Tech Was Supposed To Democratize The Playing Field. So What Happened?

Ironically, the digital revolution was supposed to be an equalizer. The early boosters of the Internet sprang from the counterculture of the 1960s and the New Communalist movement. Some of them, like Stewart Brand, hoped to spread the sensibilities of hippie communes throughout the wilderness of the web. Others saw the internet more broadly as an opportunity to build a society that amended the failures of the physical world. But in the last few years, the most successful tech companies have built a new economy that often accentuates the worst parts of the old world they were bent on replacing.

Reality According To Google (Like It Or Not We’ve Got To Deal With It)

Whether or not Google ultimately exercises this power depends on its human leaders—and on the digital society Google is so central to building. The company is investing heavily in machine intelligence, committing itself to a highly automated future where the mechanics and, perhaps, the true insights of the quest for knowledge become difficult or impossible for humans to understand. Google is gradually becoming an extension of individual and collective thought. It will get harder to recognize where people end and Google begins. People will become both empowered by and dependent on the technology—which will be easy for anyone to access but hard for people to control.

Radically Decorous

If decorous action is calm, staid and subdued, then people who are comfortable will inevitably find decorum a lighter burden. Meanwhile, it will weigh more heavily on those who are hurting, dispossessed and justly angry. If this basic inequity is baked into the concept, why not do away with decorum altogether?

The Wild Review Of ‘The English Patient’ That Left Its Writer Bereft, Twenty Years Later

This is a cautionary tale of lying – to oneself and to editors – and where that road leads. Also, this is a severe skewering not only of the movie The English Patient but also of the book. “Sometimes, when I met people, they’d say, ‘Wait! Aren’t you the movie girl?’ Sometimes they would say, ‘Do you like anything?’ A guy in a bar told me once that he and his friends called me ‘the movie assassin.'”

What Do Humans Need Religion For? Managing Our Emotions

“How we feel is as important to our survival as how we think. Our species comes equipped with adaptive emotions, such as fear, rage, lust and so on: religion was (and is) the cultural system that dials these feelings and behaviours up or down. We see this clearly if we look at mainstream religion, rather than the deleterious forms of extremism. Mainstream religion reduces anxiety, stress and depression. It provides existential meaning and hope. It focuses aggression and fear against enemies. It domesticates lust, and it strengthens filial connections. Through story, it trains feelings of empathy and compassion for others. And it provides consolation for suffering.”

You Know What We Need? Militant Optimism!

Good thing breakthroughs in the human condition happen outside of politics. History is the record of political failure. Progress is the march of science and technology. Just think of the past 100 years: mass communication, penicillin, refrigerators, computing, commercial air travel, cheap birth control, PCs, the internet, smartphones, gene sequencing, fracking—altogether producing more human freedom and wealth than wars or laws.

A Ringing Defense Of The Printed Page

As for my attempts to express the impact of the screen on the page, on the actual pages of literary novels, I now understand that these were altogether irrelevant to the requirement of the age that everything be easier, faster, and slicker in order to compel the attention of screen viewers. It strikes me that we’re now suffering collectively from a “tyranny of the virtual,” since we find ourselves unable to look away from the screens that mediate not just print but, increasingly, reality itself.