Sages & Prophets, Part 1 - Andy Warhol

(This is an import from a forum, a response I wrote to someone who mentioned Andy Warhol's famous prediction that in the future, everyone would have the chance to be famous for 15 minutes.)

There's a phrase of my own, which those around me have heard (perhaps too often):

"Warhol said that in the future everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. Well, it is the future, there are more people competing for that fame - and the time is down to 7 minutes."

One crucial discussion at this point is to distinguish fame from infamy. The line between the two is increasingly being blurred by the mass media - famous or infamous, they don't care so long as it fills airtime. But infamous is another way of saying notorious, and is notoriety really how people want to be remembered? The message increasingly seems to be yes - whatever it takes, positive or negative, to stand out above the teeming masses of the pack, do it no matter how demeaning, bizarre or dangerous (the "Jackass Syndrome").

I think the mass media and the Internet have served to shift people's perception of scope. Where someone may have once sought local fame, the goal is now to stand out on the larger field of global communications. But that perception shift also carries with it an awareness of just how many people there are to compete with - 100+ million signed up on MySpace, 1000s of YouTube videos posted each day. So the hunger to be noticed is simultaneously challenged by the odds against *being* noticed.

(Of course, there is the parallel discussion of "Why be famous at all?" But that is material for another posting. Let us at this time simply accept as given that many - most - people do want "fame", based upon their demonstrated attempts to achieve it.)

Faced with the challenge of standing out (which can be quite a bit of work, sometimes actually requiring talent or skill) many people seem to be seeking "cumulative fame" - their 15 minutes, a few seconds at a time. Cumulative fame may also be considered as synonymous with "reputation". Which brings us to Stross' interesting idea, from his book "Accelerando", of reputation as currency.

I admit that I had given little thought to what would become of finance in a singularitan world. Stross gives quite a bit of time in the book to a variety of adaptations which might emerge. And the idea of reputation as currency - the "interest rating" of notable people actually a commodity, even traded on exhanges - seems a distinct possibility, as extrapolated from current trends.

After all, isn't that what each of us is doing here - seeking attention, and through it, building reputation? Sure, we want to present ideas and some of us even sincerely want to be exposed to the ideas of others. But boil it down and anyone who is posting, whether it be on a personal page or in a forum, is promoting something. And what they are promoting may be a cause or concept, but most often honestly and simply is themselves. And promoting oneself is striving to build reputation.

At present, there is no payoff for a strong reputation. Oh, if you get lots of hits you may be able to work a deal with advertisers to use your site. And a very few people who have raised themselves out of the ground clutter may get onto the radar of publications who recruit them for "real" distribution. But these examples are few and far between. For most people, "product positioning" (the product being themselves) is simply an exercise in ego massage. What do the "friend whores" on MySpace gain from high numbers, other than an ego boost? Can your "friends" be redeemed for valuable prizes? (Unless of course you are promoting something other than yourself, like your band, where high contact numbers mean a potential customer base.)

But there is actually one existing payoff for reputation. It is an old concept, one which is sometimes missed in the hurly-burly of popular intercourse. It is called respect. And, judging from the number of people seeking fame, and what they will do to achieve it, it seems there are many people who do not feel they get enough respect. (Ironically, many people seem willing to do very disrespectful things to others, and themselves, to gain the respect they feel they are lacking.)

It is going to be very interesting, to see how the need for fame drives the next few years. I would like to think that we can develop new arenas for people to exercise that need, rather than have people rely on negative acts to get attention.

And by the way, while I was writing this, the time has decreased to 6 minutes.

Hanging a sign out

There was a wire news story a while ago, I'll track it down and pop it in here, about how young people are bored.

Think of it: a generation with more access to knowledge and entertainment than any group in our species' history, young people who grew up with zillion-channel cable TV and video games, kids who have computers and the Internet and chat rooms and MySpace and YouTube and cellphones and text messaging - and they're bored out of their gourds.

There's a big part of me which has zero sympathy for a young person who claims to be bored. Nada. Zip. When I hear them moan that there's "nothing to do" my immediate response is "Go Ride A Bike!" Or take a hike, or read a book or look for shapes in the clouds or watch a spider build a web or go to the library or watch an old movie or throw a frisbee around or look at rocks with a magnifying glass or brush the dog or... well, you get the picture. This part of me is especially likely to come out when said young person is affecting a world-weary, "been there done that" attitude. Me, I'm 46 years now and I expect to be around at least another 46 and I plan to be somewhere and doing something right up to the moment I kick.

Kids, the worst sin of youth is to be dull. The whole function of youth is to explore, to learn, to stir about and understand the world you have come into and see what you like about it and what you don't like and what you might change and how you might leave your mark. That's Your Job. And it should be your joy. And I've got news for you - the world-weary thing doesn't hack it, not when there is a whole world to be understood and you haven't even scratched the surface. Trust me, it's a big place and it only gets more interesting the more you look into it.

Here's the saddest thing: when someone says they are bored, it is the same thing as announcing that they are boring. Bottom line. If you tell me that you can't find anything to be interested in, you are telling me that you have no imagination or zest or verve or, well, liveliness. When I hear someone say that the world is dull, they are actually saying that they themselves are not worthy of interest. What was intended as a complaint about the world is revealed as a statement of "Don't bother with me."

That's my first reaction. "Been there, done that"? Hah! C'mere and let me slap you - pretty obvious you haven't been there and had that done to you, ya whiney baby!

But there is another part of me as well, with another reaction. And that is perplexity, and sadness, and rumination. And the question rattles and rolls around inside my head:

How have we come to a world where children

are so easily bored of it?

and

Where did we go wrong?

By "we" I mean everyone older than those young people. If it is the job of young people to take an interest in the world, it has been our job to help them appreciate how interesting the world can be. (I almost said that it was our job to provide them with an interesting world, but that is humanocentric arrogance - the world is perfectly capable of being interesting without us.) And we seem to have failed in our job. Perhaps we have let our own interest slide. Perhaps we have transferred the interest we once had in the world around us to an interest in ourselves. And an argument may be made that we are so busy in furthering our own interests that it is difficult to foster the interests in others.

When a young person says "I'm bored" they sometimes intend it to be a ringing condemnation: the world has let them down. I believe that they are unintentionally saying that they are letting themselves down, and youthfulness. But maybe there is a grain of the original intent which is correct. Maybe we deserve the pointed finger, for not communicating to young people the marvels inherent in life and living, for not giving them the tools to be endlessly entertained and impressed by the details of existence, for not helping them be explorers. Perhaps we deserve condemnation, and rather than talking about those damn lazy unimaginative kids, we should be re-addressing our own views of the world.

It's easy to point at possible causes - video games, the TV as babysitter, reliance upon others to raise our kids. But there may be an overall principle at work here. If you have lost your own sense of wonder, it is hard to communicate it to others. And if you are too tied up inside your own life, you close off both your connections to the larger world and your connections to your fellow travellers through it.

