I know, posting videos you’ve found on the Internet and not actually writing something is highly frowned upon.

But… the thing is, as a truly ‘online personality’ and a member of hundreds of forums, communities and chat rooms, in a normal day I look at lots of shit. Pictures (damn lolcats…), comics and… VIDEOS!

Which is what I’m going to share today. Videos. Cool, cute, funny and weird — one of each. If I recall correctly, you can’t see videos in my RSS feed, so I’ll provide links, or you can read this entry on my blog — up to you. If this is popular I might do some cool/interesting images/photos next week!

Starting off with ‘funny’ (and cute), we have Maru the cat:

You might know of Maru from his ‘box jumping‘ (or ‘box sliding’) antics. Turns out he has even more tricks up his sleeve. As a result, he’s probably the cutest animal in the world — and coming from someone that isn’t ‘into’ cats, that means a lot.

Next up, to combat the huge, foolish grin that’s probably on your face right now, a kid that was recently in the news for crying blood:

Yeah. Pretty creepy. Didn’t they have a case like that on House a while back? (Incidentally, with the winter TV season returning, expect Dushku Day to make its return…!)

Now the coolest of the lot, a robotic hand that was presented earlier this year. If you don’t find it cool initially, watch through until the phone-toss-and-catch at the end. And then re-watch it a few more times. And now go and watch Terminator 1 and 2 again…

Finally a longer but ‘neat’ video of a Japanese monkey (chimpanzee?) being shown some magic tricks. Just basic sleight-of-hand and a little illusion. Watch the monkey’s reactions. You don’t have to watch al of it!

Now I must go and think of a photo suitable for week 2 of 52 Weeks! See you all on Monday.

I seem to get my teeth stuck into particular subject matters and, like a big, deep-growling mastiff, try to tear it to pieces. Hopefully it’s not like an annoying and yappy terrier. Again, this is on the topic of immersion — does the lack of immersion in real life cause us to be lonely?

First some questions: Why, given an unprecedented number of ways to communicate and bond and share experiences (Facebook, Twitter, instant messaging, forums…), do we remain resolutely bereft of companionship? Are we only ‘relatively’ lonely? Is ‘lonely’ a phrase that oldies throw around so much that the younger generations start echoing its sentiment, and eventually feeling it? ‘We don’t see each other face-to-face any more… using the telephone/MSN/Skype just isn’t the same…’

It isn’t the same — but because it’s different does that make it worse?

Are we only ‘lonely’ because we are told, as we guiltily hunch over our computer screens, we should feel so? Because we are told we must surround ourselves with friends and loved ones lest we don’t make it through the cold, hard winter nights? Is being a ‘loner’ bad, or just a wild break from the cultural norm?

Is spending most of our day behind a screen really a problem?

Some answers: It’s not that we meet relatively few people online — quite the opposite — but people seem to think that the bonds we make online are somehow less substantial because they stem from virtual places and virtual obligations. When I help someone find the right monster to kill in World of Warcraft, is it not the same as counseling a friend’s real-life woes in a real-life bar, ala Cheers? Can you be friends with someone you’ve never met face-to-face? If you tell a friend that you will be somewhere at a certain time, you’ll try your best to be there! If I arrange to log onto MSN and chat with a virtual friend, and then fail to show up, does that make me a bad person?

Right now, some (most?) of you are thinking: ‘no, real life overrules MSN’ — and I’m thinking that my friend on MSN is just as important as anything that might come up in real life. They’re virtual, I know. They are not substantiated or grounded in reality. There is no real-world repercussions if you fail to turn up. But they are still real people. It’s almost the epitome of ‘out of sight, out of mind’. We [don't want to]/[can't] be friends with someone we’re unable to touch or feel; it seemingly takes a super-human effort to feel for someone you may never meet.

And that’s fine. Virtual, just-add-water apply-where-necessary friends have their purpose. But… this situation isn’t going to get any better. More and more of our interactions will be virtual. True, some of us do take our online relationships into real life; heck, online dating accounts for a huge portion of Internet usage! But what I’m talking about here is more endemic — it’s laziness. It’s being satisfied with vague, tenuous, barely-scratching-the-surface friendships — if they can even be called that. It’s the Fight Club idea of ’single serving’ friendships taken to the next level: instead of making them on planes and trains, we make them while buzzing and zipping around the Internet and various social portals.

