This is a recent post on BigThink about trying to make programming languages part of people's everyday vocabulary: http://ht.ly/29p2f
Something to consider when it comes to the democratization of information access and information manipulation is: If everyone knew how to program would it be easier or harder to maintain the standards (html, CSS, OS software and computer hardware itself), or would all standards just melt away? I think the question of whether you want a democratization of programming/techno knowledge is what will separate the technocrats who believe only an esoteric barrier between the masses and the technocratic elite can protect the stability we need to have communciation and cross-compatibility; from those who hope for a more egalitarian system that does not obscure knowledge on purpose.
One thing that might happen with routinized computer knowledge is that our collective ability to create and maintain standards would become tied to our politico-socio-psycho-economic ability to cooperate with each other.
Whereas now I think the esoteric nature information architecture/design/planning is allowing us to exceed our actual social potential for cooperation, with the democratization of knowledge we might see a temporary setback and some struggles until we somehow learn to let everyone hold their own reigns and still come together to create something greater such as the internet and collective info archives that require standard setting practices.
I would choose to take this harder path because the potential fruits are much greater; it all comes down to do you believe a truly free and open, decentralized society can function? would you bet on it? would you risk WWIII for the sake of it? We have yet to see major warfare based solely on information.. a sign that we haven't really grappled with what information means to us yet.
Showing posts with label Equity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Equity. Show all posts
7.14.2010
6.29.2010
(MP3) Justice, Equity, and Rights In The City: panel discussion from the Just Metropolis Conference, UC Berkeley 2010
I still need to write a reportback about the Just Metropolis Conference at Berkeley that I attended from the 16th-20th. In the mean time, here is a recording of an all-star panel (Teresa Caldeira, Peter Marcuse, Edward Soja, Martha Matsuoka, and James Holston); "Justice, Equity, and Rights in The City: A Conversation About Contemporary Urban Idea(l)s." It was a hell of a debate, and an amazing conference. Thanks to all of the presenters and organizers, especially Alex Schafran from UC Berkeley.
In the discussion, I found the comment from an audience member at the end regarding justice & pain fascinating. All too often we treat pain as something to be suppressed/repressed, when it is not pain that is the enemy but suffering; an idea that is central to Buddhist philosophy. Of course we want to rid ourselves of suffering and unnecessary pain, but there is a certain amount of pain that is a function of our existence and the fact that we have to work; to exploit ourselves, others, and the environment, in order to survive. If we look on that basic pain in disgust, or try and make it disappear (the entire project of modernity was/is in some sense concerned with this), we just end up creating more suffering, whether for ourselves, or for those on whom the pain of the privileged is dumped. So the notion of justice is inextricably tied to pain, the pain that we all inherit at birth and learn to share in complex ways through our social/technological constructions. A Just city would certainly eliminate a great deal of unnecessary pain that we have now (corporal punishment, etc), but it would also equitably share the pain we need to live, the pain that is our inheritance, the pain that turns to pleasure when we appreciate what it does for us. That's a Buddhist teaching, that pain can turn to pleasure to the extent that we do not turn away from it but observe it closely and make it our companion. I hope that this point was not lost on the panel.
In the discussion, I found the comment from an audience member at the end regarding justice & pain fascinating. All too often we treat pain as something to be suppressed/repressed, when it is not pain that is the enemy but suffering; an idea that is central to Buddhist philosophy. Of course we want to rid ourselves of suffering and unnecessary pain, but there is a certain amount of pain that is a function of our existence and the fact that we have to work; to exploit ourselves, others, and the environment, in order to survive. If we look on that basic pain in disgust, or try and make it disappear (the entire project of modernity was/is in some sense concerned with this), we just end up creating more suffering, whether for ourselves, or for those on whom the pain of the privileged is dumped. So the notion of justice is inextricably tied to pain, the pain that we all inherit at birth and learn to share in complex ways through our social/technological constructions. A Just city would certainly eliminate a great deal of unnecessary pain that we have now (corporal punishment, etc), but it would also equitably share the pain we need to live, the pain that is our inheritance, the pain that turns to pleasure when we appreciate what it does for us. That's a Buddhist teaching, that pain can turn to pleasure to the extent that we do not turn away from it but observe it closely and make it our companion. I hope that this point was not lost on the panel.
-Nick Kaufmann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