Perspective

I am stuffing my head full.

I read science books, science magazines - I try to be familiar with current scientific trends and thought.

I try to wrap my brain around particle physics, and string theory.

I dial the focus back and forth, from the micro of genetics to the macro of astrophysics.

I read the futurists' newsletters, and contemplate the dizzying heights which humanity may be able to reach.



Then I go outside and watch the birdies for a while.

Current reading/research list

Current reading/research list

I am currently, concurrently, reading about 10 books.

It is not unusual for me to have several books going at once; I'll be reading something then not be able to locate it right off, or be in a different mood and start something else. So there will be 2 or 3 books about the house waiting for me to return to them. (I maintain that this is not poor focus, but rather an ability to multi-track.) The fact that of those 2-3 books I have typically already read at least one of them reduces the need to return to them all.

However, I am at present set on absorb. My mind is already awhirl with new input, new data, new information heading toward being knowledge. And I'm packing more in, and not excluding anything from possibly being drawn into the mix - magazine article, fiction, scholarly work, kid's book, everything may be grist for the writer's mill.

And it is not exactly accurate to say that I am 'reading' the books listed below, as that implies a cover-to-cover approach. I am rather, not-quite-randomly but trusting in Serendip to guide me, picking the books up and reading passages wherever my gaze may fall, then on to the next to do the same thing. (I am also following this with books and magazines I encounter at work.)

This approach has much to be said for it in my present mindstate. Each of the authors has of course worked hard to lay out their premises in orderly fashion. But order is not necessarily what I am seeking just now, so I must creatively disorder their works so that I might better get a feel for their intersections and incongruencies. By almost-randomly finding extracts from the works and considering them all simultaneously, I find that I am forced to think holographically, visualizing connections between the points of information in a model very similar to the way the brain itself works. Very appropriate, considering the subject material.

Each of these books has something to recommend it; there are some older books I know of which shall be revisited later for fresh insight in relation to the information in these books, but I have been limiting myself to newer works for now. For, in these fields, books even a few years old sometimes seem quite antiquated.

In no particular order:

Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (2002) by Francis Fukuyama

A member of the President's Council on Bio-Ethics, Fukuyama is not wholly opposed to biotechnological manipulation of our human future, but calls for very specific controls on experimentation and application. As one might expect from his position, he is anti-cloning and very much for heavy government regulation of research. Some interesting discussions on ethics, rights, and the need for caution.

The Spike: How Our Lives Are Being Transformed by Rapidly Advancing Technologies (2001) by Damien Broderick

Broderick lays out an easier-to-understand version of Kurzweil's projections, even suggesting a new name, "The Spike", as being a more accurately descriptive term for what is occurring than "The Singularity". Interesting, plain-language discussions of possibilities, with a significant amount of focus upon how changes will be financed, and how the changes once occurred will affect finance itself.

(NOTE: Please reference the Comments for a revision to this entry.)

Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unitended Consequences (1996) by Edward Tenner

What, a technology book ten years old? Surely, it is valueless! Far from it - Tenner's book should be required reading for anyone blithely talking about throwing changes into biological systems. In straightforward and relentless fashion, he shows how time and again humans have cleverly technofixed around some catastrophic threat, only to enable smaller cumulative chronic problems (which may in the long run have a worse impact than the avoided catastrophic problem), which he terms "revenge effects". This is a very sobering reminder that no matter how clever we are (and we are clever, just short-sighted) natural systems are huge and remorseless and respond in ways we could not have predicted. Cause and effect, and chains of cause of effect, do not disappear merely because we slap a big fancy bandaid on something. Again, required reading for anyone considering altering existing natural systems; any time you hear someone talking about "improving upon nature" you should consider their claims in light of the lessons learned from this book.

More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement (2005) by Ramez Naam

Reasonably balanced examination of the possibilities for augmenting human physiology, heavy on the gene-therapy angle.

The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (2005) by Ray Kurzweil

This book is taken as Gospel by so many that I am reflexively skeptical of it, and continually compare its claims and projections against other works. The future will of course not play out exactly as Kurzweil paints it, but he does seem to have a good handle on trends and he has certainly gotten people talking. Still, there is no Bible for the future, we will write that ourselves, and if people proceed based only upon this book I feel they are limiting themselves - ironic, since Kurzweil's book discusses a time when we shall be limitless.

The World of 2044: Technological Development and the Future of Society (1994) edited by Charles Sheffield, Marcelo Alonso, and Morton A. Kaplan

An older book, with some nonetheless interesting discussions of how we proceed into the future as a culture. Older books are also interesting to read, since so many of the predictions are flatout wrong - another reminder that many current thinkers are likely to also be wrong. One thing which is clear about the future: it never turns out exactly the way you think it will.

Moths to the Flame: The Seductions of Computer Technology (1996) by Gregory J. E. Rawlins

This books is almost more philosophical than technological. Though ten years old, the points it makes are still valid since it discusses how and why humans interact with and through electronic machines, rather than a discussion of any specific technology. (Discussions of specific technologies being already old information by the time the book is printed.) Rawlins also almost-indirectly discusses the economics of change, by examining how technological change affects workforces.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW: I found these books using a combination of searching by call number in the library database, and the "People Who Bought This Title Also Bought..." feature on Amazon.com. So, old techniques and new combined. And yes, all of these books were available through the public library.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Newly thrown into the mix:

Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace (1997) by Janet H. Murray

Interesting discussion of how storytelling may change with the medium of computer communications and virtual realities. As the title suggests, modeled after Star Trek's holodeck - what happens when anyone can live any story, or any fantasy for that matter? (Star Trek touched upon this with "holodiction", but I think a culture which had such technology would be fundamentally different from what they showed us.)

And another book has arrived:

Digital Mosaics: The Aesthetics of Cyberspace (1997) by Steven Holtzman

Making the transition from static text to dynamic digital environments, and how our presumptions of interactions with visual input will be challenged. "Digital art is infinitely reproducible, yet ephemeral." It is the ephemeral quality which is most fascinating, since rather than gazing upon a fixed work we may be entering into a piece and moving with it as it evolves. At what point is it 'done' and needs to be captured? Or is the true role of art to change, as life changes? Heady questions.

And yet another new arrival:

Revolutionary Wealth: How it will be created and how it will change our lives (2006) by Alvin and Heidi Toffler

A new book from the man who gave us Future Shock and The Third Wave, and the folks who coined the term "prosumer". More projections on how all of the sexy technological changes a-comin' will be financed. Also has what promises to be a very interesting discussion of how we will handle the ever-increasing volume of information, how quickly knowledge becomes obsolete (in their fondness for coining terms, the Tofflers have given us another new word: obsolete knowledge = "obsoledge"; a bit awkward off the tongue, I don't think it will catch on), and what we will do with it once it is obsolete.