For some reason we are satisfied with ‘friendship lite’; instant gratification, none of the mess!!!

It’s a hollow feeling of satiation. Fed with juicy friendliness for just long enough — no more, no less.

Does being able to avoid the long-term difficulties of relationships (friendship) really have such an irresistible allure? By keeping everyone at a safe distance we can successfully deal with arguments or heartbreaks — because there’s no one to conflict with. These virtually-non-existent friendships enable us to focus on what we want to do. How selfish. We use the computer screen to screen real life, letting only choice morsels that lay within our comfort zone through.

Maybe we’ve always wished we could control how close people got to us, but until now we lacked a way to hold people at bay. This could just be a manifestation of self-preservation. Or just the pinnacle, or trough, of our Instant Gratification Society.

The scary thing is that this ‘thousands of acquaintances, but few friends’ lifestyle is going unchecked, unabated. It’s actually acceptable to merely tap your acquaintances for information or job offers and go skipping off. When one of my acquaintances asks ‘how are you?’ I simply answer ‘what do you want?’ — I don’t even feel rude; I feel like I’m doing us both a favour by cutting out the small-talk.

If contemporary society continues along this path, where real, tangible interaction will be limited at best and non-existent at worst, we need to start treating our virtual friends just as we would real friends. I’m not saying we should try to meet everyone that we know online, but we should try to nurture friendships. We must move back towards the friends-of-friends model and away from utilising and abusing a sea of faceless acquaintances. We have to start caring. Ick…

Ultimately though, because if anything humans are predictable, we won’t change. Technology will work its magic and dig us out of yet another hole. Before we know it we’ll be lounging in Star Trekesque Holodecks with holographic, computer-controlled projections of whichever acquaintance we feel like spending time with. Or we’ll simply get a robot friend; or better yet, a pet dog or cat. They can’t talk back and are very obedient.

[Welcome to Thoughtful Tuesday! You know the format by now: I rant, I rave, I reveal thoughts that bounce around in my head that don't necessarily make sense yet, but may do with a little more thought... This week, a particularly meaty subject that pops up on the blog fairly regularly: Transhumanism.]

It’s a long word that sounds a lot more complex than it actually is but the most important part of its definition, as defined by the Transhumanism Declaration (2002), is thus:

Humanity will be radically changed by technology in the future. We [Humanity+] foresee the feasibility of redesigning the human condition, including such parameters as the inevitability of aging, limitations on human and artificial intellects, unchosen psychology, suffering, and our confinement to the planet Earth.

I know. This is serious business! But let’s not get bogged down with long, complex words and ideology. Transhumanism is, basically, the next step in human evolution; in enlightenment.

For the longest time imaginable we’ve been limited by our body. We push its boundaries, we perform feats of extraordinary endurance and power, but at the end of the day it is limited. Eventually, something snaps: a bone breaks, we grow senile — and, sooner or later, we die.

Progress in the areas of humanism and enlightenment are all about prolonging (and improving!) our mental, physical and and spiritual well-being. Thus, that’s exactly what transhumanism is all about: we’ve reached our current, imposed-by-our-physical-body limits; now it’s time to let technology do its thing. It’s time to modify our bodies to take us to the next level!

Let me just throw out some possible modifications (upgrades!) that are covered by transhumanism:

• Biotechnological implants/replacements. Strength, speed, eyesight and endurance limits/thresholds raised way beyond current human bottlenecks.
• Modification of our genetic makeup. This is the one that’s currently under scrutiny from the media. This area deals with the modification of ourselves (or our progeny) to make us inherently more resistant or to damage/pathology. Immunity to disease, removal of short-sight — that kind of thing (though obviously ‘designer babies’ with blue eyes and perfect, beautiful appearance would be quite popular…)
• Prevent ageing (aging). Transhumanism covers the slowing of aging, or even prolonging life until we’re effectively immortal (Who wants to live forever?). Cryogenics also come into play here, though the real ‘philosopher’s stone’ is immortality, of course. This will probably take a biotechnological form — replacement organs, repairing cellular damage, etc.
• A lot more that hasn’t been invented yet…! As a general rule, most things that are speculated or appear in sci-fi novels later appear in real life. We can expect to see some really crazy technologies appear in the future. Artificial intelligence (think Terminator), proper virtual reality (think holodeck in Star Trek) and my favourite — mind-uploading, ala The Matrix: ‘I know kung fu…’

Obviously, along with such awesome abilities come a seriously large number of issues, most of which are of an ethical nature:

You can’t play God!

