Tag Archives: surveillance state

Invalid?

In a scene from the 2007 movie Gattaca, co-star Uma Thurman steals a follicle of hair from of love-interest Ethan Hawke and takes it to the local DNA sequencing booth (presumably they’re everywhere, like McDonald’s) to find out if Hawke’s DNA is worthy of her affections. She passes the follicle in a paper thin wrapper through a pass-through window as if she were buying a ticket for a movie. The attendant asks, “You want a full sequence?” Thurman confirms, and then waits anxiously. Meanwhile, others step up to windows to submit their samples. A woman who just kissed her boyfriend has her lips swabbed and assures the attendant that the sample is only a couple of minutes old. In about a minute, Thurman receives a plastic tube with the results rolled up inside. Behind the glass, a voice says, “Nine point three. Quite a catch!”

 

In the futuristic society depicted in the movie, humans are either “valid” or “invalid.” Though discrimination based on your genetic profile is illegal and referred to as “genoism,” it is widely known to be a distinguishing factor in employment, promotion, and finding the right soul-mate.

Enter the story of Illumina, which I discovered by way of a FastCompany article earlier this week. Illumina is a hardware/software company. One might imagine them as the folks who make the fictitious machines behind the DNA booths in a science fiction future. Except they are already making them now. The company, which few of us have ever heard of, has 5,000 employees and more than $2 billion in annual revenues. Illumina’s products are selling like hotcakes, in both the clinical and consumer spheres.

“Startups have already entered the clinical market with applications for everything from “liquid biopsy” tests to monitor late-stage cancers (an estimated $1 billion market by 2020, according to the business consulting firm Research and Markets), to non-invasive pregnancy screenings for genetic disorders like Down Syndrome ($2.4 billion by the end of 2022).”

According to FastCo,

“Illumina has captured more than 70% of the sequencing market with these machines that it sells to academics, pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies, and more.”

You and I can do this right now. Companies like Ancestry.com and 23andMe will work up a profile of your DNA from a little bit of saliva and sent through the mail. In a few weeks after submitting your sample, these companies will send you a plethora of reports on your carrier status (for passing on inherited conditions), ancestry reports that track your origins, wellness reports, such as your propensity to be fat or thin, and your traits like blue eyes or a unibrow. All of this costs about $200. Considering that sequencing DNA on this scale was a pipe dream ten years ago, it’s kind of a big deal. They don’t sequence everything; that requires one of Illumina’s more sophisticated machines and costs about $3,000.

If you put this technology in the context of my last post about exponential technological growth. Then it is easy to see that the price of machines, the speed of analysis, and the cost of a report is only going to come down, and faster than we think. At this point, everything will be arriving faster than we think. Here, if only to get your attention, I ring the bell. Illumina is investing in companies that bring this technology to your smartphone. With one company, Helix, “A customer might check how quickly they metabolize caffeine via an app developed by a nutrition company. Helix will sequence the customers’ genomic data and store it centrally, but the nutrition company delivers the report back to the user.” The team from Helix, “[…]that the number of people who have been sequenced will drastically increase […]that it will be 90% of people within 20 years.” (So, probably ten years is a better guess.)

According to the article, the frontier for genomics is expanding.

“What comes next is writing DNA, and not just reading it. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR-Cas9 are making it cheaper and faster to move genes around, which has untold consequences for changing the environment and treating disease.”

CRISPR can do a lot more than that.

But, as usual, all of these developments focus on the bright side, the side that saves lives and not the uncomfortable or unforeseen. There is the potential that you DNA will determine your insurance rates, or even if you get insurance. Toying around with these realms, it is not difficult to imagine that you can “Find anyone’s DNA,” like you can find anybody’s address or phone number. Maybe we see this feature incorporated into dating sites. You won’t have to steal a hair follicle from your date; it will already be online, and if they don’t publish it, certainly people will ask, “What do you have to hide?”