And another ingredient thrown into the soup:

A History of Knowledge; Past , Present and Future (1991) by Charles van Doren

Another older book with interesting insights. If this is "The Information Age", we are best served by understanding how humans interact with information, how they gain it, how we got to this particular age, and if the patterns of information-handling we have extablished will carry by momentum or if we are seeing entirely new forms. Discussions of McLuhan's concepts of media and the role of literacy are especially valuable.
----------------------------------------------------------

More more more - my filing cabinet, use it if you will:

The Future of Man (1959) by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Oft-quoted classic - I've run across many references and decided to go to the source. de Chardin gave us the "Teilhardian" ("de Chardinian" was just too big a mouthful) concept that consciousness and matter are aspects of the same reality, definitely a big influence on the singularitarian crowd. Teilhard also gave use the evolutionary progression from Geosphere (the physical earth), Biosphere (life), Noosphere (mind), to the "Omega Point", a blending of all intelligence in a communion of thought. The more I encounter Teilhardian visions of the world, the more I think the singularitarians aren't suggesting anything new, just putting a more technological spin on a metaphysical concept...

The Dance of Molecules: How Nanotechnology is Changing Our Lives (2006) by Ted Sargent

The latest poop on that thrilling gray goop. The author's interest in the field comes from a very understandable motive: a desire to resurrect his own personal Greta Garbo! Tuck away all of your high-falutin' talk about the good of humanity, there's an incentive I can get behind!

Future Imperfect: The Mixed Blessings of Technology in America (1994) by Howard P. Segal

Utopia, dystopia, and critical examinations of what progress really means to real people.

Waking Up in Time: Finding Inner Peace in Times of Accelerating Change (1998) by Peter Russell

"We are not slouching toward Bethlehem, as Yeats concludes in his poem The Second Coming. We are being catapulted there." Great stuff. It is too easy to focus on daydreams of what-ifs -- change still has to be dealt with on a day-to-day basis by real people. And people are not just mute pawns tosssed about by change - how people respond to change affects the rate of change.

Voyeur Nation: Media, Privacy, and Peering in Modern Culture (2000) by Clay Calvert

Privacy as we knew it is dead, and the media is rapidly morphing into something not envisioned a few years ago. Who are we in relation to one another, as viewed through and over electronic media?

------------------------------------------------

And another new arrival, one for which I have been waiting rather eagerly:

Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies - and What it Means to be Human (2005) by Joel Garreau

This one promises to be very enlightening. Rather than focusing on just the technologies likely to come along - and remember, most predictions about technologies prove out wrong - Garreau discusses the human side of the equation. An editor with the Washington Post, Garreau has very carefully referenced the work, which should make it a useful resource for leads to other research.

Gilding the Lily

I've just come in from the First Annual New Mexico BodyPainting Festival, which is ongoing this weekend in Albuquerque.

I have long been attracted to bodypainting; there is an annual festival in Austria and I have spent hours on their website, going over the galleries of photos. As someone who does massage, and just as someone who appreciates the human form, it is delightful to see bodies used as canvases.

And it is just plain fun. It was as interesting to see who turned up and to watch people watching, as it was to see the artists and models at work. There was a good deal of energy in the room, and there was lots of smiling.

If you have never encountered bodypainting, people (mostly women, some men) get transformed into a variety of fantastica by artists using colors brushed and sprayed on. There are a number of themes, including freestyle, and it is a true art form and not just a curiosity. Artists may spend 4-8 hours creating a piece which will only be on stage for a few moments.

But it is also an audience-friendly event. People wander from station to station watching the work being done, taking photos, and talking with the models (the artists are usually too absorbed in their task). I am reminded of what someone once told us, a Pueblo Indian about their performing traditional dances: "It is important that we do it, but it is important that you witness it." And that was the atmosphere - what would the point of doing it be, if no one were to look?

And I have to contrast the look-at-me attitude of the models with the sneak-a-look approach so common in our culture. After all, the models are almost naked (they wear pasties and at least g-strings, and sometimes more substantial panties, so as not to run afoul of local laws) and there could be a prurient interest at work. And there is an undeniable attraction in looking at attractive almost-nude models. But unlike tittie bars and porn and gratuitous nudity in B-movies, there is a delightful innocence at a bodypainting event, a sense of fun which is lacking in those other areas. It is in fact a pity that people under 18 were not allowed into the event, because I think children would think it was a blast - a non-sexual view of naked people, with a strong dose of play. (I think all kids enjoy the thought that adults can still appreciate play.)

Americans tend to sexualize nudity. Yet we are oddly puritanical about nudity and sex - we use sex appeal to sell everything from toothpaste to cars (especially cars), but at core are uneasy about our bodies and recognition of people as sexual animals. Don't get me wrong: there are other cultures even more body-shy and uptight than ours. But our messages versus our actualities seem especially hypocritical. Those Europeans I have encountered seem far more practical and direct about their bodies, and the annual World Bodypainting Festival in Austria not only attracts more than 30,000 people each year but is family-friendly, with free entrance for people under 14! Quite a difference.

Again, the non-ashamed, non-commercialized, innocent and fun approach to nudity was a fresh breath. We have teen movies which go out of their way to show skin. We have horror movies where it seems that women cannot be slaughtered when clothed. We have websites devoted to up-skirt shots and "voyeur cams" and long-lens shots at nude beaches. We have all these, and many another perversions of the very natural desire which people have to see other people unclothed.

And in contrast we have these attractive young women and men who are patiently standing for hours while they are transformed into fanciful new images just so others may admire them. And instead of it being dirty or mercantile, it is serious/silly fun. Instead of a girl having her picture snapped unawares while she is sunbathing topless, here is a girl frankly saying, "You want to look at me? Fine - I'm nice to look at! A picture? Sure!" Instead of men sitting around a stage watching a stripper (You ever been to one of those places? Most of the men never even smile - they sit there like zombies, their faces frozen.) there is a mixed audience mingling about, talking with the models and dealing with them as human beings.

Having an event like this brings me hope that we may someday grow up and get beyond the lewd sniggering and reach a mature and healthy view of our bodies. I have long wanted to attend the world competition in Austria, and still plan to make it someday, but I am very grateful to have had an event closer to home. And I'll be there at the next one.

New Mexico BodyPainting Festival

World Body Painting Festival

Postnote: It was very interesting to see how perceptions changed over the course of the evening. Just as at a science fiction convention where the many people in costumes seem to become the norm, so did naked people covered with paint seem to become the "normal" ones, and we the observers the oddballs.

After the runway show, the models went back to a photography room where professional shots were being done. Amateur shots were going on in front of a curtain just outside the photo room. (And I never saw any model refuse someone a photo, except when posing would interfere with the artist doing the design.) In the hallway near the photo room was a shirtless man. I thought at first that he was just getting into the spirit of things - some people who show up at these events end up being impromptu models - but it turned out that he had lent his shirt to one of the models so she could cover up and pass through the public area of the hotel to get to a bathroom. Gentlemanly, not freaky.

