technology's effects on our
humanity.
Our fascination with social media
(say, using Tumblr for six hours per day), our reliance on GPS to
find an urban destination, or
even a simple Google search as a replacement for remembering the
capital of Nebraska, could be
transforming us.
Most technologists reckon we're
changing for the better. Our gadgets and gizmos are helping us to
connect more with each other, stay
alert when we drive, and discover more information.
But a few researchers suggest we
are changing for the worse. No, they're not saying that 'the sky is
falling' and we ought to panic,
but they are worried about our digital transformation. And, they say,
this potential dehumanization
might not happen for another 100 years or more.
Sensory dynamism
Here's a new term to consider:
sensory dynamism. The concept has to do with our perception. When
you look out of a window, you
perceive millions of variances - colour, perspective, sound, feeling,
and many others. But when you
gaze at an iPad, you're sensing just a few variables - and with email
and SMS, you may barely be using
your senses. That could pose a problem in the long run for future
human development.
Neema Moraveji is the director of
the Calming Technology Lab at Stanford University. He says
sensory dynamism can be a problem
when it comes to an over-reliance on computer technology.
(To address the concern, his team
is working on adding more sensory stimulus to gadgets, computer
screens, and other devices.)
Moraveji says technology can
sometimes cloud our sensory judgement. We see only factual and
textual information instead of an
array of human emotions.
"Technology makes us less
human when we believe life is a rat race to be won - a zero-sum
mentality - and when we are
isolated and individual rather than interconnected, and primarily
competitive rather than primarily
collaborative," he says.
"I describe the brain as an
organ whose job it is to learn through its physiochemical and cognitive
senses. Without sufficient
dynamism, the brain becomes focused on particular senses and inputs
that are not representative of
the natural world."
Ironically, one of the answers
may lie in videogame technology. More than the flat graphics of a
phone displaying text, games at
least mimic the sensations of sound, light, and emotion in a more realistic
virtual world. Game technology is also advancing - some day, we might 'smell' a
rainforest or
'touch' an alien skin.
Implantable electronics
Strictly speaking, implantable
electronics make us less human: we become, in some percentage,
machine. Of course, the first
cardiac pacemakers were invented back in the 50s - saying someone is
'less human' if they have a
pacemaker is a bit harsh.
Yet some of us might have an
implant to enhance vision or read text messages directly into the
synapse, or might use a
bio-skeleton for enhanced strength. In 100 years, embedded technology
could replace more and more of
our human anatomy.
Dr Bridget Duffy is the chief
medical officer at Vocera, a company that makes a wireless
communicator for use in
hospitals. She talks of an '80-20' rule in the health profession. In some
cases, only 20% of healing occurs
because of a drug treatment or surgery, while 80% of the success
depends on patient-doctor
interaction. If a 'human being' transforms into something that's more
electronic than biological, there
is a concern that a future society will lose the distinctions of
emotional connection.
"There is something about
hope, communication, and trust that improves the outcome," Duffy says.
"You can focus on a good
technical outcome, but there has to be the other component. When you
know a loved one who has faced
mortality and a life-threatening illness, the implant is not enough -
there is something about physical
contact."
Duffy explains that in many
surgery rooms, it's not uncommon for the entire staff to touch and speak
directly to the patient. But it's
already possible, she says, for a doctor to perform a procedure entirely
from "behind the glass"
without ever meeting a patient, robotically controlling all of the instruments.
Following this path, could a
future total reliance on medical technology make us less human?
Patients might even, for
instance, be able perform home surgeries, but the 'less human' argument
hints that this could result in
fewer successful surgeries and affect our long-term health as a society.
Duffy says the 80-20 rule might
even be applied across all technology - we should have real human
contact 80% of the time and
restrict virtual experience to the remaining 20%.
Search dependence
Search has put a world of
information at our fingertips. We can search for information about the
latest Syrian army attacks, or
find out about Himalayan fruit flies. In 2010, however, Nicholas Carr
wrote a seminal book on whether
search is making us stupid. The Shallows: What the Internet Is
Doing to Our Brains recounts how
our search dependence could have ill effects in society when we
lose our ability to self-reason.
Search tech has evolved
dramatically over the last 15 years - no one knows the role it may have in
our lives in another 50 or 100.
Yet even Matt Wallaert, a behavioural scientist at Bing, questions
whether it is good to become
wholly dependent on search. He says researchers suspect the human
brain needs serendipitous
discovery. There's a famous example of this. Look closely at this
image until you see the 'hidden'
object. Wallaert says our brains receive a pleasure response from
resolving the puzzle.
"When you search for 'when
was George Harrison born' does that prevent us from looking into our
brain and realising the
answer?" asks Wallaert, somewhat rhetorically. "When we scratch out
that
act, does it deprive us of that
small burst of pleasure?"
The question is whether a greater
and greater dependence on search means we are changing for
the worse. Some search is good;
all search could be detrimental.
