Orlando and the Tragedy of Technology 214
For some time now, I've wanted to write a book called "Orlando and the Tragedy of Technology," indirectly inspired by a classic essay by the engineer Samuel Florman. Florman's "Technology and the Tragic View," ran in, of all places, House & Garden magazine's Bicentennial issue in 1976.
This, I thought, was the way to look at technology, probably the most powerful, pervasive, and perplexing social force in the modern world. This, it seemed to me, was the sane position, the rational middle ground between Luddite gloom and techno-hype.
Technology is the universal topic, revolutionizing business, culture, publishing, and soon, politics. Technology is a tidal wave; on everybody's mind; debated, denounced, celebrated and fussed about by journalists, politicians, business people, educators, geeks, engineers, academics, intellectuals, Harry and Martha sitting at home figuring out what to buy.
But I've never been sure how to tackle the subject. Books need narrative spines, story lines that take a reader from one point to the next, and it isn't clear that there is one here.
Then last month, to my pleasant surprise, my editors at Rolling Stone bit. They liked my notion of trying to come up with a contemporary view of technology, and of setting this project in an appropriately bizarre place like Orlando, Florida, founded on techno-visions and now one of the most-visited destinations on earth.
So I'm heading south today to write about Orlando and technology. And I'd like to take a whack at open source non-technical writing - presenting the idea to some of the smartest, most opinionated people involved in technology (that would be you guys) and getting some help.
Orlando is a place where technology, capitalism, imagination, individualism and corporatism collide. A polyglot nation of the imagination, the city, for better or worse, is awash with tourists, theme parks and restaurants, all sorts of amazing technologies and much metaphor - from Tomorrowland to EPCOT Center.
Walt Disney chose Orlando as the place for his new theme park for several reasons. The biggest was he wanted to control the land and environment around his parks, something he'd failed to do around Disneyland. Another was his obsession with building EPCOT (Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow) Center.
Disney was a closet utopian, fixated on the belief that technology could be put in the service of creating perfect little worlds. He believed he could build a model community, free of blight, poverty and crime, and he would do this be harnessing the kinds of technologies that embodied good old American ingenuity, the kind he embraced to such successful effect in his theme parks and imagined worlds.
He meant for EPCOT to serve as a model community of the future; a clean, safe, flawlessly-planned enclave where Disney employees could live, and a community whose trailblazing new educational and environmental technologies would save the world beyond.
It didn't turn out that way. Walt Disney died of lung cancer. Rumors had it that he was studying cryogenics so that he could freeze his body and one day thaw himself out and come back and get even with his bottom-line fixated successors, who he was convinced would commercialize EPCOT.
Disney was right, of course. His successors scrapped his expensive and ephemeral notions of a model town, and swiftly turned EPCOT into a giant promotion, one that not only celebrated corporations, but the new technologies they were deploying for the future. Perhaps Disney's successors' vision -- technology in the service of corporatism -- was more prescient than his own.
Almost nothing of his original dream for EPCOT (some of the echoes of EPCOT survive in Disney's planned town, Celebration) remains, except an architectural model hidden from most visitors in a Tomorrowland train tunnel.
Disney's lost dream was a heartbreaker, though. Modern Orlando is now an astonishing, uniquely American world or collection of disparate and disjointed worlds, a place that Disney spawned but would neither recognize nor approve of. Technology -- visions, representations, manifestations -- are at its heart.
There, technology is on display in all sorts of remarkable forms. There's no Tomorrow in Tomorrowland, for example. Disney's notion of the Space Age as the next big thing in technology fizzled. He never imagined anything like the Internet.
The Space Age died and now Tomorrowland is being revamped at great expense along the lines suggested by Jules Verne, a futurist from the past. The walkways, trams and intergalactic spaceways Disney believed would be part of 21st century life never got out of the park.
It seems to me that one of the things that drove Disney, and drew so many millions of people to the things he built was his idea of technology as a way of imagining the past and the future. His life and work, in fact, embody Florman's notion of the tragic view of technology.
Samuel Florman had this idea: technology was neither good nor evil, but inherently tragic. "I suggest that an appropriate response to our new wisdom is neither optimism nor pessimism, but rather the espousal of an attitude that has traditionally been associated with men and women of noble character -- the tragic view of life."
Tragedy, Florman wrote, is uplifting. It depicts heroes wrestling with fate, struggling to improve the world. It also reflects another inherent human trait -- messing the world up.
"We simply cannot make use of coal without killing miners and polluting the air. Neither can we manufacture solar panels without worker fatalities and environmental degradation."
Florman was onto something, and I think his theories are best reflected and captured in Orlando, in the place fathered by Disney's failed dreams and mangled visions. So I'm on my way: your thoughts, insights, responses, criticisms and ideas are welcome.
Specifically, I'm interested not in Orlando itself, but in this tragic view of technology -- the idea that it represents the best and worst in humanity almost simultaneously -- as it plays out in Orlando, not only in Disney World but in the network of parks and rendered worlds from Sea World to Universal Studios: in visions of technology and the future, in the ways in which technology captures the imagination. I'll be filing reports from Orlando to Slashdot in the next week or so. I'd love to hear your thoughts. I don't know if this idea is a book or not -- I hope it is -- but at the very least, it promises to be a great conversation.
Sea World (Score:1)
I think a little commentary on "Penguin Encounter" will give you plenty of bonus points here on slashdot. Disney is defenitely a good starting point to see technology and non-tech mesh.
Good Luck, Katz
So you're going on vacation? (Score:1)
I'd LOVE to have my company pay for a trip myself there. You taking anyone else?
Have fun.
-Benjamin Shniper
Disney is frightening if you really pay attention. (Score:2)
Its kinda weird. They *really* spy on you when you're there. Cameras *ALL* over the rides, people watching your almost every move.
Amidst all the joyous kid things, there are people in plainclothes called the "DBI" who enforce the law of the land. If you look 'weird' you're not allowed into the park. If you're wearing a tshirt that says something unsavory (like "Eat the homeless"). If you're too pierced. If you're not living up to Disney's expectations, you're given the boot. Their utopia is no 'weirdos'.
Clarke quote (Score:1)
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Maybe Clarke saw something in Disney's magic...
Technology and mortality (Score:1)
What is Katz talking about? (Score:1)
[quoting from Florman] "We simply cannot make use of coal without killing miners and polluting the air. Neither can we manufacture solar panels without worker fatalities and environmental degradation."
Am I the only one to whom this quote looks like both pointless and obvious? Here's my version of the quote.
"We simply can't have millions of people breathe air into their lungs without people dying from airborne diseases. We can't walk down the stairs without fatalities."
Now that's the Jon Katz article I'm waiting for -- lets take on the oxygen industry and reveal the horrors of our oxygen-dependent society.
is it just me or.... (Score:1)
---
Book not Article (Score:1)
I look forward to your future postings. And yes, it will be great conversation.
what's so special about technology? (Score:2)
Two comments.... (Score:1)
1. I worked for Disney for quite a while at their Disneyland park in Anaheim, CA. There is a strong tendancy among people writing about Disney to bash the company, as if their desire to have every day at the park go flawlessly is bad. Disney has high standards, and I found them to be an exacting company to work for- they require every "cast member" (the Disney term for somone working in Disneyland) to do their absolute best at all times. They give a lot in return, however. Good pay, good benifits, and a strong sense of community- corporate culture that is lacking in many large companies these days. In short, I enjoyed working for them, and I wish every company I work for could be as well run. They know what they're doing.