Then as I was leaving the hotel, a man wearing shorts and an open shirt and 3 small boys wearing only trunks walked across in front of me - they were passing from the pool area to the elevators.

And as I walked to the car and drove home and even now, I was ruminating on the seemingly-arbitrary but actually culturally-enforced norms regarding nudity. And appropriateness. And where we are on the continuum between body-shy and body-proud.

The man who lent his shirt to the model was appropriately (and gallantly) exposed in the context of the competition. But if he were to walk through the lobby like that (even though male skin is less disruptive in our culture than female) it would not be long before a hotel employee discreetly came up and "assisted him from the scene". Similarly, the exposed skin of the family coming back from the pool was socially tolerable in that circumstance, but they would have trouble getting into the hotel restaurant that way. Exposed skin is about context and appropriateness - there are no absolute proscriptions, and the proscriptions vary widely between cultures. So there is no universal human nudity taboo, whatever some people may insist.

I used to play hackeysack a lot and still do when I can get some like-minded people together. (And when I can't get folks assembled I sometimes freestyle alone, though kicking one's sack by one's self isn't half as much fun...) We had a largish group going on the athletic field one warm summer afternoon; one of the guys peeled off his shirt, and the rest of the males soon followed suit. One of the women playing said, "It's not fair! - I'm hot too, and I can't take my shirt off even though I want to!" A couple of the guys said "Yeah, you should!" in automatic male lewdness. But I knew what she meant, and told her so - it wasn't fair, and it still isn't. And as much as I enjoy female breasts they were just another part of her body, and that we males should be able to strip off with impunity and she could not without attracting trouble was, objectively and practically speaking, ridiculous.

When we have shifted and expanded our definitions of when nudity is appropriate - personally, I think being clothed anytime you are in water is vaguely sinful - then I think we may have finally matured as a people. Until that occurs, I shall seek the company of those who have already set sniggering aside and know that skin is no sin.

If you meet the Buddha on the 'Net, somone will have already killed him

One thing which was very interesting about attending WorldCon was the chance to see, encounter, and interact with so many authors and people who are 'names' in the field.

One such person was Craig Newmark, the "Craig" of Craigslist.org. After seeing him in action I would say that Craig is a true moderate: he can respect both extremes of a discussion, give them equal weight and still stay interested in both views, while providing or fostering the very forum which allows them to present their views. This is a very rare talent.

At WorldCon, I attended several panels where egos took precedence over viewpoints. (And it was very interesting to see authors whose work I respected and valued trot out their egos and yes it did to some small extent influence my perception of their works.) After a while of this sort of bluster and self-promotion (all in the guise of presenting points of discussion), Craig would interject with a calm and mild observation. It was always to the point, never harsh, and in contrast to the self-interest of the views earlier presented seemed almost detached and aloof. But I noticed that, each time that Craig spoke, even though it was quiet and measured, all of the interest in the room focussed upon him. And without trying, simply by being calm and reasonable, he slightly shamed the blusterers and brought the discussion back on track.

Craig is devoted to building community, which is the "secret" of his continuing success, whereas the others were striving to build self-image. Therein lies the difference. And I will state again that I think Craig is a very rare creature, on the Internet.

The Internet has the potential to be the biggest community-building and grassroots communication tool in our history. And it may yet become that. But at present it is a pale shadow of what it could be, largely because there is little respect for the middle path on the Internet. Typically, only extreme viewpoints draw attention on the 'Net.

And largely negative viewpoints, at that. Post a pleasant observation on a pleasant day, and you may receive one or two polite responses. (And likely, a sarcastic jab at your Pollyanna views.) Continue to be pleasant and upbeat, and you will hear only crickets. But post something negative, bitter, or outright unpleasant and you are virtually assured of many responses, whether it is someone trying to "one-down" you, someone offering sympathy, or someone offering an opposite view to your rant. Negativity assures response, and in the "ratings game", response is everything.

I have seen this effect many times - people, new to the self-revelatory aspect of posting on the 'Net, will try a variety of tacks to test the waters. They may post about their pets, their hobbies, their TV or sports interests... But responses will taper off. Then they will have a bad day and post about it, and suddenly they have more responses than for all of the other posts put together, ranging from "Me, too!" to "You think your life (job, day, relationship) is bad -- let me tell you about mine!" Everyone, it seems, wants sympathy from others, and the easiest way to get it is to complain about their lives. (And if you ever want to guarantee responses, simply post "My job sucks!!!!" and you will get more than you can handle. Everyone too, it seems, wants to complain about their jobs.)

I have concluded that the Internet is inherently polarizing. That is, people who state positions in posts may find themselves being put in the position of defending viewpoints extreme beyond what they actually believe and originally intended. Anyone who has hung out on Internet fora has seen it happen: a discussion is proceeding upon a subject (remember, a forum is a place to present and discuss ideas). Two or three top posters quickly sort out on the subject, and it quickly becomes clear that there are two who are "toe-to-toe" on the subject. To stay in the game, as it were, their positions rapidly escalate and become more polarized, as compared to their first statements of position. (The forum history provides a clear "paper trail" by which this may be estimated.) Other people quickly drop out of the discussion, simply lurking to watch these two now-opponents go at it, as the discussion takes on all the aspects of argument, then combat. All too often, the discussion devolves to namecalling and personal slurs, and one or both of them depart from the forum to sulk, lick their wounds, and resurface somewhere else.

The sad thing is that a careful analysis of their early arguments shows that they often had a large amount of common ground. After all, both of them had been drawn to the forum due to a common interest in the subject. But the nature of how they interacted caused these points of agreement to become buried in the increasing ire of their argument. It seems clear that a lack of skills in how to proceed in reasonable discussion lies at the heart of the problem.

The Middle Path through the Internet is narrow, shaky, and sometimes barely visible. As someone who honors the Buddha and who tries to live by many of his teachings, this saddens me. And, thinking of the Buddha, I try to control my annoyance at the endless carping, griping, moaning and groaning which comprises so much of the "conversation" on the 'Net.

I remind myself that Internet communications are only in their infancy, and people have not yet learned how to best utilize the medium. So, from that perspective, the complaining which irritates me may be viewed as what it strongly resembles: the crying of babies, unsure how to otherwise communicate their needs. As the Internet matures, so (I hope and believe) it shall mature its users, and a more community-based and less ego-driven protocol for communications will grow as well.

We need a recognition of the fact that most of the people who have suddenly been dropped into social intercourse on the Internet do not have the background, skills or training to take up the challenge of communicating their viewpoints without letting their egos intrude. It is no shame upon them - they have likely previously had little need for such skills (and the popular media, itself largely an exercise in extremes, has given them little support or respect for these skills). Folks are feeling their way, often getting their fingers burned, and sometimes having to completely withdraw and return in another place and time - a haphazard approach. We could smooth the path for everyone striving to use this medium, if only we had an agreed-upon understanding that Internet communications are not inherent or instinctive, and must be learned like any other social skills.

