Sunday, February 19, 2012

Mixed Reality & 3D Printing


Back in the 1990s, “digital technology” was synonymous with “virtual reality” (VR). VR was “virtual” because it happened on a computer (and was projected on a screen, in a visor, or, perhaps someday directly into your brain, as in The Matrix or ExistenZ), not in “real” life (which is often abbreviated as IRL, in-real-life).

Twenty or so years later, consumer technologies mix the virtual/digital and the IRL experience. Nintendo and Microsoft have popular gaming systems that incorporate the IRL body’s movements into on-screen events. GPS systems and various smartphone apps (like Google Maps) track my movement across the Earth’s surface, and display it on a map on my portable device. Those are just some of the most common examples.  The point is that as technology advances, we’re not abandoning physical, embodied reality (IRL) for “virtual” reality, we’re using the virtual to augment IRL experiences, and increasingly blurring the line between “virtual” and IRL.

One popular technology that blurs the virtual/IRL distinction is 3D printing. #D printing is just what it sounds like it is: the use of a computer and a printer to extrude or fabricate three-dimensional objects. When I print a document, I send, say, a PDF to my 2D printer, which then, via some software, translates the PDF file into printer-friendly code. The printer then runs this code, and prints me up a paper copy of my newest journal article, or that cupcake recipe I’m going to make this weekend. 3D printers work more or less the same way: there’s a file—either something the user develops, or a canned “blueprint” someone else made—that gets sent to the printer, and then printed. Most hobbyists print with plastic; heated extruder heads melt plastic “thread,” and then push out thin strips of molten plastic, building objects layer by layer. 3D printing is just about to break from hobbyist/specialist/geek chic to mainstream consumer technology; some speculate that within the next decade, 3D printers will be as common a computer add-on as a 2D printer.


If you want to go into more detail about 3D printing, I suggest these websites:

For a basic intro, here’s the Wikipedia article.  

Thingverse is good for people with basic technical knowledge, e.g., people who might want to build their own printer.

Hackerspace Charlotte has a weekly workshop for people building 3D printers.

3D printing does raise some interesting philosophical questions, such as:

1.    Before the industrial revolution and factory mass production, consumer goods were handcrafted at home—this is what we call the “cottage industry” model. In the 20th century, consumer goods were largely mass produced in factories. But 3D printing raises the possibility of mass-produced goods made at home. 3D printing potentially calls into question the public/private (home vs factory) logic that, up until now, has organized relations and “logistics” of production. This likely has a whole host of implications for business ethics, for example.
2.     Take all the intellectual property questions raised in the “virtual” era (e.g., with file sharing), and make them more complicated by introducing IRL products into the mix.

I’m interested to hear what other sorts of questions or problems you think 3D printing might raise. Thoughts?

Saturday, February 18, 2012


Using our digital devices to connect . . . and making time to disconnect.

Today's post is a link to a recent article in the Atlantic, by Jason Farman, who is the author of Mobile Interface Theory: Embodied Space and Locative Media, and an assistant professor in American Studies at the University of Maryland. Farman adresses some of Bruce and Fred's concerns from my two previous posts. He explains that the same concerns about disconnectivity resulting form contemporary technolgical devices have been raised througout history in response to all sorts of technological advancements that are largely seen as innocous today. However, he admits that there does seem to be something unique about today's devices which many of us can not seem to be without. This leads him to a suggestion made by William Powers, for everyone to find time to disconnect from these devices.  Here's the link to the article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/the-myth-of-the-disconnected-life/252672/#.TzFKDswOG6s.twitter

Friday, February 17, 2012


Thoreau and Freud walk into a blog . . .

Today's post is from Fred Williams, who will be the other presenter, along with Bruce Arrigo, at the Symposium.  He discusses his own concerns about technology and responds to Bruce's post, invoking Thoreau and Freud, and then brings up some thought provoking questions of his own.

-Mark Sanders


In response to Bruce's admission that he's never blogged before, I'll admit my own limited involvement with social media -- and fairly serious distrust of the privacy and other social implications of them. I've rarely posted comments to blogs, preferring to send an email to the author. As a prosecutor, I had a role in some people having to wear an ankle bracelet as a part of their probation, and refused to wear the one my boss wanted me to wear (i.e. a cell phone). I still don't carry a cell phone, both because of the privacy issues (all your movements can be continuously tracked with it) and because I read and was influenced by Thoreau many many years ago on the human need for solitude and contemplation. Yet I've come to prefer the internet to libraries, and reading a book on my laptop because its easier -- and ethical -- to mark it up and take notes from the electronic version.


