The Flow I keep missing

I’m sick and can barely speak. There’s no fever but I feel damn weak. Right now I’m not working on anything but had I the strength, I’d probably be sketching a new essay for IEET. I’m preparing a series of essays that cover technological progressivism from an activist stand point. So, when I get well, I’ll do that.

However now, I am listening to Spotify. Thanks to the latest update Spotify is now more social. Finding new and interesting music has always been a problem with the service but it seems they have given this issue some thought. The playlist feature that has been there for a while, is also something pretty new to me. So, as I began writing this I realized I had “tuned in” to the Flow Festival 2013 playlist.

If you could visit three Finnish summer festivals they would have to be Tuska, Ruisrock and Flow. For some reason I have missed all of them. Every year. I mean, it’s not like i’m “not that kind of a person” – I have been to Roskilde TWICE – but for some obscure reason I have never visited these three.

I think I’ll think about that and try t get some rest.

So far the human body is weak

Here’s to all ya Masters out there.

Sick. I can’t believe it. I am double sick. Last week I was issued sick leave from work due to a near-total-mental-collapse. That’s when I began thinking about research after a few months pause. I’m also changing jobs and the future work will be better for me.

But now, I’m sick. I had bubbles in my stomach last night and spent a few messy hours in the toilet. Aren’t you glad I told you that. 🙂

Perhaps it’s something I ate or then I caught the bug last night when I attended the first ever Master Class for a Good Society. It’s a two month program run by the University of Helsinki and LähiTapiola Group. Why this is is due to the fairly new idea of connecting university level education with businesses. This time the idea is to connect people from different fields (especially including the humanities) to the world of business and problem solving.

The program rests on the idea of Social Entrepreneurship or more widely “BIg Society”. It was a good start with, I think, 40-50 attendees. I sat in a table full of clever young professionals and one of the Mentors, a person I deeply respect, Outi Alanko-Kahiluoto form the parliament (The Greens of Finland party).

In any case, I’m sick now and I have to cancel my short talk at the Sociology Days in Turku. All is not lost since I did manage to solve some theoretical problems while working on the text. But, there is a sense of not belonging. They are thinking of revitalizing the Finnish Network for the Sociology of Knowledge and I hope they do and I hope I can be a part of it.

So far, waiting for my FrenchPress to hatch me a nice mug of strong, bacteria killing, coffee.

Stick your neck out

I began this day over a cup of coffee with a very inspiring chap from Ireland. Among other things he is a professional journalist so we began talking about international publishing. What else?

I mentioned him my blog and that it was supposed to be ‘a blog about my PhD’. “You never mentioned you had an English language blog”, he replied. Due to my almost total lack of self esteem I apologized and gave him the address.

In a way, that’s the reason I am writing now. In the beginning I thought this blog would be a serious installment of my academic thinking. At least I thought my blog would inspire research into (and about) Transhumanism. Now I understand that this is a blog for me first and for you (who I still believe are out there) second.

And that’s not bad. In fact, that’s just the honesty a project like this needs.

Right now I am sitting and writing this in bed. Next to me is my wife and my 3 year old daughter. She has trouble sleeping tonight and I’m waiting for her to calm down so that I can piece together my talk for the Sociology Day. There was a rescheduling and my talk is on Thursday. No worries, I have it covered.

The Annual Sociology Days in Turku begin on Thursday and I’ll post a report on the whole ordeal later this week.

Hot & new consumer electronics are here – highway to the future or a technocultural dystopia unfolding?

Today is The Big Day for Nokia. In a few hours the the company is going to launch it’s latest Windows phone that is rumored to host the new Windows 8 OS. Later next week it’s the same with Apple and the new iPhone. The modern internet with it’s unimaginable power to transmit information boosts these two events to planetary proportions. Will Nokia finally be able to break (back) into the lead with the new phone or is the hype going to melt down with the – so far – superior Apple.

This must be what the singularity feels like but is this what it is supposed to be? I mean, virtually lining behind large companies in their attempt to dominate the market. The market? Do you mean the financial market? You know, the system behind the world scale economic disaster looming in the horizon?