Even in a world with millions of people trying to be heard, extreme viewpoints are not the only way to draw attention. From The Middle Path one can see both poles of the matter at hand, and walking the path lets one see compromises as they may present themselves. And compromise is the first step toward community. Perhaps the Internet can become a community (or, at least, a series of communities), rather than just a place of mutually raised voices.

Now is the duochrome of our Plan 9 made glorious color by the sons of Legend Films

It creeps. It crawls. It draws near. Bringing horrors undreamt of by man.

Unless the man is a cross-dressing angora-fetish alcoholic.

Now is the duochrome of our Plan 9 made glorious color by the sons of Legend Flms - and it may be coming to your town.

Ed Wood is a big presence in our house, as are his friends Vampira, Tor Johnson, The Amazing Criswell, and of course dear old Bela Lugosi. Sure, you've seen Plan 9 from Outer Space and Tim Burton's Ed Wood - but how many people have signed photos of Dolores Fuller on the wall? Heck, we've even got Mae West's album with her song about Criswell, and have spent hours in dusty used-book stores looking for the porn novels Ed wrote under (numerous) pseudonyms.

Ed has gotten the reputation as "Worst Director of All Time" (largely due to a Golden Turkey award), and Plan 9 the reputation as "Worst Film". Which I think is unfair, and unwarranted - there is many another film out there worse than P9, films less known, less entertaining, less successful. P9 at least has a beginning, a middle, and an end - things which some films do not come into shouting distance of - and definitely tells a story.

And Ed's movies are darned entertaining, with Plan 9 leading the pack. There is an earnestness to it, a desire to tell a story which gleams out past the obvious shortcomings. And not to gloss over those shortcomings - Ed's greatest skill seemed to be drawing wooden performances out of even veteran actors, and the technical flaws are legion. But his odd dogged sincerity colors each of his works, and Plan 9 most of all.

I have watched/listened to the film umpteen zillion times now, and it remains entertaining and even gets better with repeated viewings. Sure, I wait for my favorite flubs, like Tor in his thick accent saying he's going to "look around a little" and it sounds like "lurk" (and his "You take charge" sounds like "You take George" and we have to wonder who George is), or the many pronunciations of "solarvenite". And I can quote you chapter and verse on the logic errors, discontinuities and outright mistakes in the film. But the film still manages to entertain in a way that other more "competent" films do not.

Astute readers may have noticed that I said above that I "listened" to P9 as well as watching it. I sometimes put the film on in the background while doing stuff around the house. But I also have a CD of the soundtrack, the full soundtrack including dialog, and have now listened to it untold dozens of times. This may explain a great deal. But, as with so many things, time will tell.

It is an interesting testimony to Ed's dialogue that it listens about as well as it plays in the film. The screenplay has lots of narration over stock footage, and the rest of the action is often accompanied by expository dialogue reminiscent of the old radio dramas which Ed would have listened to. The words work, even without Ed's "fantastic" visuals.

(Though one thing should be mentioned, which is the surprising quality of the film stock used for Plan 9 as revealed in the DVD releases of the film. This is definitely one for the Looks Far Better Than It Has Any Right To category - the image is crisp with nice contrast. Which unfortunately for Ed but delightfully for us just points up every little flaw in the sets.)

I am certainly no fan of colorization, but as regards Plan 9 I have no problem with it. Colorizing something like The Maltese Falcon would be a sin against nature, but if Ed could have afforded color he would have used it, the brighter and more garish the better. I think Ed's mental images of his works were Technicolor, Cecil-B-DeMille-scaled epics, and colorization comes closer to that vision than he himself could achieve.

I have seen the trailer and some clips of the colorized version, and it works just fine. In an odd way, it dignifies the film and is respectful of it. Sure, as with any colorization some of the highlights emerge as odd - bright red fingernails against Vampira's pallid skin, touches of color on Tor. But they are dead, so their pallor works just fine. The rich colors of the aliens' outfits and surroundings are I think just what Ed would have wanted.

We have several different releases of P9 on the shelf, but not the colorized version. I have ordered it, but even before then we shall have a chance to see it, in all its cinematic glory. Local arthouse, The Guild Cinema, is bringing Plan 9 from Outer Space to the big screen next weekend, for several late shows.

And we will be there, dressed up in evening finery as for any Hollywood premiere.

Remember, my friends - future events, such as these, will affect you. In the future.

The Spaces Between Dropping Water

Our water has been out since yesterday morning. The pump seized up.

But the (gasoline-powered) garden pump kicks out large amounts of clean water, we have lots of containers to fill, and the guys should be out to fix the pump today. So, a temporary hassle rather than a disaster.

Friends offered us a chance to shower at their place on the way to work, very nice of them. I chose however to bathe the "old-fashioned" way - I heated a pan of water on the stove then put that pan, a saucepan to use for dipping, and a pitcher of cool water by the tub.

I am a fan of showers, and of long soaks in a hot tub. But as much as I like the brief isolation from the world which a shower enables, I also tend to be thinking about the day ahead rather than just enjoying the cascade of the water. Too, the white noise of the running shower contains all sounds, including the bogus sound of a ringing phone, and my mind tends to wander to song bits and movie quotes and the various bits and pieces which crowd the corners.

By contrast, bathing by dipper was an exercise in rediscovered sensations, old/new considerations, and punctuated silences. It turns out the trick to such bathing is adding just enough cool water to take the edge off of the hot water; I was reminded as to just how sensitive is our skin in reporting temperature differences and how one bit of skin may be hot while another is cool. There was a finite amount of water available, so pacing and judicious measurement is inherently required, and having "hauled" all the water I was aware of (and grateful for) every drop. And bathing by dipper is a calm thing, a quiet thing - I could hear birds outside the window, the sound of the water sluicing across me, every drop as it fell...

I was in the moment. Not replaying the movie of last night or singing a song or envisioning the day ahead. I was simply and totally bathing. And it was wonderful. And cleansing.

As I toweled off, I flashed on an ancient Japanese woodcut, a man sitting on a little stool in a bathhouse, grinning as he pours a dipperful of water over his head, the hot tub waiting nearby. We are brothers, he and I, across great time and space.

When I get home tonight there should be water on tap as usual, and I will be happy to have it back.

But I think I shall still, now and again, bathe by dipper so that I may re-enter the clean moment.

Gojira is attacking the city!

I just picked up the Gojira/Godzilla box DVD at Costco, $12.99.

It's a very nice little number, one disk with "The Original Japanese Masterpiece" and another disk with the edited, Americanized, Raymond Burr-ized version which is the only version most people have seen. There is also a booklet giving an overview of the history of the project.

It is nice to see that the whole package has a rather dignified appeal, with none of the gaudiness which later affected the character/series. Don't get me wrong - I am very fond of the Big G in just about every one of his manifestations. (We'll ignore the "Baby Godzilla" period where they were marketing toward kids, and then there was that rumor of a Godzilla in America...) But the original movie deserves respect. I had seen "the Japanese cut" of the film before, on video, but it wasn't until I saw it in a theater that its full impact hit me. (The print was first shown at G-Con, then brought to Santa Fe for a special showing.)

