After researching the authored works of Jaron Lanier, it has become apparent that he takes on a somewhat pessimistic stance on the new digital technologies we hold and use in modern day society. Yet he does not put the blame on technology itself, but rather the “connection that's out of whack.” (Lanier, J. 2013:02). This leads onto voicing his negative view on the free information we receive, believing there is a “material cost” and, however popular it is, it is economically and socially unsustainable. He suggests that if our present day economy continues to progress in terms of dependency on technology, we will “probably enter a period of hyper-unemployment and the attendant political and social chaos.” Nevertheless, Lanier believes we should seek greater things, a future where we rely less on digital technology. He relies heavily on the idea of Moore's law to explain the exponential growth of technology and how it would affect our economy as is.
This is a valid example, as the theory can be matched with his opinions and beliefs, in regards to the sustainability of our society, we see that over “the last forty years, Moore's law has served as a unique guide to the dynamics of the silicone revolution... Moore's law eventually became an industry expectation.” (Brock, D.C., Moore, G.E., 2006:IX) To explain why Lanier bases his idea on Moore's law, in regards of the sustainability in our society, we must look at what the theory actually explains. The theory shows a positive correlation between the number of transistors and integrated circuits that illustrate how the power of computers is now doubling every two years. Considering this information, we're able to predict that Lanier's ideas of the future is a high possibility.
Some would say that with the growth and advancement of technologies, an example being the internet, comes with a price having a negative effect on the world and people's lives. “The particular way we're reorganising our world around digital networks is not sustainable, and that there is at least one alternative that is more likely to be sustainable.” (Lanier, J. 2013:03). The outcome would be as technology grows stronger and more intelligent, it will soon take over and replace low end jobs, which would effect the economy negatively by loss of jobs. Take for example a scene from the film 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' (2005), when the main child's father is replaced by a machine. Some would say this is the future for people who do not have job security ad financial stability.
This is a valid example, as the theory can be matched with his opinions and beliefs, in regards to the sustainability of our society, we see that over “the last forty years, Moore's law has served as a unique guide to the dynamics of the silicone revolution... Moore's law eventually became an industry expectation.” (Brock, D.C., Moore, G.E., 2006:IX) To explain why Lanier bases his idea on Moore's law, in regards of the sustainability in our society, we must look at what the theory actually explains. The theory shows a positive correlation between the number of transistors and integrated circuits that illustrate how the power of computers is now doubling every two years. Considering this information, we're able to predict that Lanier's ideas of the future is a high possibility.
Some would say that with the growth and advancement of technologies, an example being the internet, comes with a price having a negative effect on the world and people's lives. “The particular way we're reorganising our world around digital networks is not sustainable, and that there is at least one alternative that is more likely to be sustainable.” (Lanier, J. 2013:03). The outcome would be as technology grows stronger and more intelligent, it will soon take over and replace low end jobs, which would effect the economy negatively by loss of jobs. Take for example a scene from the film 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' (2005), when the main child's father is replaced by a machine. Some would say this is the future for people who do not have job security ad financial stability.
Lanier has a rather pessimistic view on how the future could unfold, as he feels like we have become so dependant on our technology that we are loosing sight of the important aspects of life. He feels that by delegating our work to technology, we are loosing the gratification we would gain from the work. He also feels as though delegating to technology would be a mistake not just for us, but for the job itself. He states in an online journal that "But don't you experience your life? Isn't experience something apart from what you could measure in a computer?" (Lanier, J. 2000.). Lanier here shows us that technology is simply not up to the task that a human could complete as there are aspects of human life that cannot be replicated by a machine.
Take a look at the video on the left, where Lanier talks about what technology offers us as a society and what effect it will have on us in the future if treated wrongly. |
|
Lanier's view is interesting when one puts it in context. He was originally the founder of VPL research, he also coined the term 'virtual reality' and he sold several products that emulated reality. It is interesting because as an expert, he fears how technology is misused and although he fought for the evolution of technology, he is also aware of the negative effects it can have on society. He feels that we as a populace must be aware that there are complexities that technology cant solve, cant emulate and cannot replace. It seems that Lanier sees that we have allowed technology to run our lives, as if a hammer and anvil would run the life of a blacksmith. He discusses this through his book 'You Are Not A Gadget' (2011).
Lanier however believes that there is a way to escape this fate, where technology controls us, where our economic system does not fail us as technology continues to advance. He even states that there is another option (Lanier, J. 2013). So it is not a hopeless situation, but very well could be. He is therefore at odds with other writers on the subject, one being the author I will look at later: Clay Shirky. This is due to their contrasting ideas, Shirky offers a more optimistic vision of what the future will bring, compared to Lanier's more pessimist, or realist version on whether our future will be a utopia or dystopia. However, he is not the only author that has their ideals potentially clashed against Laniers. Kellogg (2013) writes: “In part, Lanier is arguing against “The Singularity,” Raymond Kurzweil's idea...” that computers will become intelligent enough to replace us, when in fact we're choosing to give them power to make our lives easier and aid us in our day to day jobs.
Lanier however believes that there is a way to escape this fate, where technology controls us, where our economic system does not fail us as technology continues to advance. He even states that there is another option (Lanier, J. 2013). So it is not a hopeless situation, but very well could be. He is therefore at odds with other writers on the subject, one being the author I will look at later: Clay Shirky. This is due to their contrasting ideas, Shirky offers a more optimistic vision of what the future will bring, compared to Lanier's more pessimist, or realist version on whether our future will be a utopia or dystopia. However, he is not the only author that has their ideals potentially clashed against Laniers. Kellogg (2013) writes: “In part, Lanier is arguing against “The Singularity,” Raymond Kurzweil's idea...” that computers will become intelligent enough to replace us, when in fact we're choosing to give them power to make our lives easier and aid us in our day to day jobs.