TED notes: Kevin Kelly on the internet and Tom Chatfield on video games

Kevin Kelly, the next 5000 days of the web

  • the internet is only 5000 days old, what will the next 5000 days look like?
  • “it’s amazing, and we’re not amazed”
  • we’re basically creating one giant machine, and it’s the strongest/most reliable machine we’ve ever built
  • all our machines are portals into the one machine (every smartphone, every laptop, every IoT)
  • 3 changes: embodiment, re-structuring, co-dependence
    • copies have no value
    • attention is currency
  • humans are the machine’s extended senses
  • we’re linking data; first the connections were machine to machine, then page to page, now data to data
  • we shouldn’t need to port our friends to each social network, the web should just know
  • “to share will be to gain”
  • no bits will live outside the web — early version of software eating the world

* * * * *

Tom Chatfield: 7 ways video games engage the brain

  • it’s amazing that people spend $8B on virtual goods
  • Farmville has 70M players (talk is from 2010)
  • games provide rewards, both individual and collective
  • all about ambition + delight
  • in video games you can measure everything — big data
  • there’s always a “reward schedule”
  • 7 ways to use game lessons in real world
    1. have experience bars to measure progress
    2. set multiple long and short-term aims
    3. they reward effort — get credit for every bit of work/effort
    4. provide rapid, frequent, clear feedback
    5. have element of uncertainty — variable rewards, dopamine
    6. offer windows of enhanced attention
    7. add other people! social, cooperation

Here’s a running list of TED talks and notes (it’s a long page so it could take a few seconds to load).

Bertrand Russell on why science — and today, technology — is the happiest profession

Of the highly-educated professions, the happiest today are the men of science. Many of them get such pleasure from their work that they can be happy even in marriage. Artists and writers consider it normal to be unhappily married, but scientists can often achieve so-called domestic bliss. This is because their highest intellects are so absorbed by their work, that they’re not allowed to invade other parts of their life where they would be harmful. They’re happy with their work because science today is progressive and powerful, and its importance is never questioned by themselves or the broader population.

This was written before World War II, yet swap “men of science” with “men of technology” and it’d ring true today. I think a career in science has lost value in many areas and for many reasons. A reduction in career prestige. Less everyday appreciation among the public, and more irrational outrage (eg, GMOs). The increasingly specialized nature of PhD programs. The stagnant academic job market. Challenges in higher ed posed by technology and software. And so on.

But technology today is progressive and powerful. Its importance is not questioned, really, by technologists or the broader population. Their jobs consume their mental energy. Hard to think of another highly-educated profession which is “happier”.

On the science vs technology divide, Kevin Kelly has a great piece.

*I have no opinion on domestic bliss…remember, in Russell’s time, female labor participation was below 25%. Mad Men was progressive by comparison

**I’m rewriting Russell’s The Conquest of Happiness, here’s a snippet

1-Page Summary: Technology Matters by David Nye

Technology Matters by David NyeI was surprised by how much I enjoyed reading Kevin Kelly’s What Technology Wants, which is a study of technology’s evolving role in society. In that book, which I wrote about here, Kelly frequently cites Technology Matters by David Nye [Amazon].

Nye’s book is more academic than Kelly’s; the facts and analysis are denser, the perspective is more balanced, and other scholars and seminal literature figure prominently.

What I enjoy most about these 2 books is they investigate something I take for granted. Technology mediates every aspect of my life — from what is obviously “tech”, like the Macbook I’m using to draft this post, to what is no longer considered “tech”, like my ability to draw clean, cold water from any tap in my SF apartment.

We are obsessed with technology when its new, and in a matter of months or years, it becomes ordinary and commonplace, something to be complained about when it stops working, like wi-fi, or Google Maps, or hot showers :)

So, please read these books. If you only choose one, I’d go with Kelly’s book because it is more enjoyable, but I think you build a better fact-base from Nye’s.

Here’s my 1-page summary of Technology Matters, supported by selected quotes and excerpts. As with all my 1-pagers, I write them for personal interest first and public readership second, so I tend to miss or ignore things that don’t interest me.

While we generally believe science (e.g., materials science) leads to technology (e.g., velcro), the reality is often reversed

For most of human history technology came first; theory came along later and tried to make sense of practical results.

Science has played a similar role in the refinement of many technologies, including the windmill, the water wheel, the locomotive, the automobile, and the airplane. The Wright Brothers were well-read and gifted bicycle mechanics, and they tested their designs in a wind tunnel of their own invention, but they were not scientists.