Broken up by shots of Raymond Burr gazing out a window, the American release comes off in many ways as just a Japanese take-off on an American giant-monster movie. (Which in some ways it was - the production was heavily influenced by The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, which was a hit in Japan.) The U.S. cut also changed some of the scenes, especially those involving metaphorical references to the atomic bomb and scenes which might stir guilt feelings in American viewers.

The original vision of the film goes far beyond the giant bug/monster/man movies which were the stuff of 60's sci-fi. Gojira (pronounced with the emphasis on the "go") is a dark, brooding and somber cautionary tale. And this was no accident, as it was exactly the effect intended by the production staff - they had seen, firsthand, the effects of both firebombing and a-bombing on their homeland, and they injected those memories and images into the project.

David J. Skal, in his book "The Monster Show", presents the idea that popular filmic images of horror are versions of the recent history which the viewers have lived through - wars, famines, catastrophes. Gojira could not be a clearer support for his premise. The relentless mega-beast lumbering across Japan, leaving a wake of destruction and flames, is the very embodiment of the atomic genie which WWII let out of the bottle. The opening scene, a Japanese vessel sunk after a mid-sea encounter with something which produced a terrible heat, was a topical reference to a real event where a fishing vessel strayed too close to atomic testing in the Pacific, resulting in injuries to the crew (who, ironically, were Japanese).

Some of the effects are near-laughable - the obvious hand-puppet shots will make you smile - but the whole production was done very quickly considering the scope. The now-familiar "guyinasuitasaurus", a necessary compromise as stop-motion animation would be too expensive in both money and time, was actually to set a style. But if the buildings are sometimes obviously models it still has the effect of pointing up how small and helpless humans and their creations are in the relation to the destructive beast.

The music score is splendid - ominous, building, and powerful. It was to be reprised many times in the later Godzilla films, but in the dark and brooding setting of the first film it has its greatest punch.

The Gojira disk looks pretty good - some blips and pops, but overall clean. Surprisingly, considering the quality of the rest of the release, the subtitles for the disk have not been updated, and have noticeable grammatical and proofreading errors - a visual analog to the stilted dubbing which was to be a trademark element of later Godzilla films.

But the dialog is almost unnecessary for much of the film - the power, menace, and pathos of the great beast come through in any language. Anyone expecting a primitive version of the flashy entertainment of the later movies is in for a surprise.

You Are Judged By The Company You Keep

I was outside just now, pulling weeds again. And I'll get right back at it after finishing this - no lack of weeds, this year.

The dog is my constant companion in this task as in many outdoor tasks. He noses around in the corners, chases lizards, and comes around to smell each fresh bit of earth I turn up. I always know he is there, even when he is out of sight in the deep tall weeds. As I am out of sight, moving along in a crouch, hacking at the bases of the weeds which tower above me.

As I work, I reflect again upon the man-dog relationship, an ancient partnership with great value to both sides. I feel the weight of the old contract between us - I could be a hunter/gatherer harvesting food, vulnerable while crouched down among the weeds, but I have no fear because I know that Einstein has got my back and would warn me of any dangers. It is unlikely that, in my present urban/rural setting, there are any brigands lurking about ready to do me harm. But the defensive tools are even more ancient than the relationship with the dog, always "faintly on", and it is nice to be able to relax them for a while because the dog has Got My Back and I think how nice the feeling is, to have someone watching your back and I ruminate on how seldom I feel that during the course of each day.

Anyway, the dog and I are out there weeding and I am thinking about the nature of our relationship and all the while I am also thinking about virtual reality and cyberspace and the singularity. (The human brain: massively parallel and holographic and able to consider many possibilities at once.) And I started to ponder the place of pets in this possible future. But, more than pets: companions, partners. We have these partnerships which have arisen over time, with other creatures on this planet. What will become of them, and the partnerships, as we move into the "transhuman" state so beloved of the singularitarians?

Some of the singularitarians seem positively eager to leave behind all ties with the "dirt world", as though humanity should be embarrassed of its history - sort of like someone who came from a small town adopting a new sophisticated persona and pretending they have always lived in The Big City. These people impatiently await transmutation of materials and the ability to upload human consciousness into "clean" cyberspaces, there to pretend that they never had manure on their boots.

But I will remind these people that partnerships last only when there is benefit for both parties, and our relationships with dogs has lasted for a very long time indeed. (Sure, we have had longterm relationships with cows and pigs as well, for very selfish reasons. But we [typically] do not have dogs around for food.) And I do not think the benefits of the partnership, and the partnerships themselves, will disappear just because humans become more adept at entering virtual realms.

In fact, I maintain that we shall need those relationships more than ever, both for practical reasons and as an anchor to help us maintain perspective. And our humanity.

I was considering what it would be like to upload an animal's consciousness into cyberspace. Would it be able to cope? But then I figured that any of our companion animals have already essentially been pre-selected as being adept at living in human spaces, so as long as the cyberspace followed some familiar ground rules the creatures would likely adapt.

(The question arises of the ethics of uploading an animal's consciousness, since you would basically be doing it without their permission [or understanding]. While I am reasonably sure that most creatures, when asked if they would like to exist forever, would answer "Yes, please!", there is also the fact that I have seen many people who should not have pets and would people be any less likely to abuse the relationships just because the pet was a digital pattern? It is tempting to say that folks would be more enlightened by that point, but...)

As we explore new spaces and abilities, I think we shall benefit greatly from the already-demonstrated skills of our animal companions, whether in the form of programs based upon them or their actual consciousnesses. Moving through digital realms, I would like to have the keen senses and loyalty of a dog by my side, warning me of the approach of strangers and dangers. Likewise, the steady self-interest, curiosity, and reaction time of a cat should prove valuable, as well as having a ruthless hunter of vermin to take care of viruses which would do me harm.

Let's take it even further - what creature should be better at navigating digital seas than a dolphin? Already accustomed to handling constant information input from a vast related realm, dolphins or their analogs would be ideal pilots to guide us. A dolphin's sonar is like the heads-up displays already used in virtual spaces, constantly and updatedly informing them of the world around them (both near and far - dolphins know what is happening in their neighbors' gut as well as what is occurring leagues away), and as we approach their level and need of information processing we have much to learn from them.

My animal companions' senses are different, and in some cases vastly superior, from my own. I rely upon my dog to warn me of dangers as we walk in the dark of the night, as I rely on my cat to suppress the vermin which threaten my food supply. I do not see this reliance receding just because I am walking through a darkness of unformed digital space. Their world views are very different, each from the other and from my own, but all are complementary. And their demonstrated specializations nicely augment my vaunted human generalism.

