It will happen this way… part II

Last week I discussed the future of “self”, and the proliferation of the “look at me” culture. To recap,

“Already there are signs that the ‘look at me’ culture is pervasive in society. Selfies, Sexting, a proliferation of personal photo and social media apps and, of course, the ubiquitous tattoo (the number of American’s with at least one tattoo is now at 45 million) are just a few of these indications.”

Then I posed the question, “What new ways will we find to stand out from the crowd?” In my future hypotheses, these could include:

Genetic design. With CrisprCas9, the basics such as skin and eye color will be entirely possible, and probably less volatile to ethical controversies than breeding for intelligence or battleground efficiency. The fashion angle, much like cosmetic surgery, will make the whole idea more palatable. Eventually, these color choices could be selected from the Pantone® library.

Tattoo II will likely take on a human augmentation future. Advancements in OLED technology, wafer-thin implants, and eventually nanotechnology could permit insertion or construction of a sub-dermal grid that displays full color, motion tattoos. The implant could grab imagery from a wearable app, hand-held device, or even The Cloud.

Transpeciation. Gradually, the idea of meddling with nature will become more acceptable. Society will begin to warm to the notion of more complicated DNA trickery. I don’t think it is a stretch to see people signing up for transpeciation: that would be tails, claws, fur, and the like.

Already we see parents actively engaged in choosing the sex of their child. In countries like India and China pregnancies are monitored to abort a fetus of the “wrong” sex. Today, gender selection is being performed in the lab. When genetic manipulation becomes more mainstream, new options will arise. For example, parents may want to save their child from rigors of sexual decision-making and choose a genetic intersexual child who would have both sex organs. I’m sure that designers will be able to figure out a non-sex option, too.

It all sounds fantastic or wildly speculative, but these things don’t happen overnight. Changes occur incrementally. Society will become more accustomed to departures from the norm and more accepting of things that were once taboo. History supports this. Technology just makes it weirder.

 

Bookmark and Share

“It will happen this way:”

 

One of my favorite scenes in cinema comes from Sidney Pollack’s Three Days of the Condor, loosely based on James Grady’s novel Six Days of the Condor. The film stars Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway and Max von Sydow. The movie site IMDb gives this tidy synopsis:

“A bookish CIA researcher finds all his co-workers dead, and must outwit those responsible until he figures out who he can really trust.”

The answer is probably: nobody. If you have not seen the movie, you should check it out. The premise of an all-knowing, all-powerful, intelligence agency that plays fast-and-loose with the constitution and human life is all too real even 41 years later. There is a scene near the end of the movie where the hitman Joubert (played by Sydow) tells CIA researcher Joe Turner (Redford) that he may never be safe again. The script for this film is outstanding. The character Joubert knows his profession and the people that hire him so well that he can predict the future with high confidence.

 

In many ways, that is what futurists and those in foresight studies attempt to do. Know the people, the behaviors, and the forces in play, so well, that they can make similar predictions. My variation on this, which I have written about previously, is called logical succession. I have used this technique extensively in crafting the story and events of my graphic novel The Lightstream Chronicles.

In previous blogs, I have explained why my characters have perfect bodies and why they show them off in shrink-wrapped bodysuits that leave little to the imagination. As technology moves forward, it changes us. Selfies have been around since the invention of the camera. Before that, it was called a self-portrait. But the proliferation of the selfie, the nude selfie, and sexting, for example, are by-products of the mobile phone and social media—both are offspring of technology.

With genetic editing already within reach via CrisprCas9, the notion of a body free of disease is no longer a pipe dream. Promising research into manipulating gut hormones could mean the end of obesity. According to livescience.com:

“The endocrine system is the collection of glands that produce hormones that regulate metabolism, growth and development, tissue function, sexual function, reproduction, sleep, and mood, among other things.”

No wonder medical technology is working hard to find ways to hack into the body’s endocrine system. When these technologies become available, signing up for the perfect body will undoubtedly follow. Will these technologies also change behaviors accordingly?

Psychologists point to a combination of peer pressure, the need for approval, as well as narcissism to be behind the increase in selfie-culture but will that only increase when society has nothing to hide? Will this increase the competition to show off every enhanced detail of the human body? In my future fiction, The Lightstream Chronicles, the answer is yes.

Already there are signs that the “look at me” culture is pervasive in society. Selfies, Sexting, a proliferation of personal photo and social media apps and, of course, the ubiquitous tattoo (the number of American’s with at least one tattoo is now at 45 million) are just a few of these indications.