It’s a symbiotic relationship: just as we change technology, it changes us (our bodies, behaviors)

McLuhan argued that the phonetic alphabet intensified the visual function and that literate cultures devalued the other senses-a process that moveable type intensified. Furthermore, McLuhan thought electronic media extended the central nervous system and linked humanity together in a global network.

In everyday life, technologies mediate almost all experience from the moment one awakens until going to sleep at night. Much of what one sees is subtly shaped by the spectra of light thrown by different types of bulbs and fluorescent tubes. The air itself is heated, cooled, or dehumidified according to the needs of the location and the season.

Technology rarely evolves as intended; its applications and impact are unpredictable

When humans possess a tool, they excel at finding new uses for it. The tool often exists before the problem to be solved. Latent in every tool are unforeseen transformations.

In the 1960s a great many sociologists projected that automation would reduce the average American’s work week to less than 25 hours by the century’s end.

In short, the telegraph, the telephone, the phonograph, and the personal computer, surely four of the most important inventions in the history of communications, were initially understood as curiosities.

Consumers — both individuals and in the aggregate — shape how a technology is incorporated and evolved

…consumers, not scientists, often discover what is “the next big thing.” Most new technologies are market-driven. Viagra was not developed as a sexual stimulant, but the college students who served as guinea pigs discovered what consumers would like about it.

American social values emphasize individualized technologies. Every house has its own heating system, even though this is a wasteful and inefficient choice. If the market to some extent shapes technologies, the market in turn is inflected by cultural values.

Wal-Mart not only expresses the general Western preference for efficiency in production over other values; it also expresses an American preference to pass on savings in efficiency to consumers and stockholders but not to workers.

It required a generation for the public to find that it wanted the phonograph not primarily to dictate letters or preserve voices for posterity but to play music.

However, citizens do not play a strong role in defining technology policy and regulation

Rick Sclove has argued…that when new technologies are being adopted ordinary citizens typically play too small a role, often only after the most important decisions have been made.

The Dutch and the Danes have developed forums of representative ordinary citizens who interview “experts” and then formulate advice on technological policy.

Leaving “the market” in control permits corporations with little hindrance or discussion to disseminate thousands of products that foster lasting changes in everyday life.

“Science and technology policies have a social impact comparable to that of taxation policy in the colonial period. In 1776, political freedom entailed the right to a voice in taxation decisions because these decisions were primary forces in shaping the fabric of personal and social life.

Many of our most critical technologies achieved “product-market fit” because they were fun

The public used both the phonograph and the radio less for work than for fun. Likewise, many children use personal computers less to write papers and pursue education than to play computer games and visit strange websites.

In the 1990s commercialization undermined hopes that the Internet would primarily function as a free space of public discussion. Instead, advertisements, solicitations, pornography, and fraud are rife.

Though some apparently reasonable technologies fail to sell, people may nonetheless flock to “unreasonable” devices, such as Japanese electronic pets.

Consumers want choice and personalization

During the first years of the assembly line, Henry Ford refused to manufacture a wide variety of cars. Instead, the Model T was available in only a few variant forms and a limited range of colors. Ford was reputed to have said that customers could get any color they wanted, so long as it was black. […] To Ford’s dismay, the public embraced annual changes, and gradually GM won so much of the market that in 1927 Ford reluctantly abandoned the Model T (after producing more than 15 million) and began to make annual models with greater variety.

Today Levittown is not a monotonous row of “little boxes.” Homeowners have added garages, pillars, dormers, fences, and extensions. They have painted their homes many different colors, and planted quite different shrubs around them, landscaping each plot into individuality. In 2006, a visitor to Levittown has to study the houses carefully to see their common elements. Three generations of homeowners have used a wide range of technologies to obliterate uniformity.

Rather than adjust to a single pattern, each cultural region creates hybrid forms, which Robertson calls “glocalization.” Even McDonald’s finds that it must give in to this process. In Spain it sells red wine to go with its hamburgers, and in India (where cows are sacred) it does not serve beef. More generally, an endless process of creolization is taking place, producing such novel combinations as Cuban-Chinese cuisine, Norwegian country music, and “Trini” home pages.

(after reading this, I immediately went and found a Norwegian country music playlist on Spotify :) here’s the link

Once a technology gains momentum, it becomes hard to modify or replace

Variation in design continues during early stages of development, until one design meets with wide approval. Once a particular design is widely accepted, however, variation in form gives way to innovation in production.