But the practical aside, I would like my partners to be with me wherever I may venture, simply because I would miss them and I think I would be diminished by their absence. We are friends and colleagues, as well as partners. And as we approach whatever the "transhuman" state may bring I think we shall need our friends, and as many reminders of the humanity we came from as we can get.

The fix is in

I was talking with a fellow once, at a bus stop. (To quell rumors that I hang around bus stops: I used to ride the city bus to my college classes.) We were talking about the rapid growth of the Albuquerque area. But, I said, availability of water would ultimately be the limiting factor.

"I'm not worried about water," he said. He waved a casual hand at the Sandia Mountains. "The scientists, they'll take that mountain apart and fuckin' turn it into water!"

I have carried that phrase with me ever since, for it is the perfect expression of what Kirkpatrick Sale calls the technofix - a near-religious belief that whatever problems humanity can create our technology will fix for us. And I use the term near-religious with due consideration, for faith in the technofix is akin to the faith which many religious folks carry with them: though things may not be ideal now, after ____________ (conversion, death, the Second Coming, the Rapture) everything will be heavenly. Faith in the technofix allows, almost encourages, ignoring the present while dreaming about the future.

I am just finishing reading Charles Stross' "Accelerando". Astute readers may point out that I recently said that I was reading Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near", which is correct. I am reading the books in parallel, and they work well together - Kurzweil projects trends, backed by charts and graphs, and Stross takes the trends and runs with them, discussing the human impact.

Stross has given me quite a bit to mull over. One area which I would not have considered is finance - how does trade work, when our paradigms of production have shifted? What serves as money? One very interesting concept presented by Stross is reputation as currency, one's "interest rating" itself being a marketable commodity (even traded on exchanges). Further thought is due, on this.

But both books inherently promote the technofix as inevitable and proper. Offhand and passing references are made to some potential problems, but each time momentum and more technofix serve to gloss over the problem. Technology as a hot quarterback, carrying the ball of humanity over the broken field to the dizzy heights of the touchdown.

I can see the attraction of such a view. Myself raised on the futurism which science fiction espoused, the idea of rapidly-accelerating change drawing us forward is exciting to me. Exhilarating. Intoxicating.

But I was also raised in a garden, with the ebb and flow of the seasons very apparent, and with cause and effect an inherent and understood foundation for progress and success. The garden is most "successful" when you understand nature, and work with it.

So if there was ever a fellow of two minds, you are looking at him.

I understand why few will challenge technological advancement, why the technofix seems natural to most and those who cry warning are considered as pessimistic neo-Luddites. It is because, by many measures and to most observers, for the last few decades the technofix has seemed to work. And I say "seemed" very carefully, because whether the fixes have actually worked or not is largely a matter of the timeframe being used:

In the shortterm: antibiotics seem to have subdued many life-threatening conditions

In the longterm: over-use of antibiotics has produced resistant and increasingly-virulent forms of diseases


In the shortterm: hybridized plants, artificial fertilizers and pesticides have greatly increased agricultural production

In the longterm: monocropping is increasing the likelihood of crop collapse, artificial fertilizers upset the balance of soil biota, and pesticides have challenged insects to evolve more rapidly


In the shortterm: increased availability of food resources has led to better nutrition for many humans on the planet

In the longterm: injudicious distribution and utilization of food resources has led to endemic obesity and health problems


I said above that I was a gardener. I have been gardening all of my life; my father grew food, my mother grew flowers. Working the soil for this year's crop and preparing it for the next is very natural for me. Wherever and however I have lived I have gardened, even if it was just a few houseplants or a patch of flowers outside the door. No pun at all: gardening keeps me rooted.

In the last 40 years the gardening catalogs have steadily increased the numbers of hybrid seeds made available. They are often featured as "sure-fire" choices. And no doubt about it - the plants resulting from the hybridized seeds are usually more robust, more resistant to disease and insects, and produce better than non-hybridized varieties.

But in that timeframe I have also noticed that there are more and more diseases which need to be countered. Plant diseases which were once no big problem in the home garden are now threatening crops, and newly-bred seeds and plants are continually being presented as offering resistance. The hybridization challenged the diseases, making them evolve faster.

This is something which the "singularitarians" seem to gloss over on a regular basis. Technological change does not occur in a vacuum, especially where natural processes are concerned. Blithe discussions of dropping nanotech into our natural world is all fine and well, nanotech has many exciting possibilities, but there is already a nano-biota in place on our planet, one which has developed over millions of years and the complexities of which we are only just beginning to understand.

I'll say that again: we only understand a very small fraction of just how the microorganisms of our planet work. A dynamic balance/imbalance is at the core of how these microorganisms interact, cooperate and challenge one another, a complex dance the steps of which have arisen over millenia. And what happens when someone attempts to join a complex dance without knowing the steps? Chaos, collisions, and people falling down.

You may have noticed that I above said that microorganisms both cooperate with and challenge each other. This is a part of evolution which many people only faintly grasp: cooperation is competition, and competition is cooperation. "The survival of the fittest" is at the core of Darwinism, but the quality of the prey dictates the quality of the predator. The predator "cooperates" with the prey (as a species) by removing the weak and improving the line of the prey as a whole. And the more challenged a predator is, the more rapidly it improves as a predator.

Human beings carry with them a smugly subsumed notion that they are at the top of the heap, evolution-wise. With our tools we have put ourselves above the predators which once ate our ape ancestors, with our technology we have stepped aside from many of the challenges with which other organisms must deal. We can live in any environment, control our immediate environment, and expand far beyond the natural restrictions for our species. As far as humanity is concerned, we have short-circuited evolution.

But it is again a matter of timeframe. We may pride ourselves as having no predators; beastie-wise, we are unchallenged. But the role of the predator in evolution is to remove the weakest. Having removed ourselves from predation, we inherently preserve our weakest. But it is only a temporary thing - regardless of our views, nature carries on. And new predators will emerge - are emerging - to thin the herd. In the absence of swift natural predators, there are two new predators looming on the horizon: diseases, and other humans. And disease may prove to be a swift predator after all - with their shorter individual lifespans, diseases which we challenge with our technological counters can evolve at a very rapid rate compared with our relatively much longer lives. We are a large and unexploited biomass on this planet, and we are breeding our own predators.

Technology is sexy, it is captivating, it is the shiny toy we all want as a child. The singularity is wow, it is the Star Trek holodeck, it can make you giddy with considering the possibilities. Human beings can jump very high, and very far.

But we had better first understand, and understand well, the point from which we are leaping off.

40 Years of Trekkin'

(Star Trek premiered on Sept. 8 1966, the first of 79 50-minute episodes and the beginning of a franchise dynasty)

I will be honest and say that I don't recall when I first saw an episode of Star Trek. Even at the age of 6, which I was when the show premiered, I certainly would have wanted to see it. But it came on late at night and was perhaps across from something else someone else wanted to see (only 3 channels, and already viewing conflicts existed). I suppose my older brother would have wanted to see it and had some say. But decades of reruns have blurred the memory of the first viewings. I likely saw it early in the run, but cannot say with certainty.