And then there’s the possibility that your offspring might inherit an unfavorable trait, like that unibrow or maybe Down Syndrome. So maybe those babies will never be born, or we’ll use CRISPER to make sure the nose is straight, the eyes are green, the skin is tan, and the IQ is way up there. CRISPER gene editing and splicing will be expensive, of course. Some will be able to afford it. The rest? Well, they’ll have to find a way to love their children flaws and all. So here are my questions? Will this make us more human or less human? Will our DNA become just another way to judge each other on how smart, or thin, or good looking, or talented? Is it just another way to distinguish between the haves and have-nots?

If the apps are already in design, Uma Thurman may not have long to wait.

 

Bookmark and Share

Transcendent Plan

 

One of my oft-quoted sources for future technology is Ray Kurzweil. A brilliant technologist, inventor, and futurist, Kurzweil seems to see it all very clearly, almost as though he were at the helm personally. Some of Kurzweil’s theses are crystal clear for me, such as an imminent approach toward the Singularity in a series of innocuous, ‘seemingly benign,’ steps. I also agree with his Law of Accelerating Returns1 which posits that technology advances exponentially. In a recent interview with the Silicon Valley Business Journal, he nicely illustrated that idea.

“Exponentials are quite seductive because they start out sub-linear. We sequenced one ten-thousandth of the human genome in 1990 and two ten-thousandths in 1991. Halfway through the genome project, 7 ½ years into it, we had sequenced 1 percent. People said, “This is a failure. Seven years, 1 percent. It’s going to take 700 years, just like we said.” Seven years later it was done, because 1 percent is only seven doublings from 100 percent — and it had been doubling every year. We don’t think in these exponential terms. And that exponential growth has continued since the end of the genome project. These technologies are now thousands of times more powerful than they were 13 years ago, when the genome project was completed.”

Kurzweil says the same kinds of leaps are approaching for solar power, resources, disease, and longevity. Our tendency to think linear instead of exponential means that we can deceive ourselves into believing that technologies that, ‘just aren’t there yet,’ are ‘a long way off.’ In reality, they may be right around the corner.

I’m not as solid in my affirmation of Kurzweil (and others) when it comes to some of his other predictions. Without reading too much between the lines, you can see that there is a philosophy that is helping to drive Kurzweil. Namely, he doesn’t want to die. Of course, who does? But his is a quest to deny death on a techno-transcendental level. Christianity holds that eternal life awaits the believer in Jesus Christ, other religions are satisfied that our atoms return to the greater cosmos, or that reincarnation is the next step. It would appear that Kurzweil has no time for faith. His bet on science and technology. He states,

“I think we’re very much on track to have human-level AI by 2029, which has been my consistent prediction for 20 years, and then to be able to send nanobots into the brain in the 2030s and connect our biological neocortex to synthetic neocortex in the cloud.”

In the article mentioned above, Kurzweil states that his quest to live forever is not just about the 200-plus supplements that he takes daily. He refers to this as “Bridge One.” Bridge One buys us time until technology catches up. Then “Bridge Two,” the “biotechnology revolution” takes over and radically extends our life. If all else fails, our mind will be uploaded to Cloud (which will have evolved to a synthetic neocortex), though it remains to be seen whether the sum-total of a mind also equals consciousness in some form.

For many who struggle with the idea of death, religious or not, I wonder if when we dissect it, it is not the fear of physical decrepitude that scares us, but the loss of consciousness; that unique ability of humans to comprehend their world, share language and emotions, to create and contemplate?

I would pose that it is indeed that consciousness that makes us human (along with the injustice at the thought that we feel that we might lose it. It would seem that transcendence is in order. In one scenario this transcendence comes from God, in another ‘we are as Gods.’2

So finally, I wonder whether all of these small, exponentially replicating innovations—culminating to the point where we are accessing Cloud-data only by thinking, or communicating via telepathy, or writing symphonies for eternity—will make us more or less human. If we decide that we are no happier, no more content or fulfilled, is there any going back?