I was a young man in the 90’s. Back then there were was a fast awakening to the ecological disaster facing the world. Researchers argued – and still do – that the economic boom of the 20th century is culminating in a fast depletion of natural resources. People around the world became aware of the fact that the lifestyle we enjoy does have a double edge. In the past two decades nothing much has happened to correct this “cycle of doom”.

Now we are in a situation where most of the planet is affected by how “people receive” their new mobile devices. Will the stock go up or down. It’s not long ago that Nokia and Apple both had to answer some odd questions about how, where and by whom their devices were manufactured. It turned out, that there were some mistakes made. And remember when Apple announced it would with draw from EPEAT? After a world wide protest they decided that it’s better not to.

At the start of the 21st century some of you may have noticed a modest rise of the “new consumer culture“. What this means is that people are not just buying stuff they want (like the theory of consumerism has been thus far) but people would be eager to invest in things that are ecologically and socially sustainable. This is a part of the “green revolution” and frankly, I am surprised that it still remains a very small part of the combined marketing economy that keeps our world going (faster, closer and more mobile).

I have absolutely nothing against such products like Lumia or the iPhone. Not at all. I could not imagine living with out one. Mobile devices along with other innovations of the 21st century makes my life better, easier and perhaps fuller.

And the very same things I slightly criticize here are the things I can use to look up stuff like sustainable economy or consumer movements such as “Buy Nothing Day“.

And it is after doing some thinking of my own, I have decided that the way we are “hyped about the future” may well be the thing that prevents us getting there. From a Transhuman standpoint it’s easy to see why. It’s not just the fastness of development or the availability of new products that push the world forward. Those things push the economy forward and all though that is needed to keep pushing towards a more techno-oriented society, culturally, it’s not enough.

The Transhumanist in me is seeking to find the right technologies to push forward. Deciding what is right goes deep into the basics of being human (and especially Transhuman). I’m not a big fan of “nature before everything” since I have a deeply antrophocentric world view. That said, I believe we need to look at the big picture here.

And the picture states the obvious. We can’t expect to enrich our lives with depleted meanings. Even that the technology offered here is state of the art, we should ask for more. Do we really need a new cell phone or an iPad every year? By asking more we are asking not only more sustainable technological progress but a deeper and richer content as well. You may or may not know that the bloody competition in the high end technology market puts the consumer “needs” before everything else. Where is the innovation in that? Why would any company – even super rich Apple – invest billions in research and development if what they really “need” to do is keep up with competition?

We should build less and slower. At the same time we should look at what the gadgets actually offer from a cultural and social perspective. This is totally against the ideology of the “free market” since it’s said that the free market is all we need to get the best products and practices. But is this true in a situation where best ideas are nothing but market projections for a certain market segment?

If we find our selves asking who to make the markets “smarter”, we may then wake up to the fact that there still are people on the planet who can’t read or write. Or who have trouble getting food and fresh water. The planetary infrastructure of social well being is undermined all the time, not to mention that the nature around us is dying and taking us with it. This must be something for Transhumanist’s to think about and in my understanding they are. This could also be a message what would make Transhumanism even a more interesting world view among the peoples of the world. It just needs good packaging.

No singularity worth the effort is going to happen unless we take care of the present first. We are loosing massive human resources due to poverty and we are loosing the battle to master nature – because we are continually at risk of being extinct because we are still very much dependent on the natural environment.

Despite this I’ll be rooting for Nokia this week. It’s still a Finnish company in name at least. I’ll also be dreaming about technological progress that would actually benefit humanity and pave the way for a better, happier and richer future.

Even if caloric restriction is not connected to longevity, you should still keep at it

It’s one of the the greatest success stories in nutrition science. Caloric restriction is a much studied phenomenon that is said to lead to longevity and good health. This has been tested time and time again in mice and other creatures. Caloric restriction, or CR, was known even in the medieval times when people thought it could kill tumors. Modern science was aware of it in the 19th century and the modern CR research was institutionalized in the 1960’s. The boom of the “Longevity Diet” began in 2004 when the researchers at Washington universtity at St. Louis confirmed in a long term study on mice, that caloric restriction does indeed increase health and lifespan. The mechanism of why this is, was not discovered.

