The Nature of the Singularity
“The technological singularity is a hypothesised point in the future variously characterized by the technological creation of self-improving intelligence, unprecedentedly rapid technological progress, or some combination of the two.”
As defined by Wikipedia.
It’s been noticed that technological progress is speeding up all the time. New technologies are developed faster and faster. It might have been thousands of years between stone tools and metal tools, but it’s been only a handful of years between computers and nanotechnology. Singularity is supposed to be a point in the future where the time between huge advancements in science and technology become so short as to be nonexistent. In other words: social changes akin to the industrial revolution will be happening every day and as Alan Moore says: “All bets are off.”
Clay Shirky in a speech at the recent Web 2.0 conference points to a theory that a British historian is arguing for: that the critical technology for the early phase of the industrial revolution was gin.
“The transformation from rural to urban life was so sudden, and so wrenching, that the only thing society could do to manage was to drink itself into a stupor for a generation. The stories from that era are amazing– there were gin pushcarts working their way through the streets of London.
And it wasn’t until society woke up from that collective bender that we actually started to get the institutional structures that we associate with the industrial revolution today. Things like public libraries and museums, increasingly broad education for children, elected leaders–a lot of things we like–didn’t happen until having all of those people together stopped seeming like a crisis and started seeming like an asset.”
He goes on to make the case that the 20th century equivalent of gin has been television. A sort of “brain heatsink” for people.
What exactly happens during the technological singularity and after it has been up for debate. A ton of great science fiction has been written around the idea of a singularity. The vast majority of it positive. But wouldn’t it actually be a pretty depressing place? If gin and TV and similar “brain heatsinks” are needed for people to cope with major changes in their lives until a new generation grows up already with the technology and if the singularity is a point in time after which several major paradigm shifts happen within the lifetime of any single generation, then wouldn’t the majority of people withdraw to whatever distractions they can find?
The singularity would then look a lot like Warren Ellis’ excellent Transmetropolitan — a post-cyberpunk future society where people don’t even know what year it is anymore and everyone seems to have gone nuts. (Seriously, if you haven’t read Transmet, you’re missing out on one of our time’s greatest works of fiction.)
And what would the distractions, the heatsinks of this future society be? Drinking? TV? Constant partying? Singing along on YouTube? Editing obscure Wikipedia articles? Blogging about their cat? Wild orgies of sex and drugs? Violent and degrading pornography? Music? School shootings? Killing sprees? 4chan? Trolling? Lolcats?
Could it be that technological progress has already accelerated to a pace where major paradigm shifts are happening within the lifetime of a single generation and we’re already experiencing the effects of nearing the singularity?
And could this be why today’s youth isn’t interested in politics anymore? Maybe the late 60s and early 70s happened during a lull in technological progress? A pause that allowed the youth to grasp the world enough to come together around something, anything, and to believe in being able to change the status quo. Maybe the perceived pause in progress happened because science was relocated to secret government facilities during Cold War?
Perhaps today’s youth is so paralyzed by the rapid changes that they cannot see beyond brain heatsinks. How could one grasp the modern world anyway? It’s changing too rapidly. Perhaps that’s why people are not on streets, demanding social change. Or why we laugh at those who are out there.
Clay Shirky’s speech makes the assumption that Wikipedia is something inherently better. That it is not a brain heatsink for a certain subset of people. I find this assumption unjustified.
Gin, TV, YouTube, lolcats, 4chan, Facebook, nightclubs, Wikipedia, whatever — they could all be viewed as brain heatsinks that somebody has learned to profit from. Therefore future business models (as well as business models for idealists like the Wikipedia people) could be constructed around a single idea: give people something fun to do that acts as a brain heatsink, doesn’t demand much or set strict limits, and will further the owner’s goals of profit and/or social change.
A near-singularity or post-singularity society would then consist of two parts. One driving the technological progress and paradigm shifts and the other providing brain heatsinks to help everyone better cope with the changes. The latter could easily be feeding into the former via things like Wikipedia. And also the other way around: the world wide web and its various technologies enabling Wikipedia to be built in the first place.
What do you think about all this?
I totally agree. That guy is just stuck up about his own pasttimes that he thinks they’re better than the alternatives.
I mean, the internet is but another time-waster. For him to say it’s a “Better one” just because you’re putting energy into it is silly. I’d say it’s worse, in some cases.
I mean, to watch Tv and enjoy stories while not being active may be seen as being a passive entertainment (since, apparently, you’re brain isn’t on during this time…). However, being passionate about World of Warcraft, putting your energy into getting gear, grinding experience points, immersing yourself in the game forums to know the ins-and-outs of the game, and setting goals (or biding by the ones the developer gives you) is MUCH worse than any passive entertainment.
Certain “active” entertainments are simply replacing the real world with an imaginary one. While I’m totally for stories that immerse you into their world, there’s a certain line that must be drawn (and has been drawn, socially) on what level of immersiveness is not embarrasing to oneself.
I mean, one must not forget A Brave New Worlf and 1984. Television made these authors very worried for our future, and there’s no question that the next wave of entertainment, which people are insisting to be EXTREMELY interactive, shouldn’t be blindly looked at as “better entertainment”.
And it should NEVER be so quickly judged as “better entertainment because at least people are doing something”.
That’s where the danger lies, Sonny Jim.
I think you should go fuck yourself for making such stupid generalisations about young people when you clearly haven’t spoken to one about this. Typical baby boomer self-gratificatory bullshit about how great the 60’s and 70’s were, when the only lasting consequences were rampant commodity capitalism and the absurd belief that protest was born and died within those two decades.
I was born in the 1980s, dude
@Carlo: You make an excellent point about getting sucked into these things more so than TV. You’ve provided me with new things to think about. Thanks
To Daniel: I’m eighteen. I’ve played MMO and online fps games during my 16 and 17 years (and early 18 years).
I know the effects of these types of entertainment, trust me. Not saying I turned into a monster or anything, but I’m aware enough to realize the uniqueness of very interactive entertainment. It is not simply a “funner and interactive version of television”.