12 Shocking Ideas That Could Change the World

Shaun Saunders sends in this thought provoking article found in Wired Magazine. It is in fact 112 Shocking Ideas that could change the world. Shocking...yeah, that's a good euphemism!

Who remember's "The Minority Report"? Three mentally challenged people used to ferret out future crimes? Well Thorkil Sonne wants to Recruit Autistics for various positions in business and government. Sonne already has founded Specialisterne (Danish for "Specialists"), an IT consultancy that hires mostly people with autism-spectrum disorders. Sonne's "specialists" have already demonstrated proof of concept finding software errors for Microsoft and Cisco.

John Arquilla want to go on a Cyberoffensive. He'd like the US military's coders to team up with network specialists abroad to form a global geek squad. Together, they could launch preemptive online strikes to head off real-world battles. Today's armed forces around the world depend on digital communications. Such an attack would cripple a countries ability to communicate with it's forces. It is suspected that some countries already use this method in secrecy, Arquilla says, do it openly in the hopes that countries would think twice about progressing with ANY attack.

Gregg Easterbrook says "Embrace Human Cloning" Do you know any clones? How many? I know several. Far from being "monstrous perversions of nature" somehow "less than human" however clones in nature are common place. Twins. Far from being unnatural cloning is the pinnacle of the natural process of passing on one's genes. As Easterbrook suggests "In vitro fertilization was once seen as depraved God-playing and is now embraced, even by many of the devoutly religious. Cloning could be a blessing for the infertile"

How about the story "With folded hands"? Well Ralph Keeney suggests that we can cheat death. How? Well Keeney suggests that most people are the agents of their own demise. "A remarkable 55 percent of deaths for people age 15 to 64 can be attributed to decisions with readily available alternatives." What does that mean exactly? Many deaths in the US are due to personal choices—things like smoking, overeating, or unsafe sex. Keeney states that we are facing an epidemic of ignorance. Keeney says that some workplaces disqualify smokers as job candidates and alcoholics are often denied liver transplants. Kenny suggests we could deploy costlier health insurance for the obese, or criminalizing texting while driving.

These and many shocking and or frightening suggestions from radicals, heretics, agitators—big thinkers with controversial, game-changing propositions. Click here for the complete Wired list

What happens when advertising becomes less passive & more invasive

It is no surprise to BMU long timers that Shaun Saunders looks at advertising a bit askew and corporate involvement with thinly veiled hostility. Shaun sends in an article from New Scientist that once again demonstrates how advertising is becoming less general and through the use of technology, much more targeted and personal. The pervasiveness in the future of this type of technology is frightening and the invasive nature which under any other circumstances would be considered invasion of privacy is clearly unnerving.

Read the article first here and here is Shaun's submission on advertising and technology

While advertisers say that their new technology will allow more careful targeting of specific consumer demographics (and hence less wastage), the upshot is, simply, the intent to make sure that the advertising message that reaches you has the most personal relevance, the most power. While this has always been the aim of advertising, it must be considered that the way in which people are 'communicated' to is the point, and more specifically targeted persuasion is just that: the next step up in the grab for control of your thoughts and behaviours.

The question is, can the average person decipher what is being done to them here?

Let's take a historical perspective on this issue: according to Pratkanis and Aronson, authors of ‘Age of Propaganda’, in ancient Greece, all citizens were considered equal, with the expectation that they would be able to speak on their own behalf. In fact, their court system required citizens to plead their own cases before a jury of their neighbours. With this in mind, the average Greek citizen was highly motivated to learn how to form arguments and persuasively communicate their point of view: if they failed, they might lose their reputation and the togas off their backs as a result of a petty lawsuit.

It’s not surprising then that the average Greek citizen's education in the 3rd century BC included 4 yrs of rhetoric designed to teach them how to dissemble and construct persuasive arguments.

Roman students in the 1st century also studied persuasion, while students at Harvard in the US in the seventeenth century also learned how to get their point across: for four years, they would spend every Friday afternoon honing their proficiency at this by taking a stand on an issue, defending it and disparaging the opposition’s position (i.e., debating).

Could the average person today do this or defend themselves in court? I doubt it, but remember also though that these people lived in a world very different to ours – in the absence of TV, Twitter, radio, and before newsprint became widely circulated, how many religious sermons might a church attendee hear in his or her life? 3000? And how long does a sermon last for? I don't attend church, so I'll guess – 15 min to an hour???

Pratkanis and Aronson make the point that we, on the other hand, live in a message-dense or "over-communicated society", and remind us that the average American will be exposed to at least 7 million advertisements in their lifetime. Unlike sermons, though, advertisements (like modern news headlines) are usually short and simple. There is no debate, no invitation to discuss, and also little chance to fall asleep. They are very carefully crafted, bright fragments of information designed to lodge deep in your mind, quietly working even when you’re not aware, and sometimes very hard to remove.

The information overload applies equally to the workplace – since the advent of email, how much info do you receive, and how much attention do you give to it? And what about paper mail? Well, advertisers are hell bent on making sure that you DO pay attention to what they have to say...and there are a hell of a lot of them who want to talk to YOU. NOW.

Is the average modern person – is anyone – prepared for even more sophisticated forms of persuasion? Don't forget, the new technologies are designed to target advertising (and other) messages to individuals' personal characteristics, not broad groups. And with the grim possibility of individual RFID chipping peeking from around the next corner, the software will hardly stop at a quick assessment of your gender and where you're looking. The advertising software might have immediate access to an avalanche of your personal, financial, and medical data from which it can
finetune its message:

..."Like a new car Suzy, but don't have a great credit rating