Up to today, we were all amazed. Now, after the latest research report in Nature, it seems we are back at square one, exactly where the legendary Gilgamesh left us three thousand years since. Well, it’s worth noting that the latest research is still to be debated within the science community and the new findings offer loads of questions about the mechanisms of aging.

Longevity and (radical) life extension is an integral part of the Transhuman worldview. In the 21st century especially such figures like Aubrey de Grey and Ray Kurtzweil have been the prominent proponents of life extension. As modern medicine pushes the barriers of molecular and DNA research even further, life extension or even relative immortality seems to be looming just behind the horizon. However, the effects of caloric restriction has been the only confirmed way to keep the body in good shape in comparison to a non-CR diet. Even the well known BBC Horizon series produced an hour long documentary about the topic.

The argument for CR for the past decades has been this: if the body receives 10-40 percent less calories than is required, it will remain in good health for a longer period of time. Research conducted on mice and primates seems to give strong backing to the speculation that it applies to humans as well. So far long term research on humans has not been possible, since such research projects have been around only for a few decades – and the human quinea pigs are still thriving.

However, the new findings from a 25 year experiment with rhesus monkeys that were fed 30 percent less calories than the control group seems to cast doubts on the caloric restriction basic premise. The indication is, that the “eat lesser calories” does not switch the body to a longevity mode but the key factors in longevity would be more about the genes and the quality of calories consumed. And if you read this carefully, it implies only that the amount of calories consumed does not correlate with longevity. What the research seems to imply is that caloric restriction is connected with longevity on a less utopian way: if you have a high quality diet with little or no “bad substances”, you will lose weight and you don’t put too much strain on your body.

Good news for those who are on CR and for those who are not. It would, in my opinion as a layman, justify two things. First, people who are not on a CR regime could benefit much for having a CR-type diet, and that could be much easier to accomplish than a rigorous CR program. Second, people on a severe CR program, such as eating only 60 percent of the calories needed, can now shift to a more modest CR and begin consuming 80 or even 100 percent the calories needed. The key point in the research seems to be that what you eat affects your health.

Sounds trivial doesn’t it?

Well, it is. If you look up your national eating recommendations, you will likely get similar instructions. We all know what eating healthy means and I am not in a position to give any advice.

Now, the challenge that this research poses is mostly about genes. If your genetic makeup is a major player in your expected lifespan, you should try to even the odds with good nutrition and at least modest exercise. There really is no reason what so ever to allow your body to deteriorate because of fatty foods and sugery substances. Laissez faire eating means you are letting go of your self control and your life. If you are one of the lucky ones who come from a family saturated with 100 year old’s there is even a greater incentive for a healthier diet. Wouldn’t it be great to live for a century and remain in relative health?

Those extra decades also increase your change of being able to use future medical technologies to combat aging and increase well being even beyond that 100 year marker. This is of course highly speculative but looking at the medical progress we as a humanity have had in the past 100 years, it would seem like a safe bet.

By getting your self in shape and being aware of all the possibilities in life, there are many more pressing matters on earth you should focus on. Between healthy lunches you could try to figure out who our species is going to survive with nature going down the drain and increasing economic instability is threatening the very institutions our society (and medical science) is grounded on. By adopting a healthy and life centered worldview, you are more likely to be an answer to the collective problems we face every day. Now, if you really are in this for the long haul, you might consider getting in step with life and humanity by joining a new movement. Here is the Facebook group for the International Longevity Party. Join. Do it now. We need people just like you – and your friends too.

I’m glad someone is thinking about the crimes of tomorrow today!

I was so psyched to have my essay published at the Institute of Ethics & Emerging Technologies a few days ago. To get noticed is part of my research method observational participation is important in any qualitative research. Today I have been working all day. First I launched a side project called Paja1 in the morning. Paja1 is a project or a network that aims to utilize technology (in a wide sense) to combat some of the worlds problems (well, at least some local ones). Its not a business or even a proper NGO. Paja1 is an impact network.

Anyway, Then I went to work at the Sorsa Foundation and edited an article collection i’m doing. That took the rest of the day. Then, after getting my kid from kindergarten, I attended the first ever meeting of The Open Ministry -project (check it out if you are interested in the future of open democracy – Finland is setting standards!).