2. Technology is not tragic. It's not perfect, nothing is 100% perfect in every way, but compare the life of a typical person in a first world country now to 400 years ago. People rarely die of common infections, childbirth is not a serious health risk, I can have fresh, unrotted meat whenever I want, my home has air conditioning and a radio, most people have ALL of their children survive infanthood, starvation is almost unheard of, and the street outside my house is not an open sewer. From the point of view of someone who lived 400 years ago, I must be living in utopia. If you were to ask a medival peasant if our lives look better than his, he'd laugh, then kill you for your fridge. Keep it in perspective when you wonder if technology is doing us any good.
forget technology - look at the root problems (Score:3)
Stupid Example:
Problem: It's a bit chilly in the room.
Solution: Make a heat source. This might involving developing technologies that involve rubbing two sticks together, or a phosphorus match, or a method whereby you burn stuff remotely, convert the energy into electricty, and the convert the electricy back into heat within that space that is chilly. This fire causes pollution, and might burn your house down.
Is fire tragic? hardly. It's just the way we solved the problem. Without the problem of a cold room to solve, the technology of fire wouldn't be required. At a deeper level, the cause of the tragedy isn't fire (the technology) at all, it's the fact that the room is cold (the problem).
I might argue that it's tragic that it's chilly in the room sometimes, but that's just life. There will always be problems. We can try to work towards a minimal subset of those problems. The algorithm for determining the global minimum value of problems in the world is left as an excercise for the reader.
Tyrrany? (Score:2)
Why tragic? There can be no doubt that technology is neither good nor evil, but to describe it as 'tragic' is the ultimate glass-is-half-empty sort of outlook.
For a start, what is technology? As far as I'm concerned, it's the use of any tool to help in a task. That tool can be a stick, a rock, a (shudder) NT box or an ICBM. All of these can be used for evil, but consider that we wouldn't have made it to the moon without technology that was first used to blow the shit out of people.
A better question to ask, imho, would be 'why do so many (ie most) people, if pushed, view technology as tyrranical? Would these people change their minds if they were shown that everything (everything) they do is a result of technology or involves its use.
I also spent a few minutes wondering how Disneyland fit into this. Then it hit me... tax breaks. Jon's been reading Dave Barry [herald.com]
They didn't like _my_ t-shirt, either (Score:2)
I went to EPCOT this summer, and it was sufficiently hot that shorts and a t-shirt were called for. Unfortunately, I decided to wear a shirt that Xircom had sent me after getting a RealPort Modem/Ethernet card for my laptop. Well, the back has an image of a dongle in a surgeon's tray, along with the words, "Have you had your dongle removed?" Heh, I like the shirt, but as the day was winding down, I was approached by one of their security team asking what this "dongle business" was all about. My generous hosts eventually let me stay after giving them a thorough explanation of what the shirt meant, although I don't think they understood a word I said.
Oh well, even though I'd love one, I guess it's for the best that I don't have a shirt with their other ad: A picture of Michelangelo's David, except with his penis broken off, along with the phrase "Uh oh, David's lost his dongle." Heh, Disney probably would've beaten me down with some billy clubs if I had worn that one.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
open source writing? (Score:1)
Orlando & Technology (Score:3)
Re:Disney is frightening if you really pay attenti (Score:1)
True. But one of the most important things to disney and it's theme parks is being "family friendly". It sucks that you can't wear your "eat the homeless" shirt. Oh well. Disney theme parks are private. You probably wouldn't be allowed in a lot of resturants, gov't buildings, courtrooms, etc. with it either. If they want to stop paying customers, it's their decision.
As for cameras, yeah, there's a lot of them. But from working at Anaheim's Disneyland, I've seen a lot of things people do just because they want to get away with something at "The happiest place on Earth". Disney would be stupid not to have cameras everywhere.
The Good Reverend
Find out about pesticides.... (Score:1)
So why was this so impressive to me? I suddenly realized, "Hey, this is Florida, otherwise known as the subtropics. Why aren't you being eaten alive by bugs?"
I think Disney must be putting an astonishing amount of poison into the environment down there to keep the bugs down. The amounts they must be using would have to be enormous -- Florida is a gigantic swamp. It's all standing water. How far out do they have to go from the park to keep mosquitoes away from the guests, and what methods do they use to control them?
I suspect that environmentalists are not going to like the answers too much.
Re:Disney is frightening if you really pay attenti (Score:1)
I took my whole family down to Disney in 95 for New Year's Eve. The Disney people were nothing put pleasant and helpfull (and yes, a little droid like). The really annoying part of Disney was the other people. I have never seen such a rude group of people in one place. People cutting in lines, pushing little kids out of the way, and generally being *ssholes.
"Open Source" huh? (Score:4)
I strongly suspect this is not what Katz means. Rather, his hope seems to be that we supply him with our ideas, as moderated by his target audience to "Interesting" and "Insightful" levels, he farms those ideas and tosses in a few adverbs as relish, and then he becomes wealthy. If his book is not copyrighted, I will eat my shoe.
Open source writing might very well work for a topic that is highly technical and an author who is highly altruistic. I question whether this book (which may nonetheless be very interesting) fits those criteria.
-konstant
Heterotopias, Panopticons, and Foucault (Score:1)
Are you familiar with Michel Foucault's terms "heterotopias" and "panopticons"? He takes the former from the medical term meaning to take one part and place it in another (unnatural place) as a substitute; e.g. skin graft, sex change.
DisneyWorld is not a utopia, but a heterotopia. It is a mirror, a place which stands apart from the rest of society so that we can gaze into the depths of our society's soul.
Samuel Delany's Triton and Ursula K. LeGuin's The Dispossessed both give different pictures of heterotopias. Delany uses advances in technology as part of this mirror. Perhaps it is more of a prism, though.
If you want more depth on Delany's "prism, mirror, lens" metaphors, he uses them through his work, but the figure prominently in Dhalgren.
nick
Re:So you're going on vacation? (Score:1)
Giant sinkholes (e.g. the one in Winter Park) could also work.
Yes! Celebration is the aspect of Disney to explor (Score:1)
Some basic disagreement (Score:1)
Technology is just the favorite whipping boy because it's so blatantly obvious. The same tragedies that happen with technological issues can happen without technological issues as well. Just as fusion power is a lofty concept until somebody makes a fusion powered death ray, a human's hands seem to be elegant adaptations until somebody uses them to strangle the life out of an 8 year old kid.
If you're hard set about finding a tragedy, look at human nature. We are the ones that can turn a beneficial invention into a device of destruction. Technology is merely one of the many means to that end.
Examples like coal power producing pollution have nothing to do with technology. What if coal didn't produce pollution? Then we'd still use it as a power source. The fact that coal does pollute has led to the technology of burning coal to be gradually phased out in favor of cleaner fuels.
While I would agree that there is tragedy in Disney's failed legacy, that has everything to do with the politics of corporations and nothing to do with technology. Politics have been around for as long as mankind has been able to impress itself with lies.
well. (Score:1)
Re:Sea World (Score:1)
I never realized how bad penguins smelled
until I went here.
Get used to it. (Score:2)
An example. Where I grew up, in Fort Worth, Texas, there's a downtown district that's now called Sundance Square. As recently as a decade ago, it was a run-down, nondescript urban area. Thanks to the investment a very rich family who, to be sure, has done many wonderful things for Fort Worth, the area has since been revitalized into a lively entertainment district. However, it is also damn near a police state. It's been said, probably without hyperbole, that in what amounts to about a fifteen city block area, there's not a single place you can stand and not be under the surveillance of the private police force of this wealthy family. Fort Worth got a nice little cash cow and the nearest thing they've got to a tourist attraction, but at what cost?
Nor do I see how things can get significantly better. Remote observation will only become easier with the progression of technology, and Diamond Age-esque serveillance robots may be uncomfortably close.