Seeing as it might be right around the corner, we might want to think about these things now rather than later.

 

1. Kurzweil, R. (2001) The Law of Accelerating Returns, KurzweilAI . Kurzweil AI. Available at: http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns (Accessed: October 10, 2015). 
2. Brand, Stewart. “WE ARE AS GODS.” The Whole Earth Catalog, September 1968, 1-58. Accessed May 04, 2015. http://www.wholeearth.com/issue/1010/article/195/we.are.as.gods.
Bookmark and Share

Did we design this future?

 

I have held this discussion before, but a recent video from FastCompany reinvigorates a provocative aspect concerning our design future, and begs the question: Is it a future we’ve designed? It centers around the smartphone. There are a lot of cool things about our smartphones like convenience, access, connectivity, and entertainment, just to name a few. It’s hard to believe that Steve Jobs introduced the very first iPhone just nine years ago on June 29, 2007. It was an amazing device, and it’s no shocker that it took off like wildfire. According to stats site Statista, “For 2016, the number of smartphone users is forecast to reach 2.08 billion.” Indeed, we can say, they are everywhere. In the world of design futures, the smartphone becomes Exhibit A of how an evolutionary design change can spawn a complex system.

Most notably, there are the billions of apps that are available to users that promise a better way to calculate tips, listen to music, sleep, drive, search, exercise, meditate, or create. Hence, there is a gigantic network of people who make their living supplying user services. These are direct benefits to society and commerce. No doubt, our devices have also often saved us countless hours of analog work, enabled us to manage our arrivals and departures, and keep in contact (however tenuous) with our friends and acquaintances. Smartphones have helped us find people in distress and help us locate persons with evil intent. But, there are also unintended consequences, like legislation to keep us from texting and driving because these actions have also taken lives. There are issues with dependency and links to sleep disorders. Some lament the deterioration of human, one-on-one, face-to-face, dialog and the distracted conversations at dinner or lunch. There are behavioral disorders, too. Since 2010 there has been a Smartphone Addiction Rating Scale (SARS) and the Young Internet Addiction Scale (YIAS). Overuse of mobile phones has prompted dozens of studies into adolescents as well as adults, and there are links to increased levels of ADHD, and a variety of psychological disorders including stress and depression.

So, while we rely on our phones for all the cool things they enable us to do we are—in less than ten years—experiencing a host of unintended consequences. One of these is privacy. Whether Apple or another brand, the intricacies of smartphone technology are substantially the same. This video shows why your phone is so easy to hack, to activate your phone’s microphone, camera, access your contact list or track your location. And, with the right tools, it is frighteningly simple. What struck me most after watching the video was not how much we are at risk of being hacked, eavesdropped on, or perniciously viewed, but the comments from a woman on the street. She said, “I don’t have anything to hide.” It is not the first millennial that I have heard say this. And that is what, perhaps, bothers me most—our adaptability based on the slow incremental erosion of what used to be our private space.

We can’t rest responsibility entirely on the smartphone. We have to include the idea of social media going back to the days of (amusingly) MySpace. Sharing yourself with a group of close friends gradually gave way to the knowledge that the photo or info may also get passed along to complete strangers. It wasn’t, perhaps your original intention, but, oh well, it’s too late now. Maybe that’s when we decided that we had better get used to sharing our space, our photos (compromising or otherwise), our preferences, our adventures and misadventures with outsiders, even if they were creeps trolling for juicy tidbits. As we chalked up that seemingly benign modification of our behavior to adaptability, the first curtain fell. If someone is going to watch me, and there’s nothing I can do about it, then I may as well get used to it. We adjusted as a defense mechanism. Paranoia was the alternative, and no one wants to think of themselves as paranoid.