It’s the first hot night of summer, there is the Eurovision Song Contest semi-final going on and the nation is having it’s thumps up for Pernilla Karlsson. I’m drinking coffee since on a hot Eurovision night like this I can’t imagine sleeping.

But then, something popped up on Twitter. Something very different from the ordinary Transhuman related tweets. It was an ingenious website called Future Crimes. I really thought it would be a comic book or something but no. This is a site that asks hard questions about how technology and crime will evolve into in the future. Back in my wild past I thought of going into a career with the sociology of law so I’m kinda hooked to the phenomenon of crime as such. No, I’m not a “fan” of “crime” or something like that. I just like to see society deal with deviance and stuff like that.

Sine the IEET essay really got me back on the project and since there are less things to do elsewhere, I think I’ll get my self on a writing mode soon.

African science and technology needs its own agenda

That was the headline in the Global Finland network my friend Jaana tweeted this morning. I was sitting in a bus and I had just dropped my kid to kindergarten so I was just going through the mail stream from the night and morning. I ended up reading the entire article (be honest, we often don’t read more than just the headline and a few lines here and there).

I believe the developing world is the one area in the world where technology really matters. In fact, the ‘technoevolution’ of places like Africa is going to be a very interesting thing. There are, however, some obstacles.

The first important topic is that this must be something African people do for themselves. And they are. Hannes Toivanen from the Technical Research Center of Finland (VTT) is involved in a research that shows how research and development is a growing trend all around Africa. Especially the information technology sector is starting to boom.

In the same article Professor Erkki Sutinen is running a project in Mosambik where kids are can try out natural sciences. “When children are able to program robots, they get the feeling that they are runnig technology and not the other way around. Science is not just reading huge books but a way to influence the world”, Sutinen comments.

In my opinion, the interesting thing about technology and Africa is that it comes “ready made”. African nations don’t have to go through the long period of development and the slow progression in technology. They literally jump from a pre-technological society to a high-tecnology society. Of course that is a simplification but still, it is interesting.

I myself believe that technology and ideas should be open to all and as free/cheap as possible. There is a massive innovative potential on this planet but as long as we have billions of people fighting for the basic needs, we as humanity, will not reach our full potential. So, an investment in a high-technology in Africa will help the entire planet.

A while ago I read that businesses in the social sector get the greatest benefit from innovations. This means, that there are many innovations that boost the social industry. Now, Africa is a place with many problems and there definitely is a demand for social businesses. Things like microloans are a good example of a social innovation.

In stead of trying to “save Africa”, we should offer our support for the peoples of Africa to research and develop technology. We should create investments for businesses that aid the local infrastructure, schooling, agriculture, etc. This his something that we are not really doing. This is something that Transhumanists, I suppose, ought to be doing.

City of Vaasa, Immigration and some Electric Sheep.

Today I hopped on a train heading north. In my work at the Kalevi Sorsa -foundation I am coordinating a research project on immigration and the work market. A few weeks ago I was asked to share some of my initial results from a series of workshops I hosted last fall and winter. Not only was I asked to do that, they asked me to host the entire ETNO seminar. The “Q-seminar method” I piloted with the process is focused on the question how immigrant NGO’s could start producing services to the open market.

And, since I am a true believer in open data and open knowledge, I’ll “release” the entire Q-seminar process “handbook” as a Creative Commons research method when I get the thing tweaked.

You may not know but in Finland there are only a few immigrants and even fewer refugees. With a falling birth rate and an ever expanding population of the elderly, not to mention the very costly and outdated welfare state, we really need immigration. At the same time  we are trying to avoid the mistakes in the integration process we see elsewhere in Europe – and even Sweden.

As you may know, we have our share of the right wing populist movements and this year is a local election year. Along with the Greece mess, there is going to be some heated discussions about immigration and the EU.

So, here I am in Vaasa and I am starting to realize all the stuff I forgot home.

I have some nice clothes for tomorrow but I forgot my “better shoes” so I’ll have to pull this of wearing green jack boots with yellow ties. Also, I have no toothpaste. All I have to snack is a bag of candy and some ED. Great. What I do have is a good collection of technology. There are at least two devices with 3G connections and this computer is wired to the hotels WiFi network. Everything I do is connected to this technology.

