I watched the first four seasons of How I Met Your Mother four times in a single year. It's a show for which I have inexplicable patience in large doses. It's fun, often clever, and features a core cast of characters with whom I immediately connected. Still, that didn't stop me from being less than optimistic about the show's future while I watched the fifth season as it aired. Post-jilting, the series hadn't seemed to deal a lot with the central premise of the show beyond offering a lot of teases. The season meandered a lot but didn't really commit to anything for more than an episode at a time beyond a couple of ill-fated pairings for Robin. The result was a collection of mildly amusing episodes that manage to be significantly less bad when you're watching them en masse without expectations.
Season six, on the other hand, managed to lose me about halfway through (shortly after a certain funeral). It spent an awful lot of time focusing on Ted's flirtatious relationship with a new addition who we absolutely knew wasn't The Mother -- mostly because of things we already knew about The Mother but also because she was already married. I missed a couple of episodes, which prevented me from catching up on CBS' website, and just gave up. I hear that Zooey ditched her husband or some such and that she and Ted dated for awhile and it was all as pointless as it seemed.
Season seven started last week, though, and I'm now caught up with the first three episodes, and I have to say, I'm feeling hopeful. It could just be the effect of watching 3 episodes at once and my lingering affection for these people, but I think it's making important steps to clear the way for the Event We've Been Waiting For. There have already been needless teases, including the cliffhanger ending of the second episode, but the season so far seems to have set an admirable goal: helping Ted move beyond his past and remembering how to believe in romance again.
I'm not sure if this will make it a show I look forward to watching week-by-week the way I do Community or Parks and Recreation, but at the very least, I suddenly find myself looking forward to binging on this season in a year's time when I can speed through the teasing and just watch these people grow and learn and enjoy one another. Hell, I'll probably go and pick up season 6 just so I can see what shenanigans I missed in the middle of all the time wasting.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
I Heart Math
I'm trying to organize some thoughts about computing, creativity, creation, and theology. This is the only thing that's come out so far that makes sense. Hopefully I'll be able to provide further context for it in the future, but I really enjoy it, so I thought I'd share it early:
So long as anything exists in this universe, just one infinitesimal speck of cosmic dust, some lonely, quivering little quark, then one exists. If one exists, then so do zero and two and negative one. In fact, one carries with it into being all of mathematics: addition and multiplication and algebra, calculus and general linear matrices and an uncountably infinite number of points called z in the complex plain that probably don't lie within the Mandlebrot Set. Mathematics isn't something we invented. It isn't something we observe or model. It is the simplest, purest fact of reality. It is the direct consequence of the universe being something other than the empty set.
So long as anything exists in this universe, just one infinitesimal speck of cosmic dust, some lonely, quivering little quark, then one exists. If one exists, then so do zero and two and negative one. In fact, one carries with it into being all of mathematics: addition and multiplication and algebra, calculus and general linear matrices and an uncountably infinite number of points called z in the complex plain that probably don't lie within the Mandlebrot Set. Mathematics isn't something we invented. It isn't something we observe or model. It is the simplest, purest fact of reality. It is the direct consequence of the universe being something other than the empty set.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Introducing Fairly Green
I'm in a pretty horrible class right now on Software Project Management. We're working in groups on a case study, and our group's involves a first-time PM named Fairly Green. We were supposed to present our project charters today, and the professor suggested that we should treat it as if we were actually presenting to corporate officers at our fake company. This irritated me, as 90% of the class was doing the same case study, so presenting on our charter instead of discussing the decision making process that we followed in developing it seemed like a waste of time (it was). As such, I was planning on giving our group's presentation alone in character as Fairly Green. I spent more time than was probably good for my sanity developing a character for him, but when our group decided at the last minute to all present together, I wound up not being able to utilize any of it. So, here's a brief profile of Fairly Green. Maybe we'll get some short vignettes about his daily life before too long.
Fairly is a professional software engineer. 30 years old, he was born and raised in rural Pennsylvania by parents who provided for him adequately but were always busy with their own active social lives. He has a good sense of humor about his ridiculous name but less of one about his family. Case-in-point: when people ask about his name, he has an unfortunate tendency of responding that he, "asks [his] mother about it every Thanksgiving, but she's never been sober enough to give a coherent answer." He's never recognized how uncomfortable this makes virtually everybody.