You’ll turn… into a Frankenstein!

Perhaps it is the existential issue that is most worrisome: When do we stop being human? It’s certainly not when we replace the heart or any of the limbs. It’s the brain, right…? Or is it? How do we know until we try? Do we really trust Bible-thumpers that, let’s face it, know absolutely nothing about cybernetics? That’s why we’re afraid: we have absolutely no idea what we’re getting into. But if history has shown us anything, is it ever beneficial to shy away from, instead of facing, the oncoming torrent of technological progress?

As with any technology there are good and bad uses — as to what defines good or bad, I won’t attempt to state — using transhumanist technology is a two-edged blade. You could enhance only yourself or the genetics of your progeny — a selfish act? — or, with the same technology, you could genetically modify those living in sub-Saharan Africa so that they could live without food.

It’s not guns that kill people…

The thing is, I could go into the ethical repercussions, and whether transhumanism should be allowed or not… but… really, it’s inconsequential. We’re going to do it anyway. Of course there will be devout naysayers — sociologists, psychologists, humanitarians, Christians — (the whole gamut!) — but there always is. The truth — the technology – will out. You can’t stop everyone from kite-flying in thunderstorms.

There is something about technology. It’s all there, just waiting to be discovered. As I’ve already covered, we really like turning over stones. We really like uncovering mysteries. This is the biggest of them by far. What makes us human?

This is going to happen in the next decade, by the way. If you have moral, ethical or philosophical disagreements, you probably want to settle them now, before upgrades for your bionic eyes and ears start appearing in the supermarket.

Discussing ethics is a little fruitless, at least if you like reaching conclusions. Generally they are rules that govern a particular area or school of thought: medical ethics, political ethics, social ethics — in any given setting, there are ways in which you ’should’ act or behave or even think.

Fortunately, due to us pesky humans being at the top of the food chain, it’s been fairly easy to decide what is and isn’t ethical: that which helps mankind is good; that which harms mankind is bad.

But… how would you about creating a system of ethics for that which isn’t human?

If you can save a human or a cat from falling into a chasm, you save your fellow man.

What if the cat has to decide whether he saves you or another cat?

* * *

The ‘classic’ Robot Ethics example is this:

If a robot murders, who is accountable?

Robots can not yet program themselves; so must the designer be sent to jail?

Robots can not yet build themselves; so must the engineer be sent to jail?

Or… can we actually blame the robot? What good is justice, jail or the death penalty if the robot does not feel? If a robot is a senseless, emotionless killing machine, will justice have been served by just unplugging the robot?

* * *

Now the really sticky bit: what if we (somehow) create robots in good conscience, robots that never murder, never steal — robots that always act ‘ethically’. What if, as they would surely follow in the footsteps of their human creators, they learn to program themselves? What if robots can build themselves?

This is all a very old train of thought but it ties in with the question I asked yesterday: ‘What makes us human?‘ — at what stage do these robots become sentient, self-aware? Better yet: if you unplug a sentient robot, do they cease being self-aware? If there’s a soul, what happens?

In the original falling-into-a-chasm example, you don’t hesitate to choose the human as more important than a cat. What if a robot has to choose between saving one of us, or another robot? What’s the ethical choice from the robot’s point of view?

<Mind explodes>

* * *

Back to humans and humanity. What happens when we finally play around with cybernetic brain implants? Does this become a religious or spiritual issue? If having a soul is what separates us from the rest of the food chain, surely we must somehow look after this tenuous physical/spiritual link; would modifying our brain with artificial technology alter or sever that link; would it make us soulless?

At what stage do we, by definition, become robots?

Looking into Pandora’s box I can see another nastier, gloopier issue: what if we’re already soulless? What if there’s really nothing to differentiate us from our finely-engineered robotic brethren? Would that just make us our android overlord’s herd of cattle?