A society may choose to adopt either direct current or alternating current, or to use 110 volts, or 220 volts, or some other voltage, but a generation after these choices have been made it is costly and difficult to undo such a decision.

Similarly, the automobile achieved technological momentum not as an isolated machine, but as part of a system that included road building, driver education programs, gas stations, repair shops, manufacturers of spare parts, and new forms of land use that spread out the population into suburbs that, practically speaking, were accessible only to cars and trucks.

Eventually technology becomes commonplace and ordinary; we forget it is technology or are removed from its workings

As we become accustomed to new things, they are woven into the fabric of daily life. Gradually, every new technology seems to become “natural,” and therefore somehow “inevitable” because it is hard to imagine a world without it. Through most of history flush toilets did not exist, but after 100 years of widespread use they seem normal and natural; the once-familiar outhouse now seems disgusting and unacceptable.

The railroad seemed magnificent in 1840, but appeared to be a grasping monopoly by 1890. Airplanes miraculously conquered gravity in 1910, and pilots were demigods. But these emotions cooled as flight became routine, and passengers focused on the tedium of checking in, on leg room, on airline food, and on lost luggage.

Computers offer a suggestive example of how the surface emerges. The first generation of personal computer owners sometimes built their machines and usually understood how they worked. With each succeeding generation, however, computer owners are less likely to understand the insides of their machines, which have become as opaque as the automobile, the automatic furnace, the birth-control pill, the pacemaker…

Societies can shape a technology’s adoption and evolution, but it is increasingly difficult in our flat world

From ancient times, some have regulated or even resisted technologies. A Byzantine city in the 530s had zoning laws that separated kilns, blacksmiths, and polluting activities from shops and houses.

Japan’s long, successful rejection of guns is revealing. A society or a group that is able to act without outside interference can abolish a powerful technology. In the United States, the Mennonites and the Amish do not permit any device to be used before they have carefully evaluated its potential impact on the community.

Technology has 2nd, 3rd and n-th order effects, both unforeseen problems and benefits, which create the need/opportunity for more technology

Computers are expected to improve office efficiency, but in practice people spend enormous amounts of time adjusting to updated software and they suffer eyestrain, back problems, tendonitis, and cumulative trauma disorder.

For example, as the electrical grid spread across the United States, small manufacturers rushed in with a stunning array of new products-electrified cigar lighters, model trains, Christmas tree lights, musical toilet-paper dispensers, and shaving cream warmers, as well as toasters, irons, refrigerators, and washing machines. As electric devices proliferated, the large manufacturers Westinghouse and General Electric, like the computer hardware makers of today, soon found it impossible to compete in every area.

Where once the telephone bill reflected a simple transaction between a customer and the phone company, now the technology of the telephone is the basis for a wide range of commercial relations that includes toll-free calls to businesses, e-mail, faxes, and SMS messages. Telephones enable people not only to speak to one another, but also to send photographs, texts, news, and videos. As with the electrical system, the telephone provided the infrastructure, or even the main platform, for many unanticipated businesses.

Wolfgang Schivelbusch presciently observed that “the more efficient the technology, the more catastrophic its destruction when it collapses. There is an exact ratio between the level of the technology with which nature is controlled, and the degree of severity of its accidents.”

Privacy was not possible for many before the second half of the nineteenth century. Before then, most houses were small, with shared public rooms and shared sleeping rooms. The idea that children could and should have individual bedrooms is at most a few hundred years old.

While technology is generally adopted and admired, there is an undercurrent of resistance and discomfort

And in Frankenstein (1818), a novel still resonant today, Mary Shelley evoked the possibility that scientists might create monsters that would escape their control.

In conceiving the first modern utopia, Thomas More rejected high consumption. His Utopia increased leisure by drastically reducing human wants and adopting a modest style of life.

Henry David Thoreau argued that, rather than constantly expand one’s desires, it was better to simplify material life to make time for reading, reflection, and close study of nature.

By Thoreauvian logic, a good many conveniences not only prove unnecessary; they create debt and force us to work long hours so that we can pay for them.

Technology can create social costs that take generations to resolve, but they are usually offset by social benefits and opportunities, too

Industrialization did not create a permanent underclass; rather, it shifted factory laborers to white-collar work. But this shift took place over many decades, and for generations of workers the factory system meant alienation.