Fairly graduated in the top 20% of his class from Notre Dame. Smart, but not brilliant, he worked incredibly hard for that ranking and only managed to form a handful of meaningful relationships over his time in college. Still, Fairly is diligent, detail-focused, and knows the name and birthday of everybody he's ever worked with. Shortly after graduating, he followed his girlfriend, Janet, to Maryland. She was raised in an Annapolis suburb and wanted to move back near her parents. He found work as a QA tester at Innovative Security Solutions, Inc. after a three month job search, during which he lived with and grew close to Janet's parents. He has since become a senior developer at the small company.
Fairly and Janet happily married a year after the move to Maryland and now have two children: three-year-old daughter Kayla and 8-month-old son Garret. They live roughly 45 minutes from Janet's family, who are an active part of the life of the young family and are all too happy to the ensure that Fairly and Janet get time to themselves at regular intervals. Having a young family is always trying, but ISS pays Fairly a competitive salary with generous benefits. As such, Janet, who was a biology major and began nursing school before quitting during the first pregnancy, has been able to act as a stay-at-home mom.
Fairly was always very close to his maternal grandparents, who lived in upstate New York. His grandmother died 3 months ago after a long battle with ovarian cancer that metastasized to her pancreas. This was itself painful, obviously, but it was made significantly worse when his grandfather started exhibiting signs of dementia in the final months, robbing both of them of having meaningful interaction in her final days. Fairly moved his grandfather to assisted living near himself and Janet shortly after.
As a reaction to these unfortunate events, Fairly briefly sought the chance to take on an enhanced role in raising his children. He suggested that he could move to reduced hours and work partly from home and encouraged Janet to pursue some of her tabled dreams and finish her RN certification. She refused, saying she at least wanted to wait until both kids were in school, and he gave up on it after a couple of weeks. Instead, Fairly threw himself into his work as a distraction. His supervisors took notice of his sudden dedication and assigned him PM duties on a new project, designing the control system and interface for a new, high end surveillance system. He and Janet were initially excited by the promotion, but both are beginning to regret it as it increases his hours, especially on weekends, keeping him from having much meaningful time with the children. They're making it work, but he's nearly ready to tell his superiors where his priorities rest.
Fairly is a professional software engineer. 30 years old, he was born and raised in rural Pennsylvania by parents who provided for him adequately but were always busy with their own active social lives. He has a good sense of humor about his ridiculous name but less of one about his family. Case-in-point: when people ask about his name, he has an unfortunate tendency of responding that he, "asks [his] mother about it every Thanksgiving, but she's never been sober enough to give a coherent answer." He's never recognized how uncomfortable this makes virtually everybody.
Fairly graduated in the top 20% of his class from Notre Dame. Smart, but not brilliant, he worked incredibly hard for that ranking and only managed to form a handful of meaningful relationships over his time in college. Still, Fairly is diligent, detail-focused, and knows the name and birthday of everybody he's ever worked with. Shortly after graduating, he followed his girlfriend, Janet, to Maryland. She was raised in an Annapolis suburb and wanted to move back near her parents. He found work as a QA tester at Innovative Security Solutions, Inc. after a three month job search, during which he lived with and grew close to Janet's parents. He has since become a senior developer at the small company.
Fairly and Janet happily married a year after the move to Maryland and now have two children: three-year-old daughter Kayla and 8-month-old son Garret. They live roughly 45 minutes from Janet's family, who are an active part of the life of the young family and are all too happy to the ensure that Fairly and Janet get time to themselves at regular intervals. Having a young family is always trying, but ISS pays Fairly a competitive salary with generous benefits. As such, Janet, who was a biology major and began nursing school before quitting during the first pregnancy, has been able to act as a stay-at-home mom.
Fairly was always very close to his maternal grandparents, who lived in upstate New York. His grandmother died 3 months ago after a long battle with ovarian cancer that metastasized to her pancreas. This was itself painful, obviously, but it was made significantly worse when his grandfather started exhibiting signs of dementia in the final months, robbing both of them of having meaningful interaction in her final days. Fairly moved his grandfather to assisted living near himself and Janet shortly after.