Since the long train ride here and the relatively lax day tomorrow, I thought I could take some time of from my research but no, technology follows me everywhere. And since my writing process is not going so good, all this electricity and connectedness is starting to hurt my head.

But I don’t complain, I love it. When I finish watching Reel Steal I hope to fall a sleep and dream of electronic sheep.

Google glasses – the sociology of sight

One day I had a conversation with myself. Nothing crazy, just the usual pondering between different ideas and trying to go through things in a sort of a semi-dialogue way. If you have been following the blog, you may have noticed that lately I have began reading about cognitive psychology and cognitive science. I am going through several books at the same time just to get as much information in my head as I can.

The conversation between I and I took an unexpected turn when I suddenly remembered Google’s awesome Glass Project. My honest opinion as a tech enthusiast and an entrepreneur is that Google is going to hit gold if the final product will be even half than what was promised. Yes, the world is about to change with these goggles, no question about it. Just look at the Youtube commercial and you will never hold a pair of glasses the same way again.

But hold on, hold on… what exactly is being promised here and at what price? It was this question I and I began thinking, not arguing, about.

In the video we see the Glasses deliver emails, SMS-messages and social media updates as well as maps and other ‘augmented’ reality stuff to the wearer. So, you don’t have to reach in your pocket and look at your cell phone. What does that awkward though mean?

Well, since the beginning of human civilization we have had at least three ways of looking at things. The first is the animal stare of ‘fight, flight or copulate’. That is the essence of our animal side. The second is the mythical gaze when we look at the stars or follow a priest preforming whatever ritual before the tribe. And the third is the theatre view we have when we look at the social world in general.

All these ways of looking have different personal and social meanings. The animal stare helps us orientate to our surroundings and to perform tasks ‘at hand’. This animal stare is very much connected to the rest of our senses and our bodies in general. It is the way we humans touch to world.

The mythical gaze is connected to our mental abilities to imagine and find meanings in pictures and the world we live in. This gaze may be difficult to describe in words and it has a lot to do with how we feel about things.

The theatre view is the way we gather information about more complex social performances. This could actually be a theatre play or newspaper we read now and then. It gives us information on the world in general.

Now, these typifications are my own and they just sprang to mind so there is no science behind here.

If we take these three different ways of seeing and combine them to our very much visual culture, some thoughts come to mind.

We consume visual information. We no longer have things in our real hands and the ‘concrete’ stuff we need to process in order to get ‘real’ things done is very much visual and abstract. We not only need new technical skills but also new ways to understand information. If you – like most of us – feel that you are bombarded with emails, Facebook ‘likes’ and such, you probably have sometimes felt a bit sick because of the overflow of ‘information technology’.

Now, I and I were discussing this particular situation and thinking about the google glasses. I love the idea but I fear there is a certain level of pain coming along with them. By this I mean that we need to immerse ourselves even more with digital streams and abstract meanings with brains that are best apt to process information in the theree previously mentioned ways.

The brain is a physical device so it exists in space and time. The animal stare is for the very fast information concerning questions ilke where, how and when. The mythical stare is slow, perhaps closer to meditation and the theatre view is best understood as an ability to understand social roles and such (for instance, reading a newspaper article gives us a ‘story’ we understand).

The Google glasses – and similar products – destroy all this unless the designers are taking steps to offer the ‘augmented reality’ in an old fashion way.

The glasses is a major step because with them the ‘virtual’ is ever present. The younger generations will be able to grow new neuron links in order to have their brains wiring altered (yes, I believe that will happen) and they will have very different ways of processing information. That is already happening with our technology today.

Older brains are harder to rewire. Just look at how people who have never used a computer mouse has enormous difficulties in getting the simples click ‘click’. Now, imagine the mouse as a link to a virtual world where people who can perform this simple task have unique access to a whole new social world.

We are about to cross an interesting threshold. Once our brains begin to ‘evolve’ with new ways of perception, the following generations may go even further with the human-machine interface thing. I believe – and I have no scientific evidence in support of this – that the hacking of our brain and social relations has started a few decades back and the next decades will very much be about finding out our human restrictions and how to go beyond – and some of us will want to.

The brain and I

Some of these posts have very little to do with my PhD process, so I’ll categorize this under “General interest”. In case you are wondering, I am actually starting to put together the early-draft-try-out-version of the beginning of my article on cognitive enhancement the concept of technology therein.

