One of the issues hinted at here and very critical at present is the issue of authorship. Where does any given idea come from? Who is responsible for it and how should they be recompensed? How can we even begin to work that out?
There's a lovely little book by an artist called Daniel Spoerri, called 'The Topology of Chance'. It was published in the sixties*. In it he looks at the plate of food on the table in front of him and traces every particle - including plate and cutlery - further and further back. Where was the plate made? Where did the clay come from? How is clay made? etc. What's so nice about it is that you realise that everything, even the most mundane thing, has roots going back and back to the dawn of time; and that almost every natural process somehow impacted on its development. The more I think about the genesis of 'creative work' the more I recall that book. Tracing where any piece of art or science comes from is astonishingly complex and ultimately futile - because even if you could name all the threads in that tapestry you can't retrospectively assess the relative value of them. It's chaos theory worked backwards. All of us who make our living from some notion of 'ownership' of ideas - like copyrights, for example - are starting to recognise this dilemma. Indeed, one of the big challenges of Entanglement is how we pay for things and get paid for them. It isn't a trival question: I imagine that our solutions to that problem will entail some new kinds of thinking that may lead us to a whole body of new philosophical ideas - economics leading philosophy. Wouldn't be the first time (whispers Karl Marx).
This is my concern. We are children playing with power tools -- blithely unaware of the havoc we might wreak.
Reminds me of P Teilhard de Chardin's ideas about evolution. Forward the Mind! (organic or other)
"We can no longer see ourselves as separate from the natural world or our technology, but as a part of them, integrated, codependent, and entangled."
Codependency, in a psychological framework, generally suggests an unhealthy behaviour exhibited by an individual, who gives of oneself to another, at the very expense of oneseself, to satiate an unhealthy fear of abandonment, or as another expression of emotional need, with origins in learned coping mechanisms and survival methods developed in dysfunctional childhood environments, to respond to unmet, fundamental, emotional needs
I can only wonder then, if the author chose this word 'codependent' advertanly, or inadvrtantly, to describe the human relationship to this new world of entangled nature and technology?
Where the lines of discipline, relationship, and even existential purpose are blurred, for what exactly is it that nature and technology depend upon each other to achieve?
It is argued by many of those who work in the field of psychology that the illness associated with codependncy can be overcome through self-healing, whether mediated or self-directed, using various tools for overcoming reactionary, subconscious, psychological responses.
A critical question for humans, in the early childhood of this new age, is how do we navigate, negotiate, and direct these entangled relationships of nature, technology, and the human experience, in ways that are functional for us, healthy for us, and which meet our fundamental needs?
Particularly fascinating in light of the argument about the Apple v. FBI case that iPhones are more analagous to our minds than safes.
With the exception of the powdered wigs, the authors of the Constitution are little different (just fewer) than the authors of wikipedia: almost entirely white guys, mostly in their 20s.
(As much as I enjoyed Danny's article, and have been following his writing since Day One of The Media Lab, I am disappointed he plays PC politics here. I'm looking forward to the "Age of Entanglement" for at least that reason: less PC, more collaborative reality.)
We continue to grasp at a reasonable means by which wealth can be distributed in an equitable fashion, not only so that each has the means of survival and opportunity that a wealthy and democratic society wishes to purvey, but the very meaning of wealth reflects its many forms. The concept presented here re-frames the economic argument for a sharing economy as a philosophical one, and does so rather well.
What is needed is a science of collaboration that combines diverse sets of machines (eg ensemble theory, random forests), with diverse sets of humans. In contrast with the rhetoric of Singularity, one might call this Multiplicity.
That's SNARC. "C" was for "Calculator".
All enlightened people just go into 3D and are in greed of having material golds and etheric power. And what church provides.
Science predates the Age of Enlightenment....
Mr. Hills, your article is wonderfull!! The most natural in our world today is technology. This is our nature,
"You have constructed your own little machine, ready when needed to be plugged into other collective machines." - D&G (from 1000 Plateus)
I'm getting a type of post-humanist vibe from this. Maybe we could suprass "the human" (so to speak) instead of us being "left behind".
Reading this makes me think of a Global Constitution, i.e. a collaboratively constructed set of rules.
An interesting piece but is there any evidence that humans have ever NOT been intimately intertwined with their creations? If not the rest of the article falls rather flat on its face. One only has to look at the artefacts in the recent celtic exhibition at the British Museum to recognise the degree of physical and emotional investment in objects produced several thousand years ago.
Do you mind giving an example?
Working in design and fabrication, often the question which comes up is "Why create this particular thing? What story will it tell after we have informed it?" Will this thing we design continue to adapt and change beyond our designer/creator intent because the form of the design interacts/adopts/adjusts to its purpose? How quickly is that change applied, or is the form static and is it interpretation over time which will compose the form's aesthetic? Of all the writing here, I am most intrigued by this last statement which is the process and the aesthetic- and how we as designers and fabricators may begin a process to see it evolve and find relative place in the tangle.
This whole article reminds me a lot of "The 3D Additivist Manifesto"
Too bad its roots are in bad punctuation. Understanding homophones matters.
Yet, luckily, the end result may be understood by a designer to a large extent (e.g. organs in a body). Maybe the best fusion will be achieved when we learn to contribute our designer's understanding to an evolving system in real time. Rather than passively watching it.