Welcome to the future. Thanks for the preview, Walt.
-jay
Feel tragic? Then think happy. (Score:1)
To the feeling man life is a tragedy. To the thinking man, life is a comedy.?
Shirt people (Score:1)
(FYI: When in Disney, we noticed large groups of people wandering around all wearing the same coloured T-shirts. They were promptly dubbed "Shirt people". And no, I am actually NOT insane)
>>>>>>>>> Kvort, Lord High Peanut of Krondor
Re:Disney is frightening if you really pay attenti (Score:1)
I think the hassling comes from presenting yourself not so much in a way that the Disney Corp. might not like, such as wearing images of their competitors' trademarks, but in a way that might squick an average person, who is there to have an average sort of fun, a concept mutually exclusive from squicklement.
I should think that people wearing gonzo-slogan T-shirts into Disney, of all places on earth, are itching for confrontation anyway.
J
MacOS Open Source [jmac.org]
Re:Orlando & Technology (Score:1)
Done. The GM Test Track ride concludes by dumping you in an auto showroom.
"Tragedy Is Not Our Business" (Score:1)
He doesn't strike me as someone who would support romantic posturing and notions like "inherently tragic." Or someone who'd waste his time wandering around Disneyworld looking for portentious sociohistorical lessons.
For balance, Jon, go read the last chapter of Freeman Dyson's Weapons and Hope, "Tragedy is Not Our Business."
Hiaasen (Score:1)
Re:Two comments.... (Score:1)
>but compare the life of a typical person in a >first world country now to 400 years ago.
Compare the life of someone in a THIRD world country: The technology us RICH have created have destroyed the environment so much, making the temperature rise, destroy the agriculture, destroying the rainforests where some of these people lived, bringing in things like harmful cigarettes and alcohol, when we know for a fact that many of the people we got these people hooked on cannot take the alcohol as well as we do (hence the entire "chinese and indians are all drunks" stereotype, since they're immune system is not able to handle it). So the 20% of the first world is better: What about the rest, or do they not matter to you?
Re:Disney is frightening if you really pay attenti (Score:1)
Yah. You are right about the people itching for confrontation. Or attention. A few years back at a Metallica show, we saw a guy who was wearing a black leather thong, a body stocking, and a jester's hat. I leaned over to my wife and said, "See what happens when parents don't play with their children?"
clarification (Score:1)
Obviously, some advances cause more harm than good; others benefit humanit enormously. And with every advance, sacrifices are made. How can every scientific achievment or innovation be summarized into one view about "technology"? That is, in effect, assigning the same level of goodness to the atomic bomb as to the polio vaccine. Given that, I'd say any view of technology is tragic.
Technology is not tragic (Score:1)
If we could advance our society and personal "psyche" at the same rate that we advance our technology, many problems that we experience today would not be a problem. For instance, if we had advanced our species as quickly as we have advanced medical technology, perhaps war would no longer be an issue, or even aggression. Why are ideas such as greed and intolerance still effecting us today in the same ways that they effected us 500 years ago? Perhaps the answer is to spend more effort in the advancement of philosphy and religion. My opinion on why we don't do this now, is because an advance in science or technology is much sexier than an advancement in philosophy. (When was the last time that the evening news reported on the newest theory of a great philosopher?)
Anyway, that is my opinion Mr. Katz, please take it how you will.
The problems with technology (Score:2)
A lot of the problems with technology are strongly related to the scarcity of energy. In theory, with an infinite supply of cheap energy, technology could limit its own negative ecological effects. The main arguments against ecological alternatives are economic. It would also cease to provide a social gradient that helped to separate rich and poor. Fission, fusion and space-based solar energy are all possibilities for increasing the energy supply, but none looks to be cheap, completely safe, or all that plentiful. Finding a good source of energy would redefine the technology landscape, making clean use of energy practical and reducing scarcity of goods in general. Can we survive long enough to find one? Shouldn't we be looking a little harder?
The other aspect of technological tragedy is social. People's cultures and means of living together change much slower than technology. New technologies, while increasing production, also create personal tragedies thru obsolescence and unanticipated side effects. For one example, feeding everyone thru efficient agriculture leads to population growth. This means that we live maladapted to technology and often without much idea why. We can acculturate faster, or control the growth of technology. I'm mostly for the former (I'd rather not shut down the internet until the lawmakers catch up.) But when new technologies have expensive social costs that aren't reflected in the bottom lines of the corporations promoting them, restraint is required for the common good.
Walt's Lost Vision... (Score:1)
Frankly, from what I saw, if Disney had been in charge of the space program, he would have had a resort on the moon by '69 instead of just a few trips there.
There were a lot of roadblocks to what Walt Disney wanted to do in Florida. One of the largest ones is that Disney was never allowed to build its own power plant. That was one of the big ideas for making a self sustaining community. (As a sidebar, note that Florida Power's Tampa plant, newly built to handle the increased load of the Kissimee-Tampa resort corridor, blew up last year killing several people)
The Disney Seaside resort near Ft. Pierce with Monorail transit to the Magic Kingdome died due to legislative roadblocks.
Orlando is very much a technical dichotomy of a city. The high tech in the closed communities of the Kississimmee are contrast greatly with the areas of Orange County to the north were you have outdated phone switching equiment making more that a 14.4 connection startling.
Contrast what you see in the Kissimmee area for tech with what you will see at the Sanford Flea Market. Orlando is an area where the tech and the money concentrated with a few and left the rest of the area depressed below the norm.
I left Orlando in January of this year for a job in Washington.
Steven
Interesting... (Score:2)
Who in their right mind, living in the mid-century would believe that we, in almost the year 2000 have not already actively colonized space stations, that the moon is not home to at least a lab and that we have not even set foot on Mars yet!?
We have done squat as far as the "final frontier" is concerned! Well, of course the main reason is that there simply no money in it (at least right now). So capitalism has thwarted Mr. Disney's dreams in yet another way
Instead, the "final frontier" has been internalized. The Internet, mapping out the human gene code, modern medecine and biotechnologies. There is money in that... that is where our interest lies... not space.
I have joked about the new silver spacesuit I bought for New Year's this year... because afterall, that is what everyone will be wearing in the 21st Century!? Now, who knows when I will really be able to wear that and fit in!? Probably not for a while.
Alas....
Re:Get used to it. (Score:1)
The weirdest part is that it seems like the cameras are always pointing AWAY from the streets and towards the local strip shopping center...
Re:Two comments.... (Score:1)
>in every way, but compare the life of a typical person in a first world
>country now to 400 years ago. People rarely die of common infections,
>childbirth is not a serious health risk, I can have fresh, unrotted
>meat whenever I want, my home has air conditioning and a radio,
>most people have ALL of their children survive infanthood, starvation
>is almost unheard of, and the street outside my house is not an open
>sewer. From the point of view of someone who lived 400 years ago,
>I must be living in utopia. If you were to ask a medival peasant if our
>lives look better than his, he'd laugh, then kill you for your fridge.
>Keep it in perspective when you wonder if technology is doing us
>any good.
Wonderful... The 10% of the people with the 90% of the worlds wealth are doing MUCH better than 400 years ago. I find myself wondering what percentage of the people have homes with electricity and hot water. Meanwhile, the average AMERICAN bleeds away his life sitting on the couch watching television.
Admittedly, I don't agree with Mr. Katz about technology being tragic, but I AM beginning to wonder if massive technology collapse on 1/1/2000 might be a very good thing.
/Rant off/
>>>>>>>>>>> Kvort
Re:"Celebration Chronicles", Background info? (Score:2)
D
----
Must Be Something in the Water (Score:1)
Book Input (Score:1)
What you're talking about doing ties in with the Internet more than you know. From what I have read in recent press, the original idealists behind the Internet had no idea that (1) their dream would take flight and (2) that their dream would turn out to be a large commercial network selling sex, books, and sporting goods.