But now, this is all about me and my brain. Don’t you feel a bit sic or at least odd when you think about the thing inside your skull? Most of us know we find “neurons” there and that these neurons have a lot to do with our lives. As I am now reading a lot about the brain in general and cognitive research, there are some newbie questions I have had difficulties with.

First, in ordinary speech we tend to think of the brain as “our brain”. Well, it resides in our head, but this seems to be a more fundamental ownership. The brain is responsible for all kinds of things that put together things we call “I”, “Self” or “personality”. But, does this mean that the “I” is something determined in the brain itself? Or more precisely, is the brain “fixed” in creating the this one unique personality we call the “I”. If we look at how perception works, it seems that the brain takes light signals from the retina and processes (?) them into a picture, perspective and ultimately meaning.

I am not trying to say that we don’t have a personality of our own or deny subjectivity but I am saying that perhaps our conception of the brain is too anthropocentric. As the brain developed in evolution, it started out by just processing light signals with sensitive cells. Later this grew and grew and the brain adapted. The brain would seem to be a passive organ that adapts over time. So, it still is an adaptive organ and it should be viewed not as “my brain” but “just a brain”.

I believe – and since I have no idea how the brain works, this is a leap of faith – that the brain works pretty much in darkness. Think about our ability to see and orient to the world? We know it is 3d but in the brain process I doubt there is a system for producing the one and the only human way of looking at the world in 3d. The brain does not sense dimensions, it just passes information in order to make the body move in space and time. There is no homunculus in our brain working things out for us.

So, at least in ordinary talk, there seems to be two brain biases in thinking. One is that the brain as an organ was some how deemed to create just this unique personality we call “I”. Two, that the brain somehow is specialized (or determined) to produce a “human experience of reality”.

The brain as just an organ -view opens up the debate on more complex cognitive processes. Since the brain now would be seen as “just a brain” performing a complex function in orientating to the world, the higher brain functions like language can possibly be created outside of the brain. If we think about the construction of the ‘self’, it can be imagined that all though the brain is a necceccry preconception for the self, it may not be an enough to produce a human personality.

For this we need consciousness. The difficult line with social sciences and cognitive conceptions of humanity lie – in my opinion – right here. Consciousness is a complex feature of the brain and still quite a mystery. To me it seems obvious that consciousness is the link between the social and the individual. By this I don’t mean a reductionist view. Quite the opposite.

As long as the brain remains unchanged (we assume no evolution in this example), it is connected to reality through it’s senses and by reality itself. This means that there is a possibility of social forces to manifest in “us”. The consciousness can be modeled by the environment and one can say that there can be a collective consciousness if many people share similar identities – like with institutions. But, at the same time they are individuals functioning with the world – they are not determined, at least in a strong sense.

Now let’s make some evolutionary (and thin) assumptions about technology (defined very broadly as ‘stuff we use’). Let’s assume that the interaction with technology can affect the way consciousness is created but let’s go further. If the eyesight affected how the entire brain adapted, let’s assume the process to function with other ways of ‘seeing’ as well.

Now we have the brain as an organ connected with say, a mind-machine-interface. The functioning of these systems are based on the fact that the brain is flexible and malleable. If you learn to use your mouse by just thinking about it (making certain areas of your brain active and therefore growing new neuron connections), you will affect the way your brain works. Does it affect you? Maybe. Let’s assume that a similar link is created with Wikipedia. There would be a view in your retina and you could at any time find information through there. And – to make this example nasty – you would be implanted with this device when you are born.

My assumption? That the your brain would develop into a very different brain because there would be a new way of seeing. Not just in 3d of the real world, but the “3d” of the information stream. It is possible that the process of getting information to your retina would be automated over the years you grow and that would have a huge impact on mundane living. You would simply know more or at least faster.

We can imagine several ways this could effect social relations. This would mean that the “I”, or the consciousness, is adapted to a different social, cultural, economic and even political reality than people without this simple mind hack.

So, in my opinion, the future of human-technology-interface has loads of questions about personality, interaction and neuron functions to answer. I am convinced that some “techno-evolutionary” events will take place in the future.