As factories became more productive, manufacturers could choose how to spend the surplus. They could raise wages for workers, lower prices for consumers, take greater profits for themselves, make further improvements in the machinery, or allocate resources to all of these options. They often focused on low prices, not only to win market share but also to drive remaining artisans out of work, completing the process of industrialization.

In the era of “silent” films, professional musicians had regular employment in the movie theaters. No more. Most telephone operators have disappeared, replaced by automatic switchboards. Many bank tellers have disappeared, replaced by automated teller machines.

Today, all three of the traditional sectors of the economy-agriculture, manufacturing, and service-are experiencing technological displacement, forcing millions onto the unemployment rolls. The prospects indeed seemed dim, yet when Rifkin’s book appeared in the 1990s, the American economy was creating an average of a million new jobs per year. The rapid computerization of the economy was not producing the dire effects Rifkin predicted.

Technologies do not in and of themselves cause gender inequality. Rather, they can be socially constructed to restrict or improve women’s access to some jobs.

In practice, it is “impossible to dispense with a core of skilled workers. Whether they are engaged in repairing the existing equipment or in installing the next generation of technology, they must be capable of understanding each task as part of a larger complex of tasks…”

During the 1980s, Shoshana Zuboff studied fully computerized workplaces in operation and saw that, despite management’s explicit intention to use computers to de-skill workers and to increase its control of operatives, something quite different was taking place in some companies.”, Computers demystified management, and skilled workers could use them to undermine hierarchy, secrecy, and centralization. A fully computerized plant became more transparent.

And something which Silicon Valley can relate to:

And there is a third group, made up of what Richard Reich calls “symbolic analysts”-people “who solve, identify, and broker new problems.” In the borderless world economy, they are in great demand. Their work is not routine but varied and interesting, which explains why many of them are “workaholics.” They put in longer hours not due to economic necessity and not (only) because of an insatiable desire for more consumer goods. These are usually well-educated professionals who love their jobs, and even when away from the office never really leave it behind.

That’s all folks! Here’s a list of all 1-page cheatsheets, and a list of all books.

1-Page Summary (of sorts): Kevin Kelly’s What Technology Wants

Kevin KellyOf the 39 books I’ve read in the last 12 months, this one ranks in the top 3, alongside The Power of Habit and So Good They Can’t Ignore You. These books have added depth and clarity to topics which I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about (Power of Habit == a meaningful life; So Good == career success; What Technology Wants == technology’s influence on our lives).

Kevin Kelly is awesome. His Cool Tools book is great, his blog is great (some of my favorite posts: 1 2 3), he’s a deep and open-minded thinker. In What Technology Wants, Kevin examines technology’s role in history (going far before, and beyond, computers and the internets), and explains its dual role as humanity’s best friend and worst enemy.

There’s no way one page would suffice, as the book has many tangents and the arguments are nuanced and I wouldn’t properly capture his conclusions. So instead I’m sharing a selection of excerpts that convey the book’s spirit, and include my brief analyses. Hope you find it useful, and I highly encourage you to read the book!

Technology builds on itself, in usually unpredictable ways:

When Sapiens gained control of fire, this powerful technology further modified the natural terrain on a massive scale. Such a tiny trick—burning grasslands, controlling it with backfires, and summoning flames to cook grains—disrupted vast regions of the continents.

Double-entry accounting unleashed the banking industry in Venice and launched a global economy. The invention of moveable-type printing in Europe encouraged Christians to read their religion’s founding text themselves and make their own interpretations, and that launched the very idea of “protest” within and against religion.

Science-fiction guru Isaac Asimov made the astute observation that in the age of horses many ordinary people eagerly and easily imagined a horseless carriage. The automobile was an obvious anticipation since it was an extension of the first-order dynamics of a cart—a vehicle that goes forward by itself. An automobile would do everything a horse-pulled carriage did but without the horse. But Asimov went on to remark how difficult it was to imagine the second-order consequences of a horseless carriage, such as drive-in movie theaters, paralyzing traffic jams, and road rage.

We are literally and figuratively transformed through technology

The extended human is the technium. Marshall McLuhan, among others, noted that clothes are people’s extended skin, wheels extended feet, camera and telescopes extended eyes.

Technology doesn’t disappear

I was challenged on this conclusion by a highly regarded historian of technology who told me without thinking, “Look, they don’t make steam-powered automobiles anymore.” Well, within a few clicks on Google I very quickly located folks who are making brand-new parts for Stanley steam-powered cars. Nice shiny copper valves, pistons, whatever you need. With enough money you could put together an entirely new steam-powered car. And of course, thousand of hobbyists are still bolting together steam-powered vehicles, and hundreds more are keeping old ones running.