Most any technology comes to a sad use that the inventor never imagined. Oppenheimer regreted his research into the atomic bomb to his dying day
The motivating facror for this book isn't the sad application that the tech is used for, but what the ramifications are for those that created it and those that use it in an "improper fashion".
When you mentioned Disney, I can see him rising from his Amana freezer and going Jackie Chan on Orlando (except he would be better dubbed). Kind of like the "ghost in the machine" in the &^%$ed up movie version of Johnny Nmeonic (sp?).
So I can see a short story where the creator of the technology rights a few wrongs (think Harlan Ellison's short story when Mother Nature goes haywire and swallows Los Angeles in a fit of revenge for all the toxic waste & pollution).
Will that serve to fuel a whole book
Company starts using "technology x" for their commercial pursuits. This tech was developed by a visionary college professor, very idealistic and socially aware kind of guy. Commercial pursuits become very commercial, making the company a monster image of everything bad about greed & such (this is where the stereotypes come in). Company suddenly starts going down the tubes
But hey, that may have been done before.
Brian Richardson
brian@freebytes.net
Celebration (Score:1)
disney, not orlando? (Score:1)
and work in orlando have lives that revolve around disney. if you're going to make generalizations
based solely upon wdw/epcot, that's fairly
inaccurate considering many folks who live in
orlando despise disney with a passion.
and what's this open source writing thing?
Isn't that alcohol? (Score:2)
Homer: "Here's to alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems"
Book recommendation (Score:1)
Have you read Stephenson's In the Beginning [cryptonomicon.com] essay? This is a very thoughtful essay on technology and culture. He also visited Disney (the Magic Kingdom) and had some interesting things to say about corporatization, cultural homogenization, and all the other things that you think about when you hear the word Disney.
Of course his essay isn't "open source" so you can't embrace and extend it. But it should give you an interesting perspective as well as being something entertaining to read on the plane!
JMC
Re:Two comments.... (Score:1)
400 hundred years ago, the population of Africa was 100 million. Now its 700 million.
What do you suppose the reason for that is?
Because we raped their environment?
Tradegy (Score:2)
However, Technology with a big T (viz: Heidegger's "The Question Concerning Technology) is the implicit faith and complex of assumptions that motivates us to seek technological, rather than social, spiritual, cultural, political or psychological responses to our environment - when we encounter our world entirely in terms of tools, methods, and means. It's noble in that it is a positive, reasonable, and often helpful stance to problems. It is tragic in a number of senses: often, it seeks to satisfy a desire without understanding the engine that underlies desire; satisfying desire is itself essentially tragic, since desire is extinguished in its satisfaction and the motivation lost. From a Buddhist perspective, desire is the source of suffering, and technology only feeds the illusion that desire can be fulfilled.
Heidegger's plaint is that the technological stance towards the world eclipses all others, and is a sort of squandering and corruption of our ability to generate Being through interaction with the world. I think it's largely an aesthetic argument, but it really is a powerful one -by choosing to live in a technological mode, we stop inhabiting a world and start dwelling amidst Objects and Tools.
While the solutions addressed by technology is almost always local, its effects are often global. Technology always serves someone's interest, and that interest may be someone elses's detriment.
But the essence of the tragic nature of technology is this: the technological stance seems redemptive, but it can never actually redeem.
Katz Bash! (Score:1)
How about Words That Rhyme With Pretentious.
Go back to accounting, Jon. You must have been better at it.
Neal Stephenson tie-in (Score:1)
Re:Orlando & Technology (Score:1)
The technology scene around here is not Disney. Disney is an important part of the local economy, but they aren't everything.
How about FedEx's 600+ local employees working on some of the largest projects in that company?
How about Theseus Logic developing revolutionary semiconductor technologies?
How about other large local technology centers, like the research park at UCF with it's Naval Special Warfare labs?
How about half of freakin' NASA being 45 minutes away?
How about every defense contractor in existance?
How about large IT staffs at Anheuser Busch and Tupperware?
This town is a technology hotbed. It's no San Jose or Austin, but it's big.
Disney is important, and they employ a lot of people, but they aren't Orlando any more than Euro Disney is Paris.
Re:Disney is frightening if you really pay attenti (Score:1)
"Open Source" == you get paid for our ideas? (Score:1)
Will he at least be mentioning as co-authors the people who give him the best ideas?
Could any of them then peddle this article elsewhere? Or variants thereof?
I think this smacks of exploitation, that he can rely on SlashDotties to be his inspiration, or at least his 'secret ingredient', but otherwise it's the same old deal: he owns the copyright, he gets the money.
What do you think?
Re:Walt's Lost Vision... (Score:1)
I'm not sure of the cost difference between building a resort on the moon versus building a resort on a beach somewhere, but I think its probably pretty significant. Not to mention the insurance costs.
These, combined with the cost of GETTING to the moon, would make a stay in a moon resort some factors higher than a stay in a carribean resort, I suspect.
And, personally, I would MUCH rather have a vacation on a nice warm beach than a cold moon base.
>>>>>>>>>>> Kvort, Lord High Peanut of Krondor
Re:Heterotopias, Panopticons, and Foucault (Score:1)
I agree that LeGuin and Delany did not have a common vision. I recall reading a work on the net which puts these three books as a trilogy: Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, The Dispossessed, and Triton. I would also add in Joanna Russ' The Female Man.
All four paint a picture that anarchy must be displaced (i.e. a utopia must be heteropic), and that it must be in conflict with "normal" society.
Where they differ is in the interplay of technology and utopic society. Russ and LeGuin seem to say that they are at odds, while Heinlein and Delany say something else. Though Heinlein and Delany differ, as well.
nick
Side Visits (Score:2)
Also, a visit to the to some of the tech companies developing around the UCF (University of Central Florida) may show a different side of the city.
One of my former employers (Time Warner) did a major test roll out of interactive cable service here, emptying out the group I was working with in the process. I often wonder what became of it.
Is this the kind of help you meant? Or were you just looking for a "sound byte" on technology?
Re:Two comments.... (Score:1)
As for "bringing in" alcohol, it predates written civilization. Every culture has discovered it on their own long ago.
Read a book not written by Al Gore before you spout off in public.
Meta - analyses (Score:1)
Also, isn't there a small town on the Gulf Coast that was set up as a similar corporate planned community? Was it called Seaside? The town that was the setting for "The Truman Show" (which in itself is a fascinating social commentary).
Harper's Magazine and The Atlantic Monthly have printed a number of articles describing these and other planned communities. The concept goes back all the way to Levittown.
Good luck, Mr. Katz
Incidentally, I'm a resident of Berkeley, a community which is quite weird in its own way. Anti-corporate, unplanned, and commu-anarchic. An interesting contrast to Celebration et al.
Re:Tradegy (Score:1)
We don't choose to live in a technological mode; in the developed world, that's the default setting. You've got to make an active choice to not live with Technology. And this is - believe it or not -- not a bad thing. Because technology makes life easier. It means I can post to slashdot while knocking back caffeinated peppermints that were made on the other side of the planet, instead of grubbing for wild potatoes (which isn't nearly as much fun as it sounds).
Samuel Florman - link to article? (Score:1)
Check out "The Existential Pleasures of Engineering", "The Civilized Engineer" or any of his other books.
Re:They didn't like _my_ t-shirt, either (Score:1)
Re:Walt's Lost Vision... (Score:1)
I'm not sure where you were, but in north Orange County the phone system supports 33.6k+ just fine.