As a reaction to these unfortunate events, Fairly briefly sought the chance to take on an enhanced role in raising his children. He suggested that he could move to reduced hours and work partly from home and encouraged Janet to pursue some of her tabled dreams and finish her RN certification. She refused, saying she at least wanted to wait until both kids were in school, and he gave up on it after a couple of weeks. Instead, Fairly threw himself into his work as a distraction. His supervisors took notice of his sudden dedication and assigned him PM duties on a new project, designing the control system and interface for a new, high end surveillance system. He and Janet were initially excited by the promotion, but both are beginning to regret it as it increases his hours, especially on weekends, keeping him from having much meaningful time with the children. They're making it work, but he's nearly ready to tell his superiors where his priorities rest.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
An Open Letter to the Board of Trustees of Calvin College from a Recent Alumnus
To the Board of Trustees of Calvin College:
I first visited Calvin College in the Summer of 2004. I was on a trip touring six prospective colleges around the Midwest, only two of which were Christian. In considering colleges, I suspected that I wouldn't have a particularly easy time trying to be both a Christian and a scientist, and I feared that attending a Christian institution could make my task even harder. Even if I would be free of the skepticism that secular scientists often to have towards people of faith, it would be practically impossible to grow as a scholar if I wound up under the watchful, censoring eye of the sorts of Christians who remain suspicious of science.
I was relieved to find in Calvin a place where it seemed this would not be a problem, a place that would warmly accept and encourage my growth in both areas. It was a place that recognized Scripture and Creation as twin pillars of revelation and promoted the natural harmony between the two. It was a school where evolution was embraced and where theology professors would challenge their students to move beyond the faith of their childhood. I didn’t even bother applying anywhere else.
Starting in the Fall of 2005, I spent a fantastic five years at Calvin studying Computer Science and taking electives ranging from Introduction to International Relations to Metaphysics to Abstract Algebra. I found Calvin to be a place that recognized that the best way to spread the Gospel was by engaging the world in a Christlike way. Distinctly Calvin concepts like discernment and renewal, though lovingly mocked by Calvin students, became core to the way I interact with the world.
While many Calvin students come from families that have attended the school for generations, Calvin never seemed like an institution content to simply pass on the same old truths that had served in years past. Instead, Calvin strove to be a legitimate actor in academia, giving students opportunities to do real, meaningful work with a chance to impact the wider world. This isn't always easy. It requires us to ask difficult questions and to discuss and even debate divisive issues both with our neighbors and with ourselves. There is no topic on which human knowledge is complete. Just as Science represents our current best understanding of how God has ordered the Universe, Theology represents only our current best understanding of how God relates to Creation. Neither understanding is fixed, and we need to look at these challenging issues that in order to advance.
Calvin offered, in my eyes at least, a place where we could approach these challenges secure in the knowledge that Scripture and Creation have the same author and cannot be at odds with one another. Under this worldview, we are free to investigate any apparent discrepancies from both ends, trusting that the beauty of God's handiwork will allow us to relieve these tensions in time. At Calvin, Christianity serves not as a barrier to research in controversial fields, but as the driving force behind all scholarship. Years spent surrounded by professors motivated in this way encouraged me to pursue a PhD of my own in order to join in this good work.
Unfortunately, it seems like something is starting to change at Calvin College. With the events leading to and surrounding the resignation of Professor Schneider, it seems that academic freedom is slowly being limited in areas where modernity and tradition collide. If I loved Calvin less I would not care, but Calvin stands for something important to me, and it is painful to see it turn away from the values that make it special.
I understand that evolution and polygenism raise difficult questions about the nature of The Fall and Original Sin, core tenets in any reasonable understanding of God's relationship with humanity. However, we must seriously consider the apparent contradictions between orthodox theology and modern genetics. Who better to grapple with this and other problems than those professors who have served faithfully and proven their commitment to Christianity and its ideals? These are the people we must trust to find a conclusion that stands up to scrutiny from both Special and General Revelation.
Certainly, it is up to Calvin College and its leadership to decide whether or not they are committed to giving their trusted, tenured professors the support necessary to seek out the undiscovered connections between Science and Scripture without fear of reprisal from those who doubt whether the lines will ever meet. If Calvin chooses not to support its professors in this way, they would seem to be betraying the mission I witnessed them champion during my time there, leaving me reluctant to continue supporting an alma mater for which I have such high expectations.