If this scenario plays out, what new ways will we find to stand out from the crowd? I’ll continue this next week.

Bookmark and Share

Writing a story that seemingly goes on forever. LSC update.

 

This week I wrapped up the rendering and text for the last episodes of Season 4 of The Lightstream Chronicles. Going back to the original publication calendar that I started in 2012, Chapter 4 was supposed to be 30 some pages. Over the course of production, the page count grew to more than fifty. I think that fifty episodes (pages) are a bit too many for a chapter since it takes almost a year for readers to get through a “season.” If we look at the weekly episodes in a typical TV drama, there are usually less than twenty which is far fewer than even ten years ago. So in retrospect, fifty episodes could have been spread across 2 seasons. The time that it takes to create a page, even from a pre-designed script is one of the challenges in writing and illustrating a lengthy graphic novel. Since the story began, I have had a lot of time to think about my characters, their behavior and my on futuristic prognostications. While this can be good, giving me extra time to refine, clarify or embellish the story, it can also be something of a curse as I look back and wish I had not committed a phrase or image to posterity. Perhaps they call that writer’s remorse. This conundrum also keeps things exciting as I have introduced probably a dozen new characters, scenes, and extensive backstory to the storytelling. Some people might warn that this is a recipe for disaster, but I think that the upcoming changes make the story better, more suspenseful, and engaging.

Since I have added a considerable number of pages and scenes to the beginning of Season 5, the episode count is climbing. It looks as though I going to have to add a Season 7, and possibly a Season 8 before the story finally wraps up.

Bookmark and Share

Sitting around with my robo-muse and collecting a check.

 

Writing a weekly blog can be a daunting task especially amid teaching, research and, of course, the ongoing graphic novel. I can only imagine the challenge for those who do it daily. Thank goodness for friends who send me articles. This week the piece comes from The New York Times tech writer Farhad Manjoo. The article is entitled, “A Plan in Case Robots Take the Jobs: Give Everyone a Paycheck.” The topic follows nicely on the heels of last week’s blog about the inevitability of robot-companions. Unfortunately, both the author and the people behind this idea appear to be woefully out of touch with reality.

Here is the premise: After robots and AI have become ubiquitous and mundane, what will we do with ourselves? “How will society function after humanity has been made redundant? Technologists and economists have been grappling with this fear for decades, but in the last few years, one idea has gained widespread interest — including from some of the very technologists who are now building the bot-ruled future,” asks Manjoo.

The answer, strangely enough, seems to be coming from venture capitalists and millionaires like Albert Wenger, who is writing a book on the idea of U.B. I. — universal basic income — and Sam Altman, president of the tech incubator Y Combinator. Apparently, they think that $1,000 a month would be about right, “…about enough to cover housing, food, health care and other basic needs for many Americans.”

This equation, $12,000 per year, possibly works for the desperately poor in rural Mississippi. Perhaps it is intended for some 28-year-old citizen with no family or social life. Of course, there would be no money for that iPhone, or cable service. Such a mythical person has a $300 rent controlled apartment (utilities included), benefits covered by the government, doesn’t own a car, or buy gas or insurance, and then maybe doesn’t eat either. Though these millionaires clearly have no clue about what it costs the average American to eek out a living, they have identified some other fundamental questions:

“When you give everyone free money, what do people do with their time? Do they goof off, or do they try to pursue more meaningful pursuits? Do they become more entrepreneurial? How would U.B.I. affect economic inequality? How would it alter people’s psychology and mood? Do we, as a species, need to be employed to feel fulfilled, or is that merely a legacy of postindustrial capitalism?”

The Times article continues with, “Proponents say these questions will be answered by research, which in turn will prompt political change. For now, they argue the proposal is affordable if we alter tax and welfare policies to pay for it, and if we account for the ways technological progress in health care and energy will reduce the amount necessary to provide a basic cost of living.”

Often, the people that float ideas like this paint them as utopia, but I have a couple of additional questions. Why are venture capitalists interested in this notion? Will they also reduce their income to $1,000 per month? Seriously, that never happens. Instead, we see progressives in government and finance using an equation like this: “One thousand for you. One hundred thousand for me. One thousand for you. One hundred thousand for me…”

Fortunately, it is an unlikely scenario, because it would not move us toward equality but toward a permanent under-class forever dependent on those who have. Scary.

Bookmark and Share