Just a little blog entry this morning! I’m still busy sorting through photos, which you might have begun to see on Flickr yesterday, but today I will finish that and post them up here on the blog! Lots of dorky-children photos (and one of a cute little girl I think) — and there’s one of the men in my family getting altogether too… frisky.

But, in more important news — a robotic hand that has sensation! A robotic hand that allows you to feel what it touches! An actuated, biomechanical masterpiece that hooks into your nervous system. How awesome is this…?

Obviously this is primarily for amputees. Obviously. BUT… seriously, how far are we now from super-strong, super-fast replacement robot hands? Would I elect to have my hand chopped off and replaced with one of these…? Hell yes. Imagine how fast I could type! How many heads I could crush! How fast I could throw…! (If I had my whole arm upgraded, anyway.)

Secondly, my Last.fm profile is starting to fill up a bit. I still think it’s shit that I can’t just ADD my whole music library to it, but whatever. This means you can now keep up with that I’m listening to in real time. God, it sounds lame when you put it into words like that — it really reminds you that there’s a reason they call such social networks ‘egocasting‘. Well, anyway, if you want to share stuff or be friends on Last.fm, please do. I have no idea what I can really do with it — it recommends music, right, á la Pandora? — so if there’s something neat that it does… tell me.

Finally, go watch that robotic hand video again. Think about it a little and its implications. For further (and scary) proof of concept (we’re really close to this kind of thing becoming real!), watch this video of a high-speed robotic hand. Imagine combining both this and the sensing hand above. Imagine being the owner of hands with an ‘automatic’ switch. Need to catch a speeding bullet? Go automatic! Just make sure you switch it back to manual when you want to be intimate with someone… or yourself…

* * *

Photos to follow…

I can’t recall where I originally had this argument. It’s an interesting one with no real solution or conclusion, but it’s interesting. It’s the kind of thing that you can posit or postulate, but because it involves rewriting history, no one really knows what the ‘best’ answer is.

I am of course talking about socialism versus capitalism. I don’t describe myself as either a socialist or capitalist, or subscribe to one political party. My thoughts and beliefs tend to span the entire gamut — and if you read this blog regularly, you’ll probably know how I feel about most important issues.

I’m not going to tackle politics itself — I don’t think I’m educated enough to do so — but I want to cover one topic in particular. It’s an argument that’s cropped up a few times over the last few years, as technology has begun its (scarily) rapid consummation of the world and its day to day activities.

So, exposition first: I am capitalist/right-wing when it comes to matters of technology. The arguments I have are usually with socialist, left-wing types.

It goes something like this: ‘It’s sick that these large tech companies are so rich! And there are so many poor people in Africa without technology! Those CEOs on billion-dollar salaries make me SICK! …’ — you get the idea. Basically, spread the love. You see, technology is so damn all-encompassing. It affects healthcare, education, amenities, entertainment — the benefit of advanced technology is SO VAST that most of us can’t begin to imagine its impact on the world.

But would these socialists be quite so socialist if we weren’t living in some kind of utopian world? Are there socialists in sub-Saharan Africa? Do tribes share their deer with the clan next door? How about if they invent a new kind of spear — do you share that technology? Or do you look after your own first?

My argument goes something like this: capitalism drives invention. Capitalism is all about SELFISH NEED. But it is selfishness that inspires ingeniousness. If your kids are being bullied by some thugs with knives, do you report it to the State and trust it will get sorted out? Or do you make your kids body armour and teach them how to fight?

That’s perhaps a bad analogy, but you get the idea? Are you as likely to fight for someone on the other side of the world as you are for your friends and family?

How many inventions have been made with the Developing World in mind?

So the way this usually goes, in politics, is that a conservative party rules for a while, technology flourishes — and then ‘the people’ feel like change has to be made and a socialist government comes to power. I’m not suggesting it’s a bad thing that there’s a change of power. God knows it’s good to shake things up occasionally, lest things become stagnant — and you never want a country to become stagnant. (The robot workers vs. labour unions is a good example?)

I just hope there are no iPhone or BlackBerry owners that are also socialists. It’s incredibly hypocritical.

The counter-argument is obviously this: why are we so inherently selfish? Can we change that, or do we have as much chance of that happening as the deconstruction of racism?

But the sad truth, whether we like it or not, is that we are selfish. We’re never going to push the development of technology solely for other people.

The Developing World should be grateful for our inventive endeavours. And we should be proud of them, not ashamed.