As such, I implore you to reaffirm your commitment to engaging God’s world as it is rather than as we wish it to be. We are all residents of a fallen world, and as Christians, we are called to participate in God’s ultimate plan of restoration. This becomes easier when institutions like Calvin support and celebrate the efforts of their professors, even when the ultimate outcome is unclear. Do not let recent events turn into a trend of attacks on the intellectual freedom of your most valuable resources: the faculty, students, and staff of Calvin College.
Thank you,
Jonathan Walz
Class of 2010
I first visited Calvin College in the Summer of 2004. I was on a trip touring six prospective colleges around the Midwest, only two of which were Christian. In considering colleges, I suspected that I wouldn't have a particularly easy time trying to be both a Christian and a scientist, and I feared that attending a Christian institution could make my task even harder. Even if I would be free of the skepticism that secular scientists often to have towards people of faith, it would be practically impossible to grow as a scholar if I wound up under the watchful, censoring eye of the sorts of Christians who remain suspicious of science.
I was relieved to find in Calvin a place where it seemed this would not be a problem, a place that would warmly accept and encourage my growth in both areas. It was a place that recognized Scripture and Creation as twin pillars of revelation and promoted the natural harmony between the two. It was a school where evolution was embraced and where theology professors would challenge their students to move beyond the faith of their childhood. I didn’t even bother applying anywhere else.
Starting in the Fall of 2005, I spent a fantastic five years at Calvin studying Computer Science and taking electives ranging from Introduction to International Relations to Metaphysics to Abstract Algebra. I found Calvin to be a place that recognized that the best way to spread the Gospel was by engaging the world in a Christlike way. Distinctly Calvin concepts like discernment and renewal, though lovingly mocked by Calvin students, became core to the way I interact with the world.
While many Calvin students come from families that have attended the school for generations, Calvin never seemed like an institution content to simply pass on the same old truths that had served in years past. Instead, Calvin strove to be a legitimate actor in academia, giving students opportunities to do real, meaningful work with a chance to impact the wider world. This isn't always easy. It requires us to ask difficult questions and to discuss and even debate divisive issues both with our neighbors and with ourselves. There is no topic on which human knowledge is complete. Just as Science represents our current best understanding of how God has ordered the Universe, Theology represents only our current best understanding of how God relates to Creation. Neither understanding is fixed, and we need to look at these challenging issues that in order to advance.
Calvin offered, in my eyes at least, a place where we could approach these challenges secure in the knowledge that Scripture and Creation have the same author and cannot be at odds with one another. Under this worldview, we are free to investigate any apparent discrepancies from both ends, trusting that the beauty of God's handiwork will allow us to relieve these tensions in time. At Calvin, Christianity serves not as a barrier to research in controversial fields, but as the driving force behind all scholarship. Years spent surrounded by professors motivated in this way encouraged me to pursue a PhD of my own in order to join in this good work.
Unfortunately, it seems like something is starting to change at Calvin College. With the events leading to and surrounding the resignation of Professor Schneider, it seems that academic freedom is slowly being limited in areas where modernity and tradition collide. If I loved Calvin less I would not care, but Calvin stands for something important to me, and it is painful to see it turn away from the values that make it special.
I understand that evolution and polygenism raise difficult questions about the nature of The Fall and Original Sin, core tenets in any reasonable understanding of God's relationship with humanity. However, we must seriously consider the apparent contradictions between orthodox theology and modern genetics. Who better to grapple with this and other problems than those professors who have served faithfully and proven their commitment to Christianity and its ideals? These are the people we must trust to find a conclusion that stands up to scrutiny from both Special and General Revelation.
Certainly, it is up to Calvin College and its leadership to decide whether or not they are committed to giving their trusted, tenured professors the support necessary to seek out the undiscovered connections between Science and Scripture without fear of reprisal from those who doubt whether the lines will ever meet. If Calvin chooses not to support its professors in this way, they would seem to be betraying the mission I witnessed them champion during my time there, leaving me reluctant to continue supporting an alma mater for which I have such high expectations.
As such, I implore you to reaffirm your commitment to engaging God’s world as it is rather than as we wish it to be. We are all residents of a fallen world, and as Christians, we are called to participate in God’s ultimate plan of restoration. This becomes easier when institutions like Calvin support and celebrate the efforts of their professors, even when the ultimate outcome is unclear. Do not let recent events turn into a trend of attacks on the intellectual freedom of your most valuable resources: the faculty, students, and staff of Calvin College.