But even at that age I was mad - mad, I tell you! - for anything remotely science-fictional. And once I saw the show I was hooked. It wasn't just the aliens, the bright colors, the exotic planets - it was the forwardness of it, "the human adventure just beginning". Star Trek assumed that people would not only be around in a couple of centuries, but they would all be getting along fairly well and sampling what the big brawling galaxy had to offer, a view of the future which held for me great appeal.

And it is a testimony to the power of the show's influence over 4 decades, that I cannot readily separate memories around the show from one another. It seems that it has always been a part of my life. So memories of shaping a phaser out of wood (clock gears provided the controls) nudge up against attending the opening night of the first movie (disappointing), and playground re-enactments of scenes from the night before coexist with memories of going over to a high-school friend's house late on Saturday to catch a ST rerun before heading out to see a midnight movie. Star Trek is at once for me an innocent and a jaded experience.

Yet it still has power, and pull, and a warm familiarity. I have to admit that when I sampled the DVD release of TOS Trek I got excited about it all over again. (Even though the packaging design for those releases was foully clumsy...) There were the shows in all their original glory, bright and untrimmed. (Nothing worse for a ST fan, who knows every line, to see a copy which has been relentlessly shortened to make room for yet another commercial - "Wait, what about the bit where Bones says...?") And because of the advances in TV technology, the shows look better than when they originally aired, bright and crisp.

(Almost too good, in fact - even without hi-def TV, one can see many little details and flaws: thumbprints on control panels, dirt on the floor, lint on uniforms, the nicks at the bottom edge of set pieces... Only Spock's ears always look good, even in close-up. And the new clarity of the DVDs removes from us any lingering ability to suspend disbelief that the stuntman is actually William Shatner. When we first saw a fight scene go from close-up to long shot, it was "who is that guy in the gold tunic who just got into the fight"? - the difference was so obvious. This jarring change of personnel has led to a new drinking game, "Kirk/NotKirk": watch a fight scene, and every time it jumps to NotKirk you take a shot...)

I've never considered myself a 'Trekkie', one of those extreme fans who strongly embrace the show and are easily parodized for their carrying the trappings of it. Sure, I know the plot of every show and the titles of most. And I read all of the James Blish versions of the stories as they came out in books. And I watched the animated series, caught the show on reruns, attended the movies and tried on every new iteration of the series as they appeared. And I went to my first Star Trek convention when I was 16 and bought photos and stuff and peed in the next urinal to Walter Koenig and Oh Shit maybe I am a Trekkie after all.

This is a staggering realization, if you think of Trekkies only as those people whom Shatner zinged in the famous SNL "Get a Life!" skit - nerds who focus on the show as an escape from the world they feel ill-at-ease in. But of course that is just an exaggeration, extreme examples of the subculture. Sure, they exist - but so do extreme sports fans who paint themselves with their team's colors and do outrageous things at games. Star Trek fans reside along a broad continuum of involvement with the show, that continuum as broad as the whole culture itself.

And I have to maintain that the culture as a whole is influenced by Star Trek, or at least the ideals which Star Trek showcased. What Roddenberry pitched as "Wagon Train, to the Stars" also carried his visions of a better future, the adventure opening us up to infection by the dreams. In Roddenberry's future, color or heritage or even species doesn't matter. Sex still matters - some of the male/female interactions seem incredibly dated now. But just having a woman in the chain of command was quite a leap in those days, and Roddenberry kept pushing at those boundaries. And in the framework of science fiction, he discussed social problems which were taboo in any other genre of the time. (Admittedly, sometimes clumsily - the "black/white" aliens still make me wince, even with Frank Gorshin classing up the joint.)

Star Trek also got people of the time thinking about the possibilities represented by the technological change which was coming fast and furious. In the midst of newly-arising concerns about pollution and environmental degradation, ST showed people a clean shiny future - an attractive alternative to strive for. (I'm of two minds about this - one can also point to ST as supporting the belief in the "technofix" which sometimes gets in the way of effective present-day action; people think "why should I worry about recycling, when technology will come along to fix everything we have messed up?" But that is a measure of Star Trek's influence too.) And ST envisioned a world inherently without want or poverty, and without the strife which arises from need - an attractive dream when the increasingly-televised world was shown as being a place of vast inequalities.

For me, one of the most impressive aspects of Trekdom is that it was not an accident - Roddenberry knew exactly what he was doing, what effect he wanted to have. The show's success may have surprised others, but not Gene - he set out to tell stories about better people in a better future, and he figured other people would enjoy that prospect as well. The continuing popularity of the Star Trek universe has proven him right.

The Singularity

As mentioned in a previous posting, I was sensitized to "The Singularity" (and the fact that I had been out of touch regarding the concept) at the 2006 WorldCon. But I've been catching up fast.

I am currently reading "The Singularity is Near" by Ray Kurzweil. I am only a few chapters in, but Kurzweil has already laid out enough food for thought that I am brain-gorging (and digesting) even as I type. Though he does touch on some possible hazards, Kurzweil seems to be a relentlessly optimistic futurist. An "optimistic realist" myself, I read his works with a healthy skepticism.

But there is one area where we are in complete agreement. Years ago, I gave some serious thought to the old saying, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." On the face of it, it is true - a pithy commentary on human motivations regardless of culture or time in history. A politician has basically the same goals, whether in 1750's France or 2000's Beijing. A young man and a young woman whose parents do not want them to be together have the same heartaches, whether in a Shakespearean drama or over the Internet. And then there is the oft-quoted old turnip about youth and music and the downfall of society, which dates back to the Greeks.

However, it occurred to me that most of the folks quoting the phrase missed one major point: things are always changing, and people are certainly aware of that, but lately the rate of change has changed. Major changes - technological advances, paradigm shifts - are arriving closer together than in any other period of human history.

I have been arguing this point for years, and reading Kurzweil's phrase:

"... the future will be far more surprising than most people
realize, because few observers have truly internalized
the implications of the fact that the rate of change itself
is accelerating."

struck me a great blow. Compadre! (Of course, there is also some small satisfaction that I can feel myself one of the 'few observers', the exceptions, to whom he refers...) Kurzweil's "Law of Accelerating Returns" is exactly what I had been striving to impress upon others, for years.

He also stresses that it is not just technology which has significant potential to bring about change, but also ideas:

"... the power of ideas to transform the world
is itself accelerating."

This is another point which I have gone to lengths to impress upon those who focus solely upon charting technological change. Ideas transport even more readily than technology, and may have far broader impact.

So I feel both corroborated and vindicated by Kurzweil's theories, and at the moment feel toward him a warm comradely glow. We shall see what the rest of the book brings.

(Note: I have also [I almost wrote "of course" here but considering my blind spot regarding the Singularity there can be no assumed or implied "of course"] been following with interest the various meme projects as they have developed. I find it of particular interest that the word "meme" is popping up more often in everyday discussions.)