We should all take responsibility for our actions. Can we agree on that? If you drop some trash on the ground, it is your responsibility to pick it up. If you take your eyes off the road and ram another car, it’s your responsibility to get it fixed. If you have an obligation to keep, and fail, then it is your responsibility to make amends. Right? Let’s move on and muddy the waters a little.

What if a strong breeze knocks the trash out of your hand and onto the ground, and blows it away? What if your eyes are drawn away from the road by a drunk and naked college student standing by the roadside? What if something more important came up that caused you to skip the obligation — a family emergency for example; your mother broke her leg, or similar. Are you still responsible for the littering, car crash or failed obligation?

Put it another way — can you blame that strong breeze for the littering? The drunk student for the car crash? Your mother’s broken leg for the broken obligation?

Tough one, huh.

Generally the argument goes something like: we should all just take a little more responsibility. If we all picked up each other’s discarded trash, the world would be a better place. But it’s hard in the second example: should drunken college kids stay away from roadsides or other places that can distract people?

Shit happens then, whether we like it or not. It’s not worth getting our panties in a twist over something outside of our control. There are some people that can’t sleep at night because of outside influences acting upon them. There’s a disparity here: how much should we be responsible for? Ourself? Ourself and our family? The entire world? Do we draw the line at being responsible for other people’s actions? If your boyfriend dumps you, do you take responsibility for that — perhaps unfairly so?

How much can we actually be responsible for? Some people can’t look after themselves; while others draw the line at just themself and nothing more. Then there are those that look after entire families or multi-national corporations. Imagine being responsible for the power grid, or food cultivation and distribution. (Is the president a very responsible person?) How about channels of communication? If the postal service goes on strike, who’s responsible?

What about the Internet?

If I pull the plug on the modem and computer in my house, that’s my responsibility, even if it impacts someone else (maybe they want something that’s on my computer). What if an ISP (an Internet Service Provider) pulls the plug on an entire city? Are they allowed to do that? What if an entire country is simply unplugged? Whose responsibility is that?

We’re dealing with something nebulous now: communication. Usually responsibility refers to something quantifiable — you must keep some kids you care for from harm; you must till the fields so that there is a harvest; you must drive carefully so that you do not die or kill others. But how does communication fit into that?

The real-world example that comes to mind is Iran. Their government cut-off Internet access before a demonstrative rally. Is that within their jurisdiction, to be preemptively responsible? Where do you draw the line between responsibility and tyranny? What is the right amount of responsibility for a government to have?

Take the flip-side: if a nation is broadcasting propaganda, is it OK to cut them off from the Internet, for the greater good?

If there was a computer virus only in the United Kingdom, would it be OK to cut ourselves off from the Internet, to prevent it spreading? Who has enough responsibility to make that decision? The president? The private owner of the network? The inventor that made the Internet possible?

What we have here is the intangible responsibility of technology. It’s intangible and odd because technology is merely a tool — something that is at the beck and call of its human creator or user — in gun crime, we rarely blame the gun. But think about it: a car has responsibility to get you from A to B; a toaster must toast your bread satisfactorily; when you push a light switch, it better turn on. Whether we like it or not, a gun has to shoot when you pull the trigger. This ties back into the ethics of technology and the killer robot: is it ethically wrong that the Internet can be turned off for an entire country? Should guns or cars or toasters have remote switches that can be toggled off by the president of a nation?

We decide, via democracy, to place people in positions of power with vast amounts of power. We also push technology, via consensus, peer pressure and social adoption, into a position of power: The Internet (and the gun, the car, the toaster) reigns supreme only because of our reliance and continued use. Taking the Internet away is a bit like withdrawing clean water or electricity — but we can’t quite appreciate the scope of that yet because it’s so young, so nascent and only two generations have lived with the Internet in their lives.

Responsibility literally means ‘answering to your actions’. Think of how many of your actions have been made possible via technology: those flights abroad, the photos you take, the last-minute Christmas shopping you do online. It is vital that we understand the responsibility that technology has in our lives.

It’s vital because the Internet is just the beginning. Soon we’ll be asking questions like ‘can science be held responsible for genetically engineering our children to be beautiful and free of defects?’ — in twenty years, when a disabled child is born, whose fault will that be?