You're talking about the Sanford flea market; Sanford is in north Seminole County, almost into Volusia County. You're off by the width of an entire county.
Hmm... (Score:1)
Don't forget to check out the 'House of Tomorrow' down there.. IIRC it's a set of stucco-like geodesic domes with some cool stuff inside (when I went it was Apple ][ based). I wonder if it still has that Curtis Mathes big-screen TV with the shatterproof glass..
Your Working Boy,
Guys in the suits? (Score:1)
Maybe just a myth?
I don't know, if you've been to Disney as many times as I have, you might start to beleive it too. It is just amazing the level of detail they put into every attraction, every store, every little bench, just to fit into the theme that they present in that area of each park. After going to Disney a couple times a year for my whole life I have decided that there is no extreme for Disney, and that the characters very well could be security.
-Zach
Hi Katz.. (Score:1)
Disneyworld is a creepy use of "technology" (remember the quotes for later) They put a glittery facade on things, they use gee-whiz stuff to put a gleam of interest to an otherwise shabby undertaking. (like the whole epcot advertainment complex). Disney has managed to take what should be a varied and at least somewhat random expierience (a trip to a theme park) and standardize it for everyone. Everyone will see at least 3 parades, those parades will feature at least 2 big name characters. Every person will see no less than three animatronic marvels (hillbilly bears, presidents) and there will be a gift shop in direct site at least 70% of the time. I've read stories about the massive tunnels under disney world, the survielance everywhere. The rapid response security teams. How they carved out of florida swamp a sterile intellectual wasteland etc.. I mean for christ's sake the place is cleaner than Nova Scotia.
Ok ok disney is in fact the technolgical dystopia that anyone with half an eye open would run screaming from, Duh! that ain't news katz baby.
But here are my problems with this article:
Really, what's so hi-tech? it's mostly smoke and mirrors, some walkie talkies and what have you.
Disney is at the cutting edge of social engineering, they are masters of human group pyschology. They know how to lay out a complex so that the maximum amount of dollars leaves the pockets of the maximum amount of passive people. They know that people don't want to see weirdos. They know what colors are least likely to cause people to freak out and run amok. I can think of a million ways that the people of disney have mastered the herd mentality and the ease of implanting consumer memes in a child's mind. But technology? really? What consumer gadgets? compusa
puts on a good show kid. Don't fool yourself, technology is the least important thing about disneyworld, especially new technology.. We've had closed circuit tv cameras and monorails for a while now.
And if anything I say is used in your open source book great, it's open source right? I'm gonna make my own distro. I'll let you know when to get in on the ipo.
Re:Celebration (Score:1)
Seaside Flordia. Worth checking out.
Technology is about actively changing environment (Score:1)
Man has a desire to control and change his environment to suit his needs/desires rather than change himself to suit his environment.
Technology? The result of someone wanting to change an aspect of an item normally out of their control. It is NOT tragic, it is a choice to take a different path with different consequences.
As far as all the hoopla about various Utopia being police states, if the people living there want to live under those conditions, who are we to look at them badly? Ok, so I can't wear my 'get rid of the dongle' t-shirt, but perhaps I'm willing to give that up if it also means that the red light district and porn shops no longer exist in MY environment.
Of course others will think I'm not really living, or that I'm raising my children in a barbaric manner. But who are you to deny me the right to change my environemt to suit my needs? If I own an island, I can prevent you from ever entering the scene. You have absolutely no reason to complain about my existance, because, in theory, it does not affect your environment. If you want the 'benefits' I have, you have to live according to my rules as well.
Technology is trading one future for another. Certianly the coal industry causes many deaths that otherwise wouldn't have happened, but if you look at the benefits and the deaths it prevents (steal, electricity, heat, etc) it far outweighs the detriment to society (looking at the few statistics we have at our command. We can't truly evaluate the impact on the atmosphere of the planet, but we know how it has affected the planet, and we can reasonably presume it will continue the same low effects it has for the past 100 years. And yes, we can measure that, Scientists have sealed bottles of air that are decades and centuries old.)
-Adam
P.S. There are serious safety issues concerning Hamburgers.
1. Hamburgers become unstable at high voltages
2. Hamburgers will not stop a high velocity bullet from 1000metres
3. Hamburgers will fail to restrain a crash victim at 120 km/hr
4. Hamburgers are inadequate as a ground proximity warning device in aircraft.
5. Hamburgers are known to have been eaten by 90% of fatal disease suffers.
The list goes on.......
Thoughts on Tragedy/Disney/Orlando... (Score:2)
The Shakespearean tragedy occurs when a fatal character flaw means an unavoiadable
fated downfall. Does technology have a fatal flaw? If so, what is it? Will the
tragedy be a sci-fi style apocalypse? Or something less tangible and dramatic?
Would we be any better off without technology? Or is it humanity that contains
the fatal flaw?
Disney:
Disney Inc. now represents a capitalist regime. It produces cutesy films and a zillion
and one products related to said films.
Walt Disney, however, was an innovative and imaginative human. During his time, Disney
produced animation that was light years ahead. His passion was with the art and what
could be acheived. He bought the best equipment and artists he could find and he
risked trying new things.
Disney Inc. now regularly produces films, that are neither sparklingly imaginative, nor
innovative. Disney is no longer a man, unfortunately, its just another company that
wants to turn a profit.
Technology was used by Walt Disney to it's fullest extent. He pushed it to where he
wanted it to go-- which was on flights of imaginative innovation. Disney Inc, uses
technology, too... but merely as a tool for profit.
Orlando and DisneyWorld:
It's just another American city, with an American theme park. There is a stereotpe of
an American tourist abroad, the type that is generally despised. Not all Americans
are like that... it is a stereotype. But a good number are. They go to some place
in Europe, say, and photograph the tourist trap monuments, comment to eachother how
adventurous they are, and then go look for a McDonalds or Burger King to eat in. They
are not really interested in the country they are visiting. They want the themepark
version. Safe, popularised, and shallow. That is what DisneyWorld is. Orlando is a
city of contradictions... the restaurants are varied and represent flavours from many
parts of the world. (I recall a Lebanese restaurant that was stuck in a random strip
mall, but had extremely authentic and delicious Lebanese food). Beneath that sort of
cosmopolitan exterior was the same old story, though. For instance, in the time I
spent there, I saw only African-Americans working in the "menial" jobs. I doubt
that Walt Disney would be pleased with DisneyWorld or Orlando.
---
There's the closing sentence.. (Score:2)
of the new Katz book.
"So in conclusion, the whole point of technology is to create really large and expensive shopping malls that you have to pay to see."
Re:Orlando & Technology (Score:1)
Re:Walt's Lost Vision... (Score:1)
There is a severe gap between the haves and the have-nots in the Orlando area, at least as far as technology goes...
hmmmm (Score:2)
Might not win you any awards, certainly would not be PC, but it would make for an interesting read. Of course you could have the Katz-cam to document it for slashdot.
Just think Jon... you could be the first techo-gonzo journalist.... you could be the HST for the new millenium..go for it Jon..sieze the moment !!
Re:forget technology - look at the root problems (Score:1)
I might argue that it's tragic that it's chilly in the room sometimes, but that's just life. There will always be problems. We can try to work towards a minimal subset of those problems.
That's the thing: we always have to keep working. That's the tragic part of technology. No matter how many problems we solve, there are always more to overcome. There's no rest, no universal point where it doesn't get any better.
Technology feeds on itself. New technology is used to combat old problems, but its use creates problems which will require more new technology to overcome. This prevents us from living in a utopia for the foreseeable future: we've too many problems to solve. I suppose it's okay to call that a tragedy, but for someone like me it's just job security.