Thank you,
Jonathan Walz
Class of 2010
Friday, July 15, 2011
Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Fresh back from the midnight showing of the final chapter in the Harry Potter film series, so, of course, I'm going to write about that instead of taking this opportunity to go to sleep at what would only be a mildly unreasonable hour. I'll try to minimize spoilers, but they're obviously going to be here.
First of all, a reminder that I'm not the hugest fan of the Deathly Hallows book. Long story short, my general sense about the movie is about the same as with Part 1, only generally more favorable because of the portion of the story captured. With a few small exceptions, the adaptation itself is about as strong as you could want. By and large, deviations from the source made perfect sense within the characterizations given in the movies and the nature of the medium. More important, the aspects of the book that I found most frustrating -- The Hallows, wand lore, Gringotts -- were minimized to the extent possible, while full attention was paid to the most important factors -- Snape's past, King's Cross, and others. In fact, I came into the theater thinking "If they handle Snape right, that will account for all other sins." And while I mostly feel they did this and more, I can't quite give it a completely free pass.
See, there were too many moments that just seemed...manufactured. Scenes that wanted to be emotional rarely were, and the execution just had a number of moments where it just didn't feel all there. It seemed, at times, like they were including sequences because they knew that the fans would be clamoring for them and just letting it ride on that fact. In general, I'd say that the more people who were on the screen, the less honest anything seemed. The core cast continues to be largely phenomenal, but the Wizarding World somehow felt less real than ever. Heck, early on, even the small moments seemed a little bit too rushed and matter-of-fact.
I want to end on a positive note, though. Even if it will never be the first Harry Potter film I reach for on a lazy day, Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 was an enjoyable time and a worthy ending to one of the most lucrative film franchises of all time. I'd really like to watch a cut of this and part 1 blended together to eliminate the handful of redundancies and see if I still have problems with some of the early pacing or if the momentum carries. I suspect that it would, elevating both movies considerably (thank God, DVD will also let us skip over Harry and Hermione dancing in Part 1).
First of all, a reminder that I'm not the hugest fan of the Deathly Hallows book. Long story short, my general sense about the movie is about the same as with Part 1, only generally more favorable because of the portion of the story captured. With a few small exceptions, the adaptation itself is about as strong as you could want. By and large, deviations from the source made perfect sense within the characterizations given in the movies and the nature of the medium. More important, the aspects of the book that I found most frustrating -- The Hallows, wand lore, Gringotts -- were minimized to the extent possible, while full attention was paid to the most important factors -- Snape's past, King's Cross, and others. In fact, I came into the theater thinking "If they handle Snape right, that will account for all other sins." And while I mostly feel they did this and more, I can't quite give it a completely free pass.
See, there were too many moments that just seemed...manufactured. Scenes that wanted to be emotional rarely were, and the execution just had a number of moments where it just didn't feel all there. It seemed, at times, like they were including sequences because they knew that the fans would be clamoring for them and just letting it ride on that fact. In general, I'd say that the more people who were on the screen, the less honest anything seemed. The core cast continues to be largely phenomenal, but the Wizarding World somehow felt less real than ever. Heck, early on, even the small moments seemed a little bit too rushed and matter-of-fact.
I want to end on a positive note, though. Even if it will never be the first Harry Potter film I reach for on a lazy day, Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 was an enjoyable time and a worthy ending to one of the most lucrative film franchises of all time. I'd really like to watch a cut of this and part 1 blended together to eliminate the handful of redundancies and see if I still have problems with some of the early pacing or if the momentum carries. I suspect that it would, elevating both movies considerably (thank God, DVD will also let us skip over Harry and Hermione dancing in Part 1).
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Brave New World
I've been meaning to read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World for ages. I picked up a cheap copy at a Borders' liquidation sale last March and just got around to reading it while I was traveling the past couple of weeks. All I can really say is: "meh". There are interesting things, but I described the book to a friend who had never read it as thus: The first two chapters, where we learn about the conditioning process that occurs from fertilization through adolescent development for all citizens is very fascinating. Chapters 17 and 18, where our would-be protagonists talk with the Controller about God, Science, Truth, and Beauty and their lack of place in a harmonious society are interesting. Everything else is whiny bitches.
