I'm currently reading a book written by science fiction author David Brin... but it's non-fiction. It's called The Transparent Society, and it was originally published in 1998. Now, there are quite a few things about this book that are just a little bit freaky... one of which is how it came to be in my possession. A friend of Gwen's gave her this book when she was in college in Alabama. She brought it to Korea and lent it to me. Now that in and of itself is not freaky whatsoever. What is freaky is that inside the front cover is taped a Lake City Community College Library decal! The friend who gave it to Gwen was not from Lake City. Weird huh? Okay, so his grandparents live in Wellborn, so perhaps they stole it from the LCCC library? Anyhoo, now that we've satisfied the LC-centric portion of this blog, let's move on to what's really freaky about this book: the fact that it was published in 1998, meaning that the bulk of it was probably written in 1997.
Now, while I admit that the bulk of 1997-1998 is rather a blur for me.... but one thing that I do clearly recollect is that 1997 was the year when I initially became addicted to the Internet. I don't know how much you remember about late 90s internet, but it was slow ass, lacking in flash, animated clip art and geocities homes sites were the rage, and there was no wikipedia, no YouTube, and the word blog hadn't yet been invented. Then there's this book, The Transparent Society, written way back then.
I'm assuming none of you out there other than Gwen has read this book (although if you have - yay!), so let me do a very brief summary for you. Brin's theory is that technology will influence the evolution of society in one of two ways:
Choice A: Think 1984 - omnipresent government with cameras and computers spying on your every move. Freedom is essentially lost because the government is everywhere, seeing everything you do. Crime diminishes (who wants to go to prison?) although who knows what crimes the government is committing!
Choice B: The citizens take matters - and technology - into their own hands. Everyone owns a digital camera, has an internet connection, and monitors everyone else - and shares what they know. Crime diminishes (who wants their dirty secrets published on the web?) and government becomes incredibly more transparent because the masses are always watching.
This is obviously an incredibly simplistic analysis of The Transparent Society, but there's a lot more on Brin's website if this sort of thing interests you. Just give a thought to recent events that wouldn't have made a splash at all had it not been for some Johnny-on-the-spot with a camera and a YouTube account, such as the Macaca Moment and Bomb Bomb Iran (among many others) and you'll realize that we are well on our way down the path of Choice B.
In line with that theme, later tonight (your time - it'll be sometime tomorrow morning here in Korea) CNN and YouTube will sponsor a Democratic debate unlike any other (and it'll be followed by it's Republican counterpart in September). I'm totally bummed that I won't be able to watch it live - although I rather suspect that I'll be able to download it. For this debate, YouTubers create video questions for the candidates (there are almost 3000 of them, and you can view them here), and CNN will select however many of those questions for use in the debate.
So... things to write about this week (and I'll give you some choices) - What do you think about Brin's theories on transparency and where technology is taking us? Or about YouTube and its impact on politics? The CNN/YouTube debate? (Especially any of you cats who got to watch it!) And, if those topics don't do anything for you, feel free to let me know if you know of any creepy precognitive books/movies. Other than The Transparent Society, the only other thing I can think of is those movies Glenn, Matt and Jordan made in which I was Special Agent Keeler. Who'd'a thunk that would actually happen?
4 comments:
Excellent topic, but I'm not as optimistic that we are going down the path of Choice B. We are being constantly monitored, albeit usually via corporations (your ISP, if no one else) and not the government. Is that a better scenario? The government is at least nominally accountable to the entire electorate.
I would say that Choice A has not been "chosen" only because of the relative insignificance of online activities in comparison to government manpower.
Star Trek claimed that Khan and his followers would leave earth following World War III in the distant future of 1996. Whoops!
Transparency? Oh my God, the government is less transparent than it has ever been before? I mean think of all the shit that continues to leak out from the Bush white house then think of everything that we do not hear about. It seems that we are moving closer towards something similar to 1984 except it is not extreme but the frog in the pot of boiling water. I do agree with sean that we are probably more monitored by corporation, but they basically control our government at the moment anyways and think of the impact that credit scores can have on your life and how transparent that is while the actions of those same corporations are often hidden from the eye especially under lobbys that seek to rewrite legislation for the benefit of those same corporations. I think that I may have a little bit of a conspiracy theorist in me anyways.
Christopher
Brin's concept of transparency isn't well defined to me. Why does he assume that we would all need to be equally transparent? Ultimately, monitoring is done via technology and so your ability to detect (or avoid being detected) will be defined in part to the quality of your equipment, ie, financial standing. Maybe I need to read his whole book.
YouTube's impact on politics is minimal. The internet is a proactive medium, so you only see the things you choose to see, which is whatever confirms your pre-existing beliefs. If anything, the internet has helped introduce the polarized political environment that currently exists. For example, everyone, look at your blogroll. Is the collective philosophy and tone similar to your own?
Damn, I'm depressing to read.
Post a Comment