Re:Tragedy (Score:1)
2. If the question is "what is the least labor intensive way to eat?" then grubbing for wild tubers loses to popping a tray into the microwave. However, if grubbing for wild tubers is the core shared activity of your community, something that you do with your family and friends; if it is the basis of the annual Tuber Festival, and you are participating in building a wonderful effigy of the Great Sacrificial Tuber; if your back and arms are strong from tuber gathering, and the local girls notice and appreciate it; if you can look with satisfaction at a fine tuber, know what type of ground creates what kind of tuber, then... then I would say that you may not, in fact, be made unqualifyingly more happy with the microwave/caffienated peppermint solution.
That is how a problem->technology approach differs from other stances towards life. It isn't about the stuff, it's about the relationships between stuff and people.
Problems, problems, problems... (Score:1)
I left the aerospace industry to work in themed entertainment in 1989 and have since then worked on numerous theme park projects for Orlando, California, and overseas. I can say without fail that the technology involved in 95% of what you seen in a theme park is truly unremarkable and uninteresting compared to an average satellite or jet air craft. Others will certainly disagree, but I am bored to tears with the lack of innovation people even consider when designing new theme parks and attractions. Disney, much more than the others, makes the attempt, but certainly never comes up with anything spectacular.
Motion picture special effects aside (Terminator 2- 3D) everything else still appears to be new applications of tried and true, existing, technology.
In the case of a theme park that's a good thing. Let's remember that these things have to run for at least 12 hours a day - every day. New technology doesn't like to work on a consistent basis or be cheap to repair. Just ask anybody who worked on SARCOS figures for the first five years.
I think you're working on the wrong assumptions for where you're going, but have fun and don't look at the ceiling!
Jack
Re:What is Katz talking about? (Score:2)
Whats more, this substance is allowed to land on the surface of the planet completely unchecked! No control whatsoever exists to stop this compound soaking into land! It can be found in every living organism!
Speak out now!
Re:"Open Source" huh? (Score:1)
Uh, so, if I 'help' you Jon, uh, what's my cut?
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Re:"Open Source" huh? (Score:1)
There's nothing menacing about Katz putting his ideas up for criticism. He'll be getting the same type of input as if slashdot just linked to an article of his somewhere; this time, he asked slashdot specifically for comments. And if you think our ideas are so worthwhile, remember that he's the one doing all the research to turn those ideas into something more than an "insightful comment." The research (and the "pretty adverbs," a bit of a harsh dismissal of what most writers would call "skill" or "craft") is what he's getting paid for anyways.
They're following me!! (Score:3)
oh, and Disneyworld(TM,c,a,t) is very much it's own country. Walt got the state of florida to bend way over when he showed them how much money he was willing to invest and would eventually add to the states economy. IIRC they even have the right to build their own nuclear reactor. here's a quick link [virginia.edu]
What makes a tragedy? (Score:4)
If I recall my English lit classes, the tragic hero has some sort of tragic flaw. Often it's hubris (Macbeth's belief in his right to rule and his invulnerability), or ignorance (a simple DNA test could have saved Oedipus so much trouble).
Capek's R.U.R. [pima.edu] might be the best literary example of techno-tragedy; humanity's downfall is a combination of hubris (believing it can create life better than God or Nature) and ignorance of the consequences of it's invention.
Maybe that's what makes for techno-tragedy - pride made dangerous by ignorance. "Look!" says Man "I have invented refrigeration! Food and medicinces can be preserved! Hot buildings can be made comfortable! Isn't this wonderful!" And it is wonderful - but meanwhile, unknown to him, his refrigerant is eating away the ozone layer that shields him from ultraviolet rays.
Maybe it's technophile hubris to think that the human condition can be fundamentally improved by technology - "we cannot get grace from gadgets," as someone once put it. But on the other hand, we are now developing the technologies that can change what it is to be human - genetic engineering, bio- and nano-tech, cybernetics, things that will not lead to incremental change in the human condition but quite possibly to the end of humanity as we know it.
Maybe we'll just destroy ourselves; but maybe we'll just break out of the chyrsalis and become something more than what we are. Remember that birth to the butterfly looks like death to the catepillar.
The end of our story with technology isn't written yet - it remains to be seen whether it is tragedy, comedy, or romance.
Re:forget technology - look at the root problems (Score:4)
You're missing the point. Though he may not realize it, Katz isn't talking about small-t technology, he's talking about big-T Technology, which I would argue is a way of looking at the world rather than any specific invention.
Think of it this way. A longer-lasting light bulb is small-t technology. It is morally neutral. Now, say that society looks at this light bulb and decides that, since it lasts longer, the whole problem of 'night' has been solved -- now you can keep your factories running 24 hours a day. This is Technology, and it is most certainly not morally neutral -- it has its good elements (higher productivity, more jobs) and its bad (stress on families from working odd hours, fatigue from people disconnecting from the natural rhythms of the day/night cycle), but it's not neutral. The light bulb is, the presumption that technical innovation equals social progress is not.
Another example -- if the modern USA is a Technological society, the former USSR was an Ideological society. That is, the common assumption was that society and progress were driven by strict adherence to ideology. Now the small-i term "ideology" encompasses everything from Libertarianism to Fascism, but big-I Ideology is about people filtering all their experiences through the prism of whatever their ideology is -- just like we, more and more, filter our experiences through the technology that we surround ourselves with.
Now look at the Tomorrowland that Katz is talking about. The old-style Tomorrowland is a shrine to the Technological outlook: a world in which everyone is thrifty, brave, and clean simply because they ride zippy monorails to work and have fusion-powered dishwashers in their kitchen. This is Technology at its ridiculous extreme -- assuming that the more small-t tech we accumulate, the more virtuous we will be. Of course, real life is much messier than that; people are people, and no amount of George Jetson streamlining can round the jagged edges off of human nature.
That's the tragedy of Technology -- that we persist in assuming that it will somehow save us from the unpleasantness of ourselves. Of course it won't. But like the Russians, who gave up their Ideological outlook only when it had completely worn out their society, we'll probably have to discover this for ourselves, the hard way.
-- Jason A. Lefkowitz
Suggestions for Katz (Score:1)
I've never seen Katz treat a subject objectively. There's always a slant; some bias that leaves little consideration for opposite ideas.
Ok, Rolling Stone thrives on this kind of literature. It's not a mag for the objective-minded person. It is targeted more at the revolutionary whose value system is based in some form of hedonism. It is a place for the contra-voices to vent their ideas when they have been rejected by the people as a whole.
This kind of writing doesn't provoke thought. It provokes emotions. Anger, paranoia, amusement, accord, discord. It is propaganda more than anything else.
If Katz wants an "open source" writing project, he will have to be satisfied with using other people's ideas. It isn't a "Jon Katz" article anymore. It won't have the same feeling. It won't convey the same ideas that Just Jon would convey. It might say things that he doesn't agree with. It might come to a conclusion that he doesn't agree with. And he can't be the only one who decides what gets written and what gets left out. Ultimately, he can't even claim it as "his" work. The writing, compiling, and publishing must be guided by the core contributors.
Disney at Colonus (Score:2)
Well, I don't see any reason to call technology tragic, but Disney (the man) sure is.
Think of it... The man spends his life building a truly creative, magical company -- but when he dies, the company morphs into a media marketing conglomerate, smothering its own tiny creative division to keep it from competing with its own past output.
I didn't realize the extent of its hatred of creative competition until the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension came up. Disney pushed it... hard. The main reason is presumably to keep the image of the Mouse from entering public domain. The side effect is to keep *anything* from entering the public domain for at least 20 years. The cruel irony is so many of their works (Pinocchio, Little Mermaid, Hunchback, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc...) came directly from stories which had been copyrighted, but become free for public use. Well, no more.