Really, this is a problem with plenty of "dystopian" fiction. It's so concerned with portraying its authors personal take on why humanity is screwed that it feels it doesn't need to tell a compelling story or provide characters with realistic motivations. It's like reading a Platonic dialogue for the plot rather than the philosophy: you're just going to be irked by how much of a Mary Jane Socrates is. In Plato, though, this is tolerable because there really isn't any action beyond the discussion and the philosophy. In Brave New World and other books of its ilk, however, the plot is meant to be somehow meaningful, or at least illustrative, and it takes up a much more significant proportion of the proceedings.
So, the fact that our "savage" and Bernard and, to a lesser extent, Heimholtz are all complete idiots is consistently annoying. Beyond even that, Huxley shoots his entire thesis in the foot with the fate of Bernard and Heimholtz by telling us that failures in the conditioning process are more common than we've been led to believe and that there are effectively numerous colonies of "normal" humans continuing to advance the race on the fringes of Utopia in the form of the Islands. That we then finish the book with a long and completely pointless chapter following John's fate is pointless. We know damn well that, were he not a "savage" and a "social experiment" his grim end would be unneeded.
Furthermore, while Huxley does a good job in early chapters of seeming to take his society seriously and as the norm, the tone becomes increasingly tongue-in-cheek as he delves into the more ridiculous suppositions. The community sing culminating in the mass orgy, for instance, is just absurd. I get that real art is supposed to have disappeared, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire sequence is a chore to read through between the songs and the sudden, inexplicable sexual frenzy that sweeps through. Contrasted to the very well written early portions where Lenina is being scolded for her borderline monogamy (ridiculous, but believable), it's a sad failure. Further, the notion of "Ford" instead of god just became more and more painful as it entered into the character's vocabulary. As what I believed to be a tongue-in-cheek idea in the foreword, I could deal with it. As a foundational aspect of society, it just seemed utterly unbelievable -- though this has more to do with a problem I'll discuss at the end.
Finally, everything to do with the "reservation" is also just poorly executed. The notion that all world religions would have merged over hundreds of years just shows an unnecessary lack of respect for all of them. To be franks, an equally offensive (to a theist) and far more likely suggestion is that religious warfare would have wiped out the remaining "uncivilized" regions or left them with a handful of small factions fighting over scarce resources. Disease, poverty, and monogomy, not simple greed or other human instincts stamped out or tempered by the conditioning process, seem to be the reasons for the reservations to be in such disarray.
That said, Huxley has a lot of interesting ideas about what it would take in order for individuals to live as willing slaves of the government. Specifically, he focuses on the fairly obvious notion of control via the carrot. By keeping people content, you keep them from questioning you. The genetic selection, developmental behavioral training, and biological "surrogate" drugs provide the foundation for this contentment, which is then maintained throughout life by three societal pillars: Soma helps to manage those inevitable moments of disappointment and sadness. The elimination of the family in favor of government "hatcheries" and indoctrination centers reduces the odds of personal attachment and thus strong emotional reactions to overpower logic. Societally expected promiscuity works on both effects.
It's a fascinating approach, but one that time has shown to be absurd.
First of all, Huxley lived in a time where Freud was still taken somewhat seriously and where Psychology was synonymous with Behaviorism. This is no longer the case. We know so much more about the brain and how it operates now that it becomes trivial to question the basic premises upon which so much of the conditioning process is based. More important, though, is the fact that Huxley assumed a society that would continue in the wake of industrialization. He had no idea, even in his addenda and commentary, that the microcomputer, much less The Internet, was on the horizon. Mass, immediate access to information completely obliterates Huxley's future, and while a future where such technology is squashed away, the process to get there would be more violent -- and certainly more prolonged -- even than the war he suggests led to the founding of Utopia.
Of course, The Internet provides plenty of opportunity for a parallel road into a similar future. We have the sort of constant, superficial contact with people that Huxley predicted in the form of social networking. We can sit and anesthetize ourselves to our ills and those of the world by overloading on news to the point that we lose our capacity to care or by playing games or by watching cat videos. The important distinction, though, is that these problems are not government imposed or even sanctioned. They are self inflicted. Fortunately, we live in a society that has smart enough to recognize that Internet addiction and information overload are actual problems. Unfortunately, we also live in a society that continues to pursue ubiquitous computing and the social isolation it promotes before we've begun to solve the problems of the current generation of technology. I'm hopeful, but...we'll see.