Social media, the Facebooks and Twitters of our brave new world, may well be both the replacements for the traditional newspaper and a fundamental facilitator of the Arab Spring and other movements which may improve democracy in some countries. Or not. Only time will tell whether some autocrats are pushed out and others grab power, and the actual, empirically verifiable, role of various technologies in whatever happens.


In response to his question of whether we relate to others "better" through these media, I'd contrast quotes from Thoreau and Freud:




"Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end, We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate." Thoreau, Walden, in Writings, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1906, vol. 2, pp. 57-58.

"One would like to ask: is there, then, no positive gain in pleasure, no unequivocal increase in my feeling of happiness, if I can, as often as I please, hear the voice of a child of mine who is living hundreds of miles away or if I can learn in the shortest possible time after a friend has reached his destination that he has come through the long and difficult voyage unharmed?" Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, NY: Norton, 1961 (Strachey trans. & ed.), p. 35.
The internet makes finding and using such quotes quick and easy. Often you can simply downloading the whole book from google books, OCR them, and then search, copy, and past.


Whatever one thinks about the gains and losses, especially of emotional and cultural values, is there an inevitability to technological, social, cultural, and psychological change from modern communications? Could the Sumarians have stopped the changes which eliminated writing on clay tablets, no matter how deeply this affected their culture and the aesthetics of the traditional physical embodiment of ideas in their society? Think of the loss when beautiful hand written and illuminated books were replaced with ugly printed ones. But few could have access to culturally and economically significant information and ideas before printing.


-Fred Williams

Thursday, February 16, 2012


QUESTIONS ABOUT DIGITAL CONNECTIVITY

The following is from Bruce Arrigo, Professor of Criminal Justice at UNC Charlotte, and one of the presenters at the Symposium to be held on March 28th.  Bruce brings up many questions for all of us to think about. I think I share some of Bruce's concerns. Although I have to say that when it comes to these issues I worry about worrying too much and I worry about not worrying enough. Maybe Aristotle was right- it's all about finding the right balance. Anyway here are some of Bruce's thoughts. If you have something to say in response please do so. If you want to hear more about these issues contact the Ethics Center about attending the Symposium.

-Mark Sanders



I've never blogged before. By the way, I very rarely text message, don't use myspace or facebook, and I don't even know what twitter is, really. Skyping may have some appeal for me; although, I've never done this either. I struggle to understand why digital "connectivity" must be constant, ubiquitous, and always derivative. I struggle to understand how such connectivity grows our humanness. Maybe that's not its purpose. But, what does this connectivity teach us about social relationships and the experience of friendship, love, community, courage, etc., especially if the message is always in the form of a cyber-code that re-presents our identity through the laws of the informational age? It seems to me that forms of social media and networking are changing how we relate to one another. Is it for the better? Hospital patients now have a bar code placed on their wrists that is scanned every time the patient receives a medical service. Radio frequency identification technology ("tagging") is used to track the movement and activity of released offenders. Political lobbyists create "fictionalized" media-manufactured images of candidates that morph reality and identity into pseudo-states of existence. And these non-realities and non-identities are the bases on which campaigns are fought and elections are won.

Are we adapting to the conditions of cyber-technology as evolutionary psychologist might suggest? Who are we becoming in the digital age and what is the quality of our humanness given this  adaptation?     

-Bruce Arrigo  

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

New York Times: "A Newspaper, and a Legacy, Reordered"

Seems lately that The New York Times also finds these topics surrounding the digitization of our lives quite interesting. In the Sunday, February 12th print edition of The New York Times, an article titled "A Newspaper, and a Legacy, Reordered" graced the front page of the "Sunday Business" section. The tagline reads: "For a Digital Future, The Washington Post Shrinks Its Scope."


A quote by Marcus Brauchli, The Washington Post's Executive Editor, leapt at me about midway though the article: “The Washington Post doesn’t need to cover everything, but what it does cover it will cover well." 

Quality versus quantity. This is not a new philosophical conundrum. Socrates once said, "Quantity and quality are therefore more easily produced when a man specializes appropriately on a single job for which he is naturally fitted, and neglects all others." 

Certainly according to the above mentioned article, The Washington Post aims to err on the side of quality, while also attempting to underscore the quantity of their specialized coverage, in a Socratic sense. However The Washington Post seems also to acknowledge that their Socratic version of quality quantity simply can't keep up with the digital world's version of (less quality) quantity. 

