we could power devices over the air instead of wires. 

With energy, we have been using the same relative techniques for decades.   Our society has become beholden to that “form” while limited to the functions and capabilities of these technologies. If we mean to have the economy of the future, we cannot continue to limit ourselves in this respect. As well, reverting to old ideas is completely contrary to finding new, or better, ones.   With that old form, we will never be more than what we were, and we will never discover what we could be.  If we want a competitive economy, we have to “think differently” and beyond what we know today because the paths to the past only lead us backwards.   

Religion of Anger

Religion of Anger

Tony E Hansen

13 Sep 2012

There is at least one item that one should shy away from discussing when in civil company: religion. Assuredly, someone will offend someone else’s different religious belief or opinion.  Yet, the reason that people make this claim is that religion tends to be a deeply personal aspect. The lightest comment by one can be an instant slap-in-the-face insult to another.  The world seems ever more leaning towards finding the insult than light conversations. Considering how easy it is to offend someone here in America on the topic of religion, no one should be surprised that a video insulting Islam would be met with violence. With the recent riots in the Mideast provoked by extremist Christian elements, I could only think of how angry religion has become these days.

There always has to be someone that wants to push the boundaries of what is acceptable and make the rest of the group look bad. The extreme religious factions here in America have made business more difficult and tourism more dangerous for all Americans.  Foreigners have to be thinking how will America insult someone today instead of being that “beacon of light” and hope. Yet, there is something similar of both the crazies in Florida who promoted the crap that provoked the radical violence in the Islamic world as well as the crazies who sought violence as the primary reaction to them. Both follow an almost “demonic” kind of reasoning that insults modern religions. Both disregard any sense of security and justice for the rest.

Despite teachings of compassion and love as the basis for modern world religions, or even their foundations in the golden rule (do unto others as you would have done to you), we see instantly angry reactions from religious folks in all stripes without haste. Religion has turned first to anger “to fire first and then ask questions later.”  These people are rejecting the fundamental teachings and instead worshipping their anger and hatreds.  The promotion of this aspect of humanity is a sacrilege and an admonishment of the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Prophet Mohammed, the Buddha, and the many other reverences around the world.

One does not find the merits of organized religion when people (extreme or mainstream) disregard the basic tenets of their religious doctrines.  Instead of promoting the compassion and tolerance of those peaceful doctrines, these people focus efforts to incite riots, destruction and violence at everyone’s expense and regardless of considerations.  Those people disregard facts and any notion of tolerance. They become fodder for spewing hate and more anger within the extreme elements that promote the worst of humanity (those anti-Christ-like ways.)

Unfortunately, these people will also wallow in the misery of their hatred and anger. These people will not find peace regardless of how many are killed or of how many lives are ruined. They are exhibiting actual "gluttony" and “greed” to have all people believe in their perspective of God and religion. These people can be guaranteed to turn blind eyes to genocide and even actively participate in the holocausts.

These elements of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and others welcome shallow showmanship with a disregard of others with the loudest inconsiderate boasts. The Buddha teaches, “the shallow is easy to embrace, but the profound is difficult; that to discard the shallow and seek the profound is the way of courage.” I am not saying that all showmanship, like say Tim Tebow, is destructive because seeing someone who believes in their convictions clearly lets people know what they believe. Yet, showmanship, especially the extreme kind, is clearly at odds with Matthew 6:5, the Buddha and the Qur’an because real faith is within the self that can help guide one’s actions.  Further, consider James 1, "You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for your anger does not produce God's righteousness." The Qu’ran (3:134) suggests that those, “… who restrain anger and who pardon the people - and Allah loves the doers of good…”

The quick, knee-jerk anger is denounced both in the Bible and the Qur’an, but you would never know that from Robertson’s CBN, Fox or Al-Jazeera reports.  It is almost like these guys are helping to incite the violence in order to have something to report.  “One tin soldier” cannot compete with the constant baiting these shallow “news” outlets and the extreme religious people project. As Dave Mustaine sings, "Ask the sheep for their beliefs, 'do you kill on God's command?'"

The majority of all people do not hold these extreme views or the anger that has been on display. What we need is to reject the religion of anger and be each other’s keeper. To respect each other means not to force others to believe one way, but to allow people to believe. That is the essence of “freedom of religion.” To have faith is to let go of perceptions of truth, to not be idolatrous to that perception, and to let the truth reveal itself. If we base our faith and beliefs in anger, then our religion is anger, hatred and negativity. The religion becomes nothing of what the good people have taught us. If we are more concerned about others’ beliefs, we are foregoing growth in ourselves.  Be willing to speak about your religion and how it enables you, but also be mindful that religion is deeply personal that can be easily insulted.  Steer the discussion away from heated anger and into how we share common interests, both in the spiritual and the physical.  Maybe then we can live in each other’s neighborhoods, and maybe then we can walk in other countries without fear some jerk at home is going to create more anger of religion.

Peace be unto you.