Really, this is a problem with plenty of "dystopian" fiction. It's so concerned with portraying its authors personal take on why humanity is screwed that it feels it doesn't need to tell a compelling story or provide characters with realistic motivations. It's like reading a Platonic dialogue for the plot rather than the philosophy: you're just going to be irked by how much of a Mary Jane Socrates is. In Plato, though, this is tolerable because there really isn't any action beyond the discussion and the philosophy. In Brave New World and other books of its ilk, however, the plot is meant to be somehow meaningful, or at least illustrative, and it takes up a much more significant proportion of the proceedings.
So, the fact that our "savage" and Bernard and, to a lesser extent, Heimholtz are all complete idiots is consistently annoying. Beyond even that, Huxley shoots his entire thesis in the foot with the fate of Bernard and Heimholtz by telling us that failures in the conditioning process are more common than we've been led to believe and that there are effectively numerous colonies of "normal" humans continuing to advance the race on the fringes of Utopia in the form of the Islands. That we then finish the book with a long and completely pointless chapter following John's fate is pointless. We know damn well that, were he not a "savage" and a "social experiment" his grim end would be unneeded.
Furthermore, while Huxley does a good job in early chapters of seeming to take his society seriously and as the norm, the tone becomes increasingly tongue-in-cheek as he delves into the more ridiculous suppositions. The community sing culminating in the mass orgy, for instance, is just absurd. I get that real art is supposed to have disappeared, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire sequence is a chore to read through between the songs and the sudden, inexplicable sexual frenzy that sweeps through. Contrasted to the very well written early portions where Lenina is being scolded for her borderline monogamy (ridiculous, but believable), it's a sad failure. Further, the notion of "Ford" instead of god just became more and more painful as it entered into the character's vocabulary. As what I believed to be a tongue-in-cheek idea in the foreword, I could deal with it. As a foundational aspect of society, it just seemed utterly unbelievable -- though this has more to do with a problem I'll discuss at the end.
Finally, everything to do with the "reservation" is also just poorly executed. The notion that all world religions would have merged over hundreds of years just shows an unnecessary lack of respect for all of them. To be franks, an equally offensive (to a theist) and far more likely suggestion is that religious warfare would have wiped out the remaining "uncivilized" regions or left them with a handful of small factions fighting over scarce resources. Disease, poverty, and monogomy, not simple greed or other human instincts stamped out or tempered by the conditioning process, seem to be the reasons for the reservations to be in such disarray.
That said, Huxley has a lot of interesting ideas about what it would take in order for individuals to live as willing slaves of the government. Specifically, he focuses on the fairly obvious notion of control via the carrot. By keeping people content, you keep them from questioning you. The genetic selection, developmental behavioral training, and biological "surrogate" drugs provide the foundation for this contentment, which is then maintained throughout life by three societal pillars: Soma helps to manage those inevitable moments of disappointment and sadness. The elimination of the family in favor of government "hatcheries" and indoctrination centers reduces the odds of personal attachment and thus strong emotional reactions to overpower logic. Societally expected promiscuity works on both effects.
It's a fascinating approach, but one that time has shown to be absurd.
First of all, Huxley lived in a time where Freud was still taken somewhat seriously and where Psychology was synonymous with Behaviorism. This is no longer the case. We know so much more about the brain and how it operates now that it becomes trivial to question the basic premises upon which so much of the conditioning process is based. More important, though, is the fact that Huxley assumed a society that would continue in the wake of industrialization. He had no idea, even in his addenda and commentary, that the microcomputer, much less The Internet, was on the horizon. Mass, immediate access to information completely obliterates Huxley's future, and while a future where such technology is squashed away, the process to get there would be more violent -- and certainly more prolonged -- even than the war he suggests led to the founding of Utopia.