And of course Disney's crowning failure came at the very end of his life. The attendant physicians misunderstood his last request, and (alas) instead of preserving his magnificant brain, we now have "Disney on Ice!"
(sorry, couldn't help it!)
Technology and consequences (Score:1)
Part of the problem is that idealism doesn't sell, and idealists don't make good marketers. Selling people what they need is doomed. Selling people what they want is tricky. Selling people what YOU want to sell them is modern business. This is why I fear for linux--selflessness (i.e. OSS) makes it hard to achieve market penetration, and selfishness (i.e. marketing, big money, etc.) tends to warp the product being sold into something that can be easily packaged and written up in a press release.
This is only _specifically_ relevant to technology inasmuch as society is primarily concerned with technology over more traditional markets/values/objects. Let's face it, our society today is almost a technology unto itself.
Before doing any writing, though, you have to read "The Real World of Technology," by Ursula Franklin. Ms. Franklin is a physics prof who gave a series of lectures on the good, bad, and neutral facets of technology and how they are used in (and are affected by) the real day-to-day world. Fascinating and informative reading.
The Real World of Technology:
http://search.borders.com/fcgi-cin/db2www/searc
Book suggestion and other ideas (Score:2)
BTW, I think that calling Disney's technological advances "tragic" is true in many senses.. You really have to have lived in Orlando (esp. in the south west areas) for a number of years to realize this. Everything is so overcapitalized that all sorts of buildings and roads get thrown up very rapidly, leading to a poor infrastructure and just a weird feeling of the place in general. Everybody's just realized that there is a lot of money to be had, so quantity (not quality) seems to be the focus.
In essence, it's not that the technology is tragic, but more that the effects of it are. For lots of examples of this, please get the book above -- it's a very interesting read.
-- Does Rain Man use the Autistic License for his software?
Re:Walt's Lost Vision... (Score:2)
I moved into Winter Springs, rather north of Disney World, and a convenient drive to the Sanford Flea Market. We had cable modem service hooked up in July, and fairly soon will have DSL in the neighborhood for competition. Over 30% of Orlando is covered by either DSL or Cable Modem now.
The Sanford Flea market is a cool place to shop, be it for cell phones, pecans, or DIMMs. Not necessarily the best prices, but lots of local color.
The technology in the theme parks is inconsistent, and I think the heirs to Walt's vision aren't doing as good a job in DisneyWorld as Universal Studios is with Islands of Adventure, or SeaWorld.
As for bad phone lines, the Maryland suburbs have some truly outdated switches that are slowly approaching their 30 year writedown, and have equally great difficulty with 14.4 connections.
I'll agree with the poster who commented about the water, it's some of the worst I've tasted in fifteen countries.
But as for Orlando being a huge technical dichotomy, it seems rather better off than the average US city. Compare Potomac, Maryland to SouthEast DC. Then Winter Park to Parramore. Probably the same technical gap, but the ratio of tech-haves to tech-havenots seems lower in Orlando than around DC.
For all that, though, I'd trade my cable modem for five decent restaraunts. All the food down here is way too bland. I'm not sure if it's due to the parks constant promotion of their "themed entertainment experiences" rolling over into bland food (and bland t-shirts), but I've found that the only really good food here is stuff I cook myself.
Re:Technology is about actively changing environme (Score:2)
Re:What is Katz talking about? (Score:3)
I agree. Plane-Crash tragic is, well, bad. Katz seems to be saying that technology is neither good nor bad. But it might be tragic. It's certainly worth looking in to.
Tragedies (not the plane-crash kind), perhaps paradoxically, can be uplifting. The people in them are not typically evil; they're frequently good people. But they suffer (boy do they suffer!) the unintended consequences of their plots and machinations.
Technology (as in coal furnaces and maybe Disneyland) differs from simpler activities like breathing and eating in that technology intends to improve the world. Eating and breathing, while they may have tragic (in the plane-crash sense) consequences for the organisms that get eaten or who die from airborne diseases, are intended to merely perpetuate survival. If things go wrong, it may be bad but it's hardly tragic in the Greek-tragedy sense of the word. But a marvelous new technology - created with the noblest of intentions by the cleverest of inventors - which has devastating unintended consequences, is truly tragic. Esp. if those consequences could have been minimized with a little careful planning.
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear (Score:2)
I don't know much about heterotopias, but panopticon, it definitely is. Quick gloss on the term, for anyone who's not familiar-- a panopticon, or panoptic system, is basically a place where you might be under observation at any time, but you can never truly know. Foucault took the word from the prison design work of Jeremy Bentham, who proposed a prison architecture where all the cells were arranged in a huge cylinder around a central observation tower. The prisoners couldn't really see each other, and they couldn't see into the observation tower, but anyone in the observation tower could see into any cell at any time, and in great detail, with the aid of binoculars.
So what happens is, you encourage a sense of constantly being watched in the prisoners. They might not be being watched at any given moment, but they always could be under observation. So they would tend to be self-policing, thereby reducing the number of actual guards you should need.
This general trick has been pulled off in many different contexts, including of course, Disney theme parks. Hence the rumors that the guys in costume might be security, and the fact that there are... or could be cameras watching every square inch of the parks. Whether there are or not doesn't even matter. It works as long as people believe they could be under observation at any time.
This is probably also familiar to many of you as a main feature of society in 1984. The population was totally self-policing because they simply believed that they could be under observation at any time. And with just a little bit of effort, the authorities could easily maintain that impression.
Jon, if you really do plan to write this book, you're going to have to make a herculean effort to make it worth reading. Many people who are way smarter than you have dealt with this topic before, so please don't waste everybody's time by writing up a little vacation and pretending you did something worthwhile.
Be sure, especially, you've read Jean Baudrillard's pieces about Disney, including The DisneyWorld Company [ctheory.com], and... umm, he has a book that is primarily about Disney, I think, but the name is escaping me.
Anyway, good luck.
----
Morning gray ignites a twisted mass of colors shapes and sounds
The only thing more tragic than technology (Score:2)
After your trip to Orlando you ought to vist at least two other places, a second world country like Korea, where they have technolgy, but not as much of it as Orlando, and your favorite country in Central or 1Northern Africa where they have little.
Technology is a huge force for good in the world, and all you have to do to see that is go somewhere where they don't have it. At least read "Holidays in Hell" by your colleuge P.J. O'Rouak.
Re:Tragedy (Score:2)
That's because I'm not convinced that there is a difference. Technology as a redemptive stance (if I understand you correctly) is a manifestation of our never being happy with what we've got; problem solving is essentially the same thing. There's no point in solving a problem unless you get something out of it, be it a potato, a new car or a feeling of smugness. And however smug you feel, you know that it's only a matter of time before some smartarse eclipses your wonderful achievement, and you've got to do it all over again.
And I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but if we'd had better spuds 150 years ago, there's tens of millions of fewer Americans claiming to be Irish despite having never been nearer to the republic than Nantucket.
Re:Soo offtopic but it needed to be said.. (Score:2)
Wrong! Some (probably not all) Native American people did have alcohol before European contact. The Natives of what is now the Southwest U.S. and Mexico made a drink much like today's tequila. However, they did not use alcohol in the same way that Europeans did (unless you count Communion wine). They used it in religious ceremonies.
The "bad alcoholism genes" you speak of are genes that make an enzyme - alcohol dehydrogenase, IIRC - that helps break down alcohol into non-toxic substances. These genes were not so vital for Asians and Native Americans, who drank little alcohol, but they were vital for Europeans, for whom wine and ale were often less toxic than the local water. Asians and Native Americans did have the technology to make alcohol, but their culture compensated for their lack of alcohol dehydrogenase. In Asia, they typically drink from tiny saki cups, and in the Americas alcohol was used sparingly, by a select few, in order to see visions in religious ceremonies.
