Memo37+--+Draft+Literature+Review

Thomas Solley STSH 4980-01 Senior Thesis Costelloe-Kuehn 10/25/2014 11/2/2014

Click here to return to portfolio.

__ Memo 37 -- Draft Literature Review. __ So I don't have feedback on how this one works? Unknown... Though I suppose it would be similar to the "state of social and cultural literature on the subject," as per the Proposal?

__11/2/2014 Notes__ ... Well, I still do not yet have the Annual Review and STHV journal data to add to this -- though I hope to soon. I hope that this will guide my knowledge of what exists, and how to view the current phenomena... And in fact, I will be using this page as a means of tracking the data I find from the Annual Review and STHV articles, that I might be able to create a better "literature review."

... Looking-through the articles I have saved from the 29th, [REDACTED]. --> I don't think that will help me [may review at some later time to prove that these are not 'common topics' in circulation?]. However, we might as well seek 'slow movement' and 'transhumanism' under the Annual Review page, see what we get... --> A quick search under 'slow movement' reveals that the first 20 items are not related to the 'slow movement'... --> Searched again for 'slow movement' under 11 journals -- Anthropology; Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics; Law and Social Science; Linguistics (new in 2015); Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior; Physiology; Political Science; Psychology; Public Health; Sociology; Statistics and Its Application. Got.... 2200 results, which is better than the 9100 from before. --> Added a time restriction of between 2000 and 2015, now down to 725 results. These actually look useful. Saving a few key ones to Zotero (41, plus 2 that I can't get-to right now -- http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150235 http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145506

So.... Yeah. FOund 41/43 articles. Yup. I probably won't have time to go through them all, but it's been good to get these. Sadly I can't get any more from this IP address, AR is blocking me right now...

__ Notes __ Stuff from Wednesday; Professor; "- Are the groups you're examining more on the same page than they seem? Shared questions at least? better point of collaboration, figuring things out, than shared answers? - Lack of a space for deliberation about technology. Goal to get people thinking about these questions about tech and humanity. one wacky example here (and lots more in bioart): Praba pilar: reverend of nano-bio-info-cogno - And STS? What does STS say about this? Map the diversity a bit. Lit review. History: questioning technology, and beyond . - Democratization of technology… huge lit in STS. - Deciding how to decide. - A gift to both of these sides: how to think about these things? How to dialog?
 * Yes, it would seem the H+ and ST pages both have a shared interest in the effects of emerging technologies on humanity. It could be possible to suggest a new place of learning where constructive discussions on this topic could happen -- except that I don't know where these conversations (if they exist, which they don't seem to from a highmanagerial perspective) are happening now. The H+ page and community certainly is more organized and "larger" than the ST community -- however, I don't know how the Neo-Luddites fit into all this mess.

Organicism: - Similar to bias against communication, thinking? Vs. action? - Or Derrida on speech > writing

- Relationship between empathy and death, Rifkin: “there is not empathy in utopia.” - Transcending evolution: a phase change? Relationship to religions? Beyond death? Endless life. Took a sacrifice (jesus)… millennial? "end of history?" Humans made in god’s image, machine’s made in human’s image. Therefore: humans = god in a sense? Death of god = Nietzsche. - Fishbowl: Water speech, also on empathy, maybe randomly. - Evolutionary algorithm: agency of the material. And how humans interact with it. Also DeLanda a great source for dimensional thinking, along the lines of flatland. - Limits……. Philosophy of the limit = derrida. - George bataille = all about transgression…. - What is life? Organicism? Richard Doyle : Scaling the Noosphere. @http://mobiused.wordpress.com/publications/

 Wetwares: Experiments in Post Vital Living (2003) <span style="background-color: #0a0a0a; color: #d8d8cd; font-family: 'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;"> On Beyond Living (1997)
 * <span style="background-color: #0a0a0a; color: #d8d8cd; font-family: 'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">Click here for a list of works that cite this text
 * <span style="background-color: #0a0a0a; color: #d8d8cd; font-family: 'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;">Click here for a list of works that cite this text

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: 'Lucida Grande',Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">- Cyborg: Return to haraway? - Dorion Sagan on technology, life, etc. i'll try to find essay, please remind me"