Today, in the United States alone, there are 5,000 amateurs who knap fresh arrowhead points by hand. They meet on weekends, exchange tips in flint-knapping clubs, and sell their points to souvenir brokers. John Whittaker, a professional archaeologist and flint knapper himself, has studied these amateurs and estimates that they produce over one million brand-new spear and arrow points per year. These new points are indistinguishable, even to experts like Whittaker, from authentic ancient ones.

Human evolution with technology has been, for the most part, a trend of improvement

In ancient times when a bearded prophet forecast what was to come, the news was generally bad. The idea that the future brought improvement was never very popular until recently.

As Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi once said, “There is more good than evil in the world—but not by much.” Unexpectedly, “not much” is all that’s needed when you have the leverage of compound interest at work

Over time our laws, mores, and ethics have slowly expanded the sphere of human empathy. Generally, humans originally identified themselves primarily via their families. We are currently in an unfinished expansion beyond nation and maybe even race and may soon be crossing the species boundary. Other primates are, more and more, deemed worthy of humanlike rights. If the golden rule of morality and ethics is to “do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” then we are constantly expanding our notion of “others.” This is evidence for moral progress.

Kevin Kelly - blue

(what a cool portrait, c/o rukuku)
But technology is a double-edged sword (surprise!)

All the promises, paradoxes, and trade-offs carried by Progress, with a capital P, are represented in a city. In fact, we can inspect the notion and veracity of technological progress at large by examining the nature of cities. Cities may be engines of innovation, but not everyone thinks they are beautiful, particularly the megalopolises of today, with their sprawling, rapacious appetites for energy, materials, and attention. They seem like machines eating the wilderness, and many people wonder if they are eating us as well.

The immense satisfactions of seasonal toil, abundant leisure, strong family ties, reassuring conformity, and rewarding physical labor will always pull our hearts. If everything were equal, who would want to leave a Greek island, or a Himalayan village, or the lush gardens of southern China?

Each year 1.2 million people die in automobile accidents. The dominant technological transportation system kills more people than cancer.

In his sprawling, infamous 35,000-word manifesto, the Unabomber wrote: “The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.” […] I have read almost every book on the philosophy and theory of technology and interviewed many of the wisest people pondering the nature of this force. So I was utterly dismayed to discover that one of the most astute analyses of the technium was written by a mentally ill mass murderer and terrorist.

Technology has its own needs and in some ways we are but shepherds

Biologist Richard Dawkins estimates that “the eye has evolved independently between 40 and 60 times around the animal kingdom,” leading him to claim, “it seems that life, at least as we know it on this planet, is almost indecently eager to evolve eyes.”

Navigation by echolocation has been found four times: in bats, dolphins, and two species of cave-dwelling birds

Weirdly, both Wallace and Darwin found the theory of natural selection after reading the same book on population growth by Thomas Malthus.

Alexander Bell and Elisha Gray both applied to patent the telephone on the same day

After Rowling launched Harry Potter in 1997 to great success, she successfully rebuffed a lawsuit by an American author who published a series of children’s books 13 years earlier about Larry Potter, an orphaned boy wizard wearing glasses and surrounded by Muggles. In 1990 Neil Gaiman wrote a comic book about a dark-haired English boy who finds out on his 12th birthday that he is a wizard and is given an owl by a magical visitor.

Large-scale prohibitions against technologies are rare. They are hard to enforce. The gun was outlawed in Shogun Japan for three centuries, exploration ships in Ming China for three centuries, and silk spinning in Italy for two centuries.

We are more dependent on it than vice-versa (?)

I asked him, “Do you think technology is making the world better or worse?” Lucas’s answer: If you watch the curve of science and everything we know, it shoots up like a rocket. We’re on this rocket and we’re going perfectly vertical into the stars. But the emotional intelligence of humankind is equally if not more important than our intellectual intelligence.

About 10,000 years ago, humans passed a tipping point where our ability to modify the biosphere exceeded the planet’s ability to modify us. That threshold was the beginning of the technium. We are at a second tipping point where the technium’s ability to alter us exceeds our ability to alter the technium.

What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines decisions. […] Autopilots fly our very complex flying machines. Algorithms control our very complex communications and electrical grids. And for better or worse, computers control our very complex economy.