If I've not yet lost you in a sea of tongue-twisting q's, then ponder this: What good will quality journalism be if it is run out of town by sub-par quantity? The Washington Post seems to be attempting to ride a tightrope of "quality versus quantity", while still digging one toe into the ground in a valiant attempt to resist bubblegum journalism (fun to chew on, but devoid of substance and tossed into the trash after a few minutes). Are they riding this tightrope well? Or are they practicing a doomed, specialized, soon-to-be-lost art? Are print newspapers a thing of the past? 

Is it too late to turn the tide on bubblegum journalism? Can journalism ever return to a Socratic  balance of quality and quantity in the age of 140 character-maximum Tweets? 

New York Times: "Life Under Digital Dominance"

The Sunday, February 5th print edition of The New York Times contained a three-article special within the "Sunday Review" section, titled "Life Under Digital Dominance". The tagline: "We've given up control and lost the fun. Privacy? A distant memory. The cost and consequences." The three individual articles in the special are:




All three articles are worth a close read, but for this blog entry, I'm choosing to focus on the second in order to raise some existentialist questions. Before some of my readers assume I've suffered a typo, a "cyberflâneur" is someone who rather aimlessly peruses the internet, a play on the French masculine noun "flâneur", meaning "wanderer". Quite possibly, it may describe the way you discovered this blog. 

This particular aforementioned article raised, for me, an interesting existentialist question: How much of our lives are real anymore? Web surfing used to be a playful time killer to fill the time lapses betwixt our real life schedules. Perhaps we'd log on for a few minutes to check Facebook for new pictures from friends. Or browse the news headlines. Or read a review on the latest piece of technology before driving to Target for a purchase. But now... so much of our life schedules actually are virtual. I must admit that probably 75% of my non-grocery purchases are conducted on Amazon, before I've even handled the item I have dropped in my virtual shopping cart. I maintain a handful of "dear friends" with whom I schedule face-to-face visits. My other "friends" are really nothing more than one-dimensional status updates. And reading the news? I'm juggling at least a dozen opinions on the same topic, eating up time I could be utilizing to develop my own opinion. 

Did I "go shopping" today if this entailed sitting in my pajamas at the kitchen table at 1:00 am, dropping photo representations of my purchases into my virtual shopping cart? Did I really "talk to my friend" today if I merely clicked the "thumbs up" button and post a quick "hey, that's cute!" comment on the picture she posted of her cat wearing a baseball cap? Do I really have an opinion on SOPA if all I can do is regurgitate Wikipedia's questionably piecemeal entry? Did I really live today if the only times I peeled myself from my laptop screen were to use the bathroom, grab lunch, and walk the dogs? If my eyes are so glazed over that I have to take a nap when my husband returns home from work (and forgo the only opportunity I had all day for person-to-person human interaction) then did I really ever wake up from my morning stupor before retiring to bed and my virtual dreamworld?

How much of our lives are real anymore?

Monday, February 13, 2012

Welcome to Digital People!


Dear Digital People blog readers:

The Center for Professional and Applied Ethics, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences announces the upcoming First Bi-Annual Symposium on Ethics.  The details for the event are as follows:  

First Annual Ethics Center Symposium
“Digital People:  Technology, Identity, and Social Change” 
Student Activities Center (SAC), Salons A, B, and C
March 28, 2012 from 5:30pm – 9:00pm

If you wish to be formally invited to this event and have not yet been contacted about it in some way or another, please contact the Ethics Center’s program coordinator, Mary Jo Speer, at mjspeer@uncc.edu.

The purpose of this blog is to begin a lively discussion about the social, ethical, and legal implications of being “digital people.”  Who are we as “digital people” and where are we going each time we update our Facebook status, tweet, blog and/or text?  Is the digital revolution more or less significant than the invention of the printing press?  Do we communicate less and less face-to-face because we communicate electronically more and more?  Or will people always yearn for embodied contact?  Who is storing information about us and for what purpose?  Are digital people more or less free on account of electronic communication?  Is privacy an obsolete value? 

Over the next month or so expect this blog to be routinely updated and please let us know about anyone who wishes to join our blog.  Melissa Wilson at avoiceforthevoiceless@gmail.com will facilitate your entrance.

Welcome,

Rosie Tong   
Distinguished Professor of Healthcare Ethics            
Department of Philosophy         
Director, Center for Professional and Applied Ethics