Of course, there are a
counter-arguments. After all, when we search for facts on Bing or Google, we
are gaining knowledge and,
potentially, increasing our intelligence. Wallaert, for one, isn't concerned
about the short-term
implications, and no expert we ask suggests we should not use these tools.
What is disconcerting, though, is
the idea that in some far-distant society we may not retain as much
tacit knowledge, relying instead
on what computers tell us to be true.
Social networking
Computer addiction is a real
concern. For some people, it is not uncommon to browse Facebook,
Twitter or Tumblr for hours and
hours at a time. We may not take the breaks necessary to free our
brains from the LCD screen and
static data.
Wallaert points out that most
social networking sites are highly curated. We see a microcosm of
reality, and - in Facebook's case
at least - it's often a chronicle of happy moments. He says constant exposure
to this subset can lead to social comparisons: 'my microcosm of the world is
not as fulfilling
as your microcosm'.
There's also the issue of
mindless clicking. We're mesmerised by the flicker of an LCD and browsing
countless blogs is commonplace.
Visual networking, a phenomenon popularised by Pinterest and
Instagram, cuts out even the
textual information. Yet, the experts say this repetitive browsing could
have a detrimental long-term
effect.
"You become less human
because you're constantly isolated and with no emotional feedback, and
you may start to feel
depressed," says Dr Cindy Bunin, a professor who teaches parents about the
effects of technology.
"Static feedback is
incredibly unhealthy because your life becomes totally focused on something
that
gives only momentary
gratification. Human beings need real physical social interaction to
survive."
Small changes do help - Chrome
extension 20 Cubed, for instance, can give your eyes some
respite. As you browse, a pop-up
reminds you to take a 20-second break every 20 minutes.
Texting and email
Texting is an immediate form of
communication. We can get right to the point. At a recent
conference session, MIT professor
Sherry Turkle, who wrote the book Alone Together, spoke about
how texting can have a
dehumanising effect.
We're wresting control away from
the other person and removing a critical feedback loop in a
conversation where we receive a
reaction (both visual and auditory). Turkle argues that text and
email should be used mostly for
factual exchanges.
Duffy, meanwhile, offers an
example from a medical context. A patient record contains just the facts
of an illness. Yet, doctors have
learned not to rely only on those facts. There is a 'narrative' to a
medical treatment that must
include voice and physical contact.
She says a doctor often learns
about the seriousness of an illness not just by the blood test results
but when he or she looks into the
eyes of the patient and see the pain or worry.
"Technology can hinder us by
over-representing analytical skills and textual communication rather
than eye contact, physical
contact, silence, reflection, and rich and deep one-on-one
communication," says
Moraveji.
One answer is to let technology
serve as the tool it was meant to be. He says it's fine for quick
discussions. But nothing beats an
in-person meeting to resolve conflicts, discuss strategy, or just get
to know someone better.
Again, videogames are leading the
way here. They have promoted more of a team-oriented
approach - a shared experience.
In the upcoming Xbox One console, you can play a game and
have a Skype video chat at the
same time.
Geolocation
One final concern has to do with
geolocation. We've all heard the stories of the driver who
mistakenly crashes into a
riverbank because the GPS said to make a left turn. Like the problem of
search dependence, relying on a
GPS for all wayfinding results in us lacking spatial cognisance - a
voice guides us rather than our
intuition or knowledge.
Moraveji says relying on
technological assists for geolocation could, in the long-run, be detrimental
to our human development.
"They essentially leave the brain under-representing major components
of the natural world - in
particular navigation and memory of the physical environment and
interpersonal communication or
self-reliant exploration. These are components of the natural world
that leave the brain-body balanced
and whole."
Dr Gopal Chopra is a New
York-based neurosurgeon who, somewhat ironically, developed a service
called PingMD that alerts medical
workers by text. He says there is a clear purpose - such as that
served by his startup - for
technology. Yet, in-person contact, visual communication, and even a
phone call stimulates the brain
in unpredictable ways. Technology has to be offset by activity in the
natural world.
"Our brain is geared in two
basic ways: reflex and higher cognition," he says. "When we listen to
instructions we are kicking in
reflex, and higher cognition only comes to play when there is
something in the environment such
as a red light that requires interpretation and an appropriate
response. So much of the
instructioning going on with GPS uses our response to command
functionality that we don't see
the landmarks in the real world!"
The GPS is helpful, but also
means we are missing out on the journey of discovery. "We are not
exposing or exercising our brain
in a way to enjoy an experience; we enjoy the accomplishment of
the goal of reaching our
destination - hence missing out on the journey. Much of our character,
creativity and moral fabric is
built on the journey."
Ultimately, tech is helping -
society is improving overall. The experts are not decrying the value of
tech advancements. At the same
time, we should all be more aware of the determinants, especially
When it comes to over-use of
technology.
Citation: By John Brandon August 6th 2013
[http://www.techradar.com/]