Of course, The Internet provides plenty of opportunity for a parallel road into a similar future. We have the sort of constant, superficial contact with people that Huxley predicted in the form of social networking. We can sit and anesthetize ourselves to our ills and those of the world by overloading on news to the point that we lose our capacity to care or by playing games or by watching cat videos. The important distinction, though, is that these problems are not government imposed or even sanctioned. They are self inflicted. Fortunately, we live in a society that has smart enough to recognize that Internet addiction and information overload are actual problems. Unfortunately, we also live in a society that continues to pursue ubiquitous computing and the social isolation it promotes before we've begun to solve the problems of the current generation of technology. I'm hopeful, but...we'll see.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Brief Thoughts on Kinect
Microsoft Research has finally released its free SDK for developing Windows applications that utilize Kinect -- the natural user interface device originally sold as an Xbox 360 peripheral.
I've never thought much of Kinect as a game controller. As much time as Microsoft has spent trying to sell it over the last couple of E3s, the only really great thing they managed to do was sell it as a means of interfacing with the main menu hub. The games have all been iffy, especially attempts to integrate it into the traditional genres with anything other than voice recognition. It's hard to make immersive game experiences without any sort of controller, even if only because of constraints on the camera and physical movement of your avatar around the game environment. The result is sports minigames, dance games, and an assortment of on rails experiences -- not bad intrinsically, but certainly more limited than Microsoft wants us to believe.
Still, the basic interface manipulation powers -- both based on physical, three dimensional gesturing and voice recognition -- is potentially revelatory. Looking through the hacks that have been popping up since the initial release of the device, you can see so many applications for recognition of three dimensional movement of the hands and arms alone -- and this sort of tracking makes full body identification essential so as to not get distracted by other noise. I'm greatly hopeful for the sorts of applications that will result from heavier use of Kinect and other NUI devices in traditional computing.
Still, Microsoft was brilliant in releasing this as a toy first. Even if that isn't ever going to be the best use of the technology, we needed a phase where people were excited about the sheer novelty of this thing in order to develop a proper vocabulary for developing with it. Had this originally shipped as some much vaunted peripheral (a la the Magic Mouse), it would have been laughed at for its lack of support and non-existent consistency of use between applications. Instead, we had a period where that was expected because its primary purpose was as a fun diversion -- a way to sucker people out of their money instead of as a meaningful productivity tool. Months later now, we have experience determining current best practices for recognizing and translating certain behaviors and a proper set of verbs for describing interaction with this thing and an API for productivity development that supports these verbs out of the box.
Kudos, Microsoft. Here's hoping that you can pioneer NUI support in Windows 8 as you continue your positive trend of starting to give a damn about your customers.
I've never thought much of Kinect as a game controller. As much time as Microsoft has spent trying to sell it over the last couple of E3s, the only really great thing they managed to do was sell it as a means of interfacing with the main menu hub. The games have all been iffy, especially attempts to integrate it into the traditional genres with anything other than voice recognition. It's hard to make immersive game experiences without any sort of controller, even if only because of constraints on the camera and physical movement of your avatar around the game environment. The result is sports minigames, dance games, and an assortment of on rails experiences -- not bad intrinsically, but certainly more limited than Microsoft wants us to believe.
Still, the basic interface manipulation powers -- both based on physical, three dimensional gesturing and voice recognition -- is potentially revelatory. Looking through the hacks that have been popping up since the initial release of the device, you can see so many applications for recognition of three dimensional movement of the hands and arms alone -- and this sort of tracking makes full body identification essential so as to not get distracted by other noise. I'm greatly hopeful for the sorts of applications that will result from heavier use of Kinect and other NUI devices in traditional computing.
Still, Microsoft was brilliant in releasing this as a toy first. Even if that isn't ever going to be the best use of the technology, we needed a phase where people were excited about the sheer novelty of this thing in order to develop a proper vocabulary for developing with it. Had this originally shipped as some much vaunted peripheral (a la the Magic Mouse), it would have been laughed at for its lack of support and non-existent consistency of use between applications. Instead, we had a period where that was expected because its primary purpose was as a fun diversion -- a way to sucker people out of their money instead of as a meaningful productivity tool. Months later now, we have experience determining current best practices for recognizing and translating certain behaviors and a proper set of verbs for describing interaction with this thing and an API for productivity development that supports these verbs out of the box.
Kudos, Microsoft. Here's hoping that you can pioneer NUI support in Windows 8 as you continue your positive trend of starting to give a damn about your customers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)