A few weeks ago, I posted an image of Mark Zuckerberg’s laptop with tape over the camera and microphone. Maybe he’s more concerned with privacy since his world is full of proprietary information. But, as we become more accustomed to being both constantly connected and potentially tracked or watched, when will the next curtain fall? If design is about planning, directing or focusing, then the absence of design would be ignoring, neglecting or turning away. I return to the first question in this post: Did we design this future? If not, what did we expect?

Bookmark and Share

Privacy or paranoia?

 

If you’ve been a follower of this blog for a while, then you know that I am something of a privacy wonk. I’ve written about it before (about a dozen times, such as), and I’ve even built a research project (that you can enact yourself) around it. A couple of things transpired this week to remind me that privacy is tenuous. (It could also be all the back episodes of Person of Interest that I’ve been watching lately or David Staley’s post last April about the Future of Privacy.) First, I received an email from a friend this week alerting me to a little presumption that my software is spying on me. I’m old enough to remember when you purchased software on as a set of CDs (or even disks). You loaded in on your computer, and it seemed to last for years before you needed to upgrade. Let’s face it, most of us use only a small subset of the features in our favorite applications. I remember using Photoshop 5 for quite awhile before upgrading and the same with the rest of what is now called the Adobe Creative Suite. I still use the primary features of Photoshop 5, Illustrator 10 and InDesign (ver. whatever), 90% of the time. In my opinion, the add-ons to those apps have just slowed things down, and of course, the expense has skyrocketed. Gone are the days when you could upgrade your software every couple of years. Now you have to subscribe at a clip of about $300 a year for the Adobe Creative Suite. Apparently, the old business model was not profitable enough. But then came the Adobe Creative Cloud. (Sound of an angelic chorus.) Now it takes my laptop about 8 minutes to load into the cloud and boot up my software. Plus, it stores stuff. I don’t need it to store stuff for me. I have backup drives and archive software to do that for me.

Back to the privacy discussion. My friend’s email alerted me to this little tidbit hidden inside the Creative Cloud Account Manager.

Learn elsewhere, please.
Learn elsewhere, please.

Under the Security and Privacy tab, there are a couple of options. The first is Desktop App Usage. Here, you can turn this on or off. If it’s on, one of the things it tracks is,

“Adobe feature usage information, such as menu options or buttons selected.”

That means it tracks your keystrokes. Possibly this only occurs when you are using that particular app, but uh-uh, no thanks. Switch that off. Next up is a more pernicious option; it’s called, Machine Learning. Hmm. We all know what that is and I’ver written about that before, too. Just do a search. Here, Adobe says,

“Adobe uses machine learning technologies, such as content analysis and pattern recognition, to improve our products and services. If you prefer that Adobe not analyze your files to improve our products and services, you can opt-out of machine learning at any time.”

Hey, Adobe, if you want to know how to improve your products and services, how about you ask me, or better yet, pay me to consult. A deeper dive into ‘machine learning’ tells me more. Here are a couple of quotes:

“Adobe uses machine learning technologies… For example, features such as Content-Aware Fill in Photoshop and facial recognition in Lightroom could be refined using machine learning.”

“For example, we may use pattern recognition on your photographs to identify all images of dogs and auto-tag them for you. If you select one of those photographs and indicate that it does not include a dog, we use that information to get better at identifying images of dogs.”

Facial recognition? Nope. Help me find dog pictures? Thanks, but I think I can find them myself.

I know how this works. The more data that the machine can feed on the better it becomes at learning. I would just rather Adobe get their data by searching it out for it themselves. I’m sure they’ll be okay. (Afterall there’s a few million people who never look at their account settings.) Also, keep in mind, it’s their machine not mine.

The last item on my privacy rant just validated my paranoia. I ran across this picture of Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg hamming it up for his FB page.

zuckerberg copy

 

In the background, is his personal laptop. Upon closer inspection, we see that Zuck has a piece of duct tape covering his laptop cam and his dual microphones on the side. He knows.

zuckcloseup

 

Go get a piece of tape.

Bookmark and Share

Adapt or plan? Where do we go from here?