But we adopt it willingly, because it increases choice and freedom

The young are not under some kind of technological spell that warps their minds into believing civilization is better. Sitting in the mountains, they are under no spell but poverty’s. They clearly know what they give up when they leave. They understand the comfort and support of family, the priceless value of community acquired in a small village, the blessings of clean air, and the soothing wholeness of the natural world. They feel the loss of immediate access to these, but they leave their shacks anyway because in the end, the tally favors the freedoms created by civilization. They can (and will) return to the hills to be rejuvenated.

There is much to learn from the Amish and how they handle technology

…their minimal lifestyle is prospering (Amish population grows at 4 percent annually) while middle-class white-collar and factory workers are increasingly unemployed and withering. […] Yet Amish lives are anything but antitechnological. In fact, on my several visits with them, I have found them to be ingenious hackers and tinkerers, the ultimate makers and do-it-yourselfers.

They don’t adopt everything new, but when they do embrace it, it’s half a century after everyone else does. By that time, the benefits and costs are clear, the technology stable, and it is cheap. […] They are slow geeks.

The Amish practice a remarkable tradition called rumspringa, wherein their teenagers are allowed to ditch their homemade uniforms—suspenders and hats for boys, long dresses and bonnets for girls—and don baggy pants and short skirts, buy a car, listen to music, and party for a few years before they decide to forever give up these modern amenities and join the Old Order church.

This sums it up:

To maximize our own contentment, we seek the minimum amount of technology in our lives. Yet to maximize the contentment of others, we must maximize the amount of technology in the world.

Thanks for reading. Here’s a list of all 1-page cheatsheets, and a list of all books!

Kevin Kelly on the rise of nerds and the Third Culture

Kevin KellyI’m a recent admirer of Kevin Kelly’s writing. This article, where he explains the emergence of a third, “nerd culture” (in addition to the science and art cultures), is thoughtful and inspiring. Below are some excerpts and my reactions.

Science as the outsider culture:

When we say “culture,” we think of books, music, or painting. Since 1937 the United States has anointed a national poet laureate but never a scientist laureate.

Ironically, science continually creates tools that enable new art forms: radio, TV, computers, smartphones.

But it’s no longer just science vs art. A third culture has emerged, driven largely by computers.

It’s a pop culture based in technology, for technology. Call it nerd culture.

Nerds now grace the cover of Time and Newsweek. They are heroes in movies and Man of the Year. Indeed, more people wanna be Bill Gates than wanna be Bill Clinton.

(I think there is growing backlash against this “nerd culture”…if anything, it’s a sign that nerd culture is crossing that chasm and people are feeling transition pain)

Cultures create new jargon. Let’s “google” something. The language of text messaging.

Science is the pursuit of truth. Art is the exploration of humanity. Nerds are about novelty and creation.

Scientists would measure and test a mind; artists would contemplate and abstract it. Nerds would manufacture one.

This nerd culture builds tools, ignores credentials and admires crazy.

C. P. Snow had imagined a third culture where scientists interacted directly with artists. Nerd culture is both a step towards that vision, and something entirely different.

A really good dynamic computer model—of the global atmosphere, for example—is like a theory that throws off data, or data with a built-in theory. It’s easy to see why such technological worlds are regarded with such wariness by science—they seem corrupted coming and going.

But it will only grow, because computers and internet.

As large numbers of the world’s population move into the global middle class, they share the ingredients needed for the third culture: science in schools; access to cheap, hi-tech goods; media saturation; and most important, familiarity with other nerds and nerd culture.

“The effect of concept-driven revolution is to explain old things in new ways. The effect of tool-driven revolution is to discover new things that have to be explained” – Freeman Dyson

I disagree with Kelly on the following:

Indeed, raw opportunity may be the only thing of lasting value that technology provides us. It’s not going to solve our social ills, or bring meaning to our lives.

It seems clear to me that the manifestations of technology (the internet, mobile phones, cheap PCs, home appliances) have made Joe- and Jane-citizen richer, smarter and more comfortable. Computer simulations of cancer-fighting drugs…accurate pricing data for third world farmers and fishermen…vast libraries of digital books for schoolchildren around the world…these are all examples of how technology addresses social ills.

(it may just be semantics; for example, Kelly might mean that even the world’s fastest computer is worthless without a competent user, and the computer itself is the product of human minds and hands)

Kelly ends with this beautiful thought:

The culture of science, so long in the shadow of the culture of art, now has another orientation to contend with, one grown from its own rib.