My Questions at the end of Wednesday; 1) Seek evidence of an extreme "throwback" "regression" "conservative" group within the Slow-Tech Movement. 2) Seek evidence of discourse between H+ Movement (whole) and the Big H+ names (as per Agar's article), to see if there are contentions SEPARATE from the "bioconservative"/"bioLuddite" talks. 3) Seek what separates the BioLuddites from Bioconservatives from "hardcore-regression-conservative-throwback-Slow-Tech-Movement-group"-ers, if the latter exists. 4) Seek a perspective on technological -progression -- from the STS community? Could be a branch from the two "big" groups, OR a third perspective... 5) Look-into the "shared views" between H+and STM -- what views or persppectives do they share? What do they differ-on in terms of definitions of "ideal human"?
 * Does not exist -- the Slow-Tech movement is a localized, decentralized trend without actual factions. The "slowtech.org" page I found appears (on talking with Colin) to be a single-user's page and not actually representative of a "organization's official page" [e.g. very few posts, few hits, Wordpress page...]. I suppose the Luddites are the "more-extreme" "slowers" -- referncing specifically the "neo luddism" ["reform luddism" in the KSL article, uncertain if same thing?] < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism> aspect?
 * I suppose the "technophobes" are the "extremes" though, with the Amish being an extreme practice of this?
 * I don't know if the Neo-Luddites == Reform Luddites == Bio-Luddites, != "Luddism". However from the Wiki page on Neo-Luddism, all terms seem to share this connotation of "technophobia."
 * Why is this? Why the connotation? This is a question I hope to ask of Mr. Blake.
 * Don't know where to start looking... Since the Transhumanist community is so divided, I don't know where I would begin searching for internal debates. The "big names" -- Bostrum, Young, Houghes -- seem to be focusing thier intents against claims by the "bioconservative" community... (Fukuyama).
 * Would the Standford page show this maybe?
 * I don't actually know. how to classify these differences -- see above. I'm hoping a member of the community can tell me.
 * So I'm waiting on interviews?
 * Who? Where?
 * The H+ and Slow-tech pages <http://humanityplus.org/about/ > <http://slowtech.org/about/ > both seek to understand, in some way, the impact that technology has on humans.
 * Where they appear to differ, though, is that H+ is committed to "moving technology forward," " <span style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #666666; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande','Droid Sans',sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Because these technologies, and their respective sciences, would take the human beyond the normal state of existence, society, including bioethicists and others who advocate the safe use of technology, have shown concern and uncertainties about the downside of these technologies and possible problematic and dangerous outcomes for our species. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with aiming to be better than well. However, there are evident concerns and this is where ethical use of technology plays a part." and the slow-tech group is "<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">This site is an attempt to aggregate resources on the downsides of technology and it’s effects on human health and development. Whilst not at all against the use of technology, it is an attempt to explore and try to understand some of problems arising due to the continued (over)use of technology. Strategies to avoiding the downsides and enjoying a healthy balance between using technology and being able to ‘switch off’."
 * The H+ group explicitly states that they wish to move humanity forward -- and there is, almost an 'apology' in the way their page 'concedes' to the existence of 'concerns' -- yet by accepting that those concerns exist, it almost seems to me [personal bias] that the H+ page is "more mature" in confronting their opposers.
 * The ST page does not make 'concessions' to the 'opposition' -- they do not say, "technology has brought a lot of good for our society and we advocate for the continued use of technology." The only 'concession' made seems more as a 'follow-up,' a 'oh wait I didn't mean to imply that, let me explain myself and back-away from those connotations'...
 * It is difficult to find direct evidence of what each website claims, in terms of their ideal "human." Neither page expressly declares such an intent or definition. //__**PROBABLY CAN'T GET MUCH MORE INFO OUT OF THE TWO WEBSITES THAN THAT,**__ **THEN.**// Each is a repository, sadly, and not a "central manifesto." Though looking at the actual H+ Constitution <http://humanityplus.org/about/constitution/> is rather itneresting.
 * I'm intrigued that the ST movement does not have this. Even their G+ page <https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/113072106751111976252> is made and operated by a single user -- as was the ST page. Even though the "slow movement" defines their principle behind 'localized passive resistance,' I still.... Well. This shows me that the ST movement is NOT centralized. They don't have a constitution, they are not a recognized organization with paying members. There are no central headquarters or local chapters.
 * Sooooooooo..... Maybe that needs to happen?
 * Ehhhhhhh.... I don't know how to recommend a policy for a quasi-technophobic trend that gives them the power to oppose industry advancements...
 * That is a grey and legal area I don't know if I want to contribute-to. Though it would be nice to have "centrlaization" so that productive talks could occur.
 * Maybe between the Neo-Luddites and H+ members? Yet I can't tell .... The UWash article claimed that complaints were coming-from "features" of disgruntled users, and not from an ethical, privacy, or "Luddism" perspective? Still need the reply from that group to see what is going on...