I just returned from Nottingham, UK where I presented a paper for Cumulus 16, In This Place. The paper was entitled Design Fiction: A Countermeasure For Technology Surprise. An Undergraduate Proposal. My argument hinged on the idea that students needed to start thinking about our technosocial future. Design fiction is my area of research, but if you were inclined to do so, you could probably choose a variant methodology to provoke discussion and debate about the future of design, what designers do, and their responsibility as creators of culture. In January, I had the opportunity to take an initial pass at such a class. The experiment was a different twist on a collaborative studio where students from the three traditional design specialties worked together on a defined problem. The emphasis was on collaboration rather than the outcome. Some students embraced this while others pushed back. The push-back came from students fixated on building a portfolio of “things” or “spaces” or “visual communications“ so that they could impress prospective employers. I can’t blame them for that. As educators, we have hammered the old paradigm of getting a job at Apple or Google, or (fill in the blank) as the ultimate goal of undergraduate education. But the paradigm is changing and the model of a designer as the maker of “stuff” is wearing thin.

A great little polemic from Cameron Tonkinwise recently appeared that helped to articulate this issue. He points the finger at interaction design scholars and asks why they are not writing about or critiquing “the current developments in the world of tech.” He wonders whether anyone is paying attention. As designers and computer scientists we are feeding a pipeline of more apps with minimal viability, with seemingly no regard for the consequences on social systems, and (one of my personal favorites) the behaviors we engender through our designs.

I tell my students that it is important to think about the future. The usual response is, “We do!” When I drill deeper, I find that their thoughts revolve around getting a job, making a living, finding a home, and a partner. They rarely include global warming, economic upheavals, feeding the world, natural disasters, etc. Why? These issues they view as beyond their control. We do not choose these things; they happen to us. Nevertheless, these are precisely the predicaments that need designers. I would argue these concerns are far more important than another app to count my calories or select the location for my next sandwich.

There is a host of others like Tonkinwise that see that design needs to refocus, but often it seems like there are are a greater number that blindly plod forward unaware of the futures they are creating. I’m not talking about refocusing designers to be better at business or programming languages; I’m talking about making designers more responsible for what they design. And like Tonkinwise, I agree that it needs to start with design educators.

Bookmark and Share

The nature of the unpredictable.

 

Following up on last week’s post, I confessed some concern about technologies that progress too quickly and combine unpredictably.

Stewart Brand introduced the 1968 Whole Earth Catalog with, “We are as gods and might as well get good at it.”1 Thirty-two years later, he wrote that new technologies such as computers, biotechnology and nanotechnology are self-accelerating, that they differ from older, “stable, predictable and reliable,” technologies such as television and the automobile. Brand states that new technologies “…create conditions that are unstable, unpredictable and unreliable…. We can understand natural biology, subtle as it is because it holds still. But how will we ever be able to understand quantum computing or nanotechnology if its subtlety keeps accelerating away from us?”2. If we combine Brand’s concern with Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns and the current supporting evidence exponentially, as the evidence supports, will it be as Brand suggests unpredictable?

Last week I discussed an article from WIRED Magazine on the VR/MR company Magic Leap. The author writes,

“Even if you’ve never tried virtual reality, you probably possess a vivid expectation of what it will be like. It’s the Matrix, a reality of such convincing verisimilitude that you can’t tell if it’s fake. It will be the Metaverse in Neal Stephenson’s rollicking 1992 novel, Snow Crash, an urban reality so enticing that some people never leave it.”

And it will be. It is, as I said last week, entirely logical to expect it.

We race toward these technologies with visions of mind-blowing experiences or life-changing cures, and usually, we imagine only the upside. We all too often forget the human factor. Let’s look at some other inevitable technological developments.
• Affordable DNA testing will tell you your risk of inheriting a disease or debilitating condition.
• You can ingest a pill that tells your doctor, or you in case you forgot, that you took your medicine.
• Soon we will have life-like robotic companions.
• Virtual reality is affordable, amazingly real and completely user-friendly.