Re:Two comments.... (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with the immune system. It has to do with an enzyme, alcohol dehydrogenase, which helps break alcohol down into less toxic substances. Europeans typically have more of it than other people.
Native Americans made their own alcohol long before Columbus. It was a lot like modern tequila. But they had strict rules for its use. A few people got very drunk seeking visions, but they didn't destroy their society with it.
That one's really funny. Who do you think grew the tobacco? The Native Americans! They invented smoking! Maybe it's justice after all, that Native Americans probably killed more Europeans with tobacco than Europeans ever killed Native Americans with muskets. Then again, at least the smokers had a choice. Oh Well...
Maybe you should go to LA (Score:2)
Re:"Open Source" huh? (Score:2)
You may well be right in that his concept of Open Source may not match what we have come to expect, however I believe that, while I may not consider his offer to be Open Source, he is offering one thing that pleases me, even if I don't intend to take advantage of it, and that is the possibility of directing his attention to a topic I feel needs discussion. For example, the Disney World transport system. Free buses, every 10 minutes. I loved it. This is a Good Use of technology in my mind, easy safe convinient transport. Perhaps Katz would, apon my urging, take a look into this concept. Perhaps also other readers may be able to add some opinions on what I consider to be a truely simple, yet beautiful idea. (I'm not suggesting you do
Perhaps the phrase should have been Collaborative Planning, or Collaborative Design or something.
Or mayhap he will surprise us and release the unedited text of the book in ascii for us all to play around with and include sections of as we see fit?
The engine of the economy -- but at what cost? (Score:2)
well...
...you can do the math for yourself.
Re:Soo offtopic but it needed to be said.. (Score:2)
Sone anonymous coward dun said: I agree with everything you said except this. Native Americans did not have alcohol until we came to North America. That's why there is a higher percentage of alcoholism, in europe people with bad alcoholism genes were most likely just bred out of the gene pool over hundreds of years.
As some others have noted already, I'm afraid you're rather mistaken. :)
There were no less than three separate and distinct alcoholic beverages that were developed by Native Americans some hundreds of years before silly Cristobal Colon got lost and confused Hispaniola for Indonesia. :) The first was a corn-beer which was later distilled (and the Mayas actually used to give themselves ENEMAS with this stuff in rituals); the second was mezcal (which has been mentioned several times here, and is the direct ancestor of tequila--and you can still buy the stuff in a lot of places); the third (which I'll grant is not commonly known) is a sort of fruit-beer or metheglin made from passionfruit (yes, passionfruit actually grows in the United States--bet most of you didn't know that :) known as "old field apricot drink" (I'm using the English translation) which was invented by the Cherokee some hundreds of years back which is approximately as strong as kvass (a Russian beer made from rye bread).
The Mayas and Aztecs tended to use the corn-beer and mezcal for religious purposes (the Mayas, again, even going to such measures as taking the stuff in enemas when one was puking too much to keep it down--which will also, incidentially, get one more drunk than just drinking it--it's actually been suggested in books on treatment of radiation poisoning that if one can't safely give someone an IV one could well give someone an enema of essential nutrients). "Old field apricot drink" wasn't used for any ritual purposes that I know of (it might have hundreds of years back, but there's been a fair amount of Cherokee lore that got lost thanks to assimilation + the Trail of Tears) but was used in exactly the same manner as your average white American bubba uses Bud Light--as a refresher after a hard day's work. (Kvass and "old field apricot drink" tend to have a lower alcohol level than traditional Western beers, though...the fermentation is only about a week or so.)
In Europe, the selection wasn't so much for alcoholics to be bred out (Russia has a rather severe problem with alcoholism, from what I understand, as do many countries surrounding the Arctic Circle) but for people who are efficient producers of alcohol dehydrogenase to be selected in the gene pool. This is largely because alcohol has been a large part of European culture for a long time. (I can state that your average resident of Belfast could well drink me under the table. Yes, I learned the hard way to NEVER try to outdrink an Irishman, especially since a) I happen to be part Cherokee and b) my liver hasn't gotten that much exercise and c) I weighed about half as much as said Belfastian. :)
In most other countries (with the major exception of Japan and the Middle East) distilled liquors were rarely used, and most of the native beers (yes, most cultures have some form of beer) are at or slightly lower strength than your average beer here in the States. Hence the genes for alcohol dehydrogenase weren't as strongly selected for.
You see this for stuff besides alcohol, btw; many aboriginal peoples (including Native Americans, Australian Aboriginals, and if memory serves some Papuan and African populations) have considerable troubles handling the large amounts of refined sugars and carbohydrates in the Western diet to the point that they have a far higher incidence of type II diabetes than the average population. (It's especially bad among the Pima peoples in the US Southwest, of which something like 80-90% of the population is diabetic; CNN recently did a report in its health section on the health crisis in the population as a result.) There have also been reported cases (though I don't know how true this is, and I've never been able to find more than one or two sources on it so this MAY well be an urban legend) of sugar addiction among the Inuit peoples (who traditionally have not had ANY sugar in their diet, aside that from game; not even that much fructose).
Also as a fun aside--Europeans didn't invent distillation--it was invented by the Moorish peoples sometime in the 700-800s AD and later brought over...specifically by the same folks who invented algebra. (Yes, you may thank Morocco for fine Scotch and Kentucky bourbon. :) The word "alcohol" is actually derived from an Arabic term, in fact...it might be really interesting to see if alcohol dehydrogenase has been selected even more strongly for in these populations than the population at large...
(Yes, I have a slightly biased viewpoint on things. Firstly, I happen to be part Native American, specifically the folks who brought you "old field apricot drink". Secondly, I lived near a lot of people who came from the folks who brought you mezcal and tequila. :) Thirdly, I have an interest in homebrewing and would actually like to find some passionfruit juice or syrup (or preferably passionfruit itself) to try to make a version of "old field apricot drink" as a metheglin. ;)
For God's sake, Jon. (Score:2)
What's wrong with this picture? I'll tell you, as _another_ person who has seen print all over the world (and yes, I was read in Australia before I was posting to the internet- as an audio writer). The problem is simply this: if you expect to deserve such massive distribution, you had damned well better have something of your own to say. Period. If the best you can do is troll for story ideas on Slashdot, the Stone will spike your proposal in favor of new Spice Girl gossip, and so they should. This is the turn of the millenium, and the people you talk to at RS are quite capable of trawling Slashdot themselves, finding people who write more clearly and passionately than you do, and sending those people to Orlando in your place. I'm sure there are at least eight Slashdotters who could do a better job writing a feature on turn-of-the-century plastic communities, and I daresay I'm one of them. (Can't go, sorry Jann
Jon Katz, if you have to ask us Slashdotters for ideas on your Rolling Stone article proposal, you don't deserve to write one. You don't lack for hot air, why on earth are you turning to Slashdot for more of it? Is it that you intend to pitch the feature idea to Rolling Stone with a heavy emphasis on its being 'open source writing'? If so, you're not merely a fool, you are scum, trying as hard as you can to exploit the Slashdot community for personal gain. God help you if that's the truth: certainly your previous exploits would tend to suggest it. Are you in fact going to these people, these publications, saying 'Hire me, give me some articles- I speak for the geek community, I have write access to Slashdot.org, I am their _mouthpiece_'? Are you in fact pitching these ideas to the editors on the basis that it's not just you, but that they are buying a whole website worth of unpaid geek underground? To what extent does your access and affiliation with slashdot get used in these talks?