These are simple scenarios because they will likely have aspects that make them even more impressive, more accessible and more profoundly useful. And like most technological developments, they will also become mundane and expected. But along with them come the possibility of a whole host of unintended consequences. Here are a few.
• The government’s universal healthcare requires that citizens have a DNA test before you qualify.
• It monitors whether you’ve taken your medication and issues a fine if you don’t, even if you don’t want your medicine.
• A robotic, life-like companion can provide support and encouragement, but it could also be your outlet for violent behavior or abuse.
• The virtual world is so captivating and pleasurable that you don’t want to leave, or it gets to the point where it is addicting.

It seems as though whenever we involve human nature, we set ourselves up for unintended consequences. Perhaps it is not the nature of technology to be unpredictable; it is us.

1. Brand, Stewart. “WE ARE AS GODS.” The Whole Earth Catalog, September 1968, 1-58. Accessed May 04, 2015. http://www.wholeearth.com/issue/1010/article/195/we.are.as.gods.
2. Brand, Stewart. “Is Technology Moving Too Fast? Self-Accelerating Technologies-Computers That Make Faster Computers, For Example – May Have a Destabilizing Effect on .Society.” TIME, 2000
Bookmark and Share

Nine years from now.

 

Today I’m on my soapbox, again, as an advocate of design thinking, of which design fiction is part of the toolbox.

In 2014, the Pew Research Center published a report on Digital Life in 2025. Therein, “The report covers experts’ views about advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, and their impact on jobs and employment.” Their nutshell conclusion was that:

“Experts envision automation and intelligent digital agents permeating vast areas of our work and personal lives by 2025, (9 years from now), but they are divided on whether these advances will displace more jobs than they create.”

On the upside, some of the “experts” believe that we will, as the brilliant humans that we are, invent new kinds of uniquely human work that we can’t replace with AI—a return to an artisanal society with more time for leisure and our loved ones. Some think we will be freed from the tedium of work and find ways to grow in some other “socially beneficial” pastime. Perhaps we will just be chillin’ with our robo-buddy.

On the downside, there are those who believe that not only blue-collar, robotic, jobs will vanish, but also white-collar, thinking jobs, and that will leave a lot of people out of work since there are only so many jobs as clerks at McDonald’s or greeters at Wal-Mart. They think that some of these are the fault of education for not better preparing us for the future.

A few weeks ago I blogged about people who are thinking about addressing these concerns with something called Universal Basic Income (UBI), a $12,000 gift to everyone in the world since everyone will be out of work. I’m guessing (though it wasn’t explicitly stated) that this money would come from all the corporations that are raking in the bucks by employing the AI’s, the robots and the digital agents, but who don’t have anyone on the payroll anymore. The advocates of this idea did not address whether the executives at these companies, presumably still employed, will make more than $12,000, nor whether the advocates themselves were on the 12K list. I guess not. They also did not specify who would buy the services that these corporations were offering if we are all out of work. But I don’t want to repeat that rant here.

I’m not as optimistic about the unique capabilities of humankind to find new, uniquely human jobs in some new, utopian artisanal society. Music, art, and blogs are already being written by AI, by the way. I do agree, however, that we are not educating our future decision-makers to adjust adequately to whatever comes along. The process of innovative design thinking is a huge hedge against technology surprise, but few schools have ever entertained the notion and some have never even heard of it. In some cases, it has been adopted, but as a bastardized hybrid to serve business-as-usual competitive one-upmanship.

I do believe that design, in its newest and most innovative realizations, is the place for these anticipatory discussions and future. What we need is thinking that encompasses a vast array of cross-disciplinary input, including philosophy and religion, because these issues are more than black and white, they are ethically and morally charged, and they are inseparable from our culture—the scaffolding that we as a society use to answer our most existential questions. There is a lot of work to do to survive ourselves.

 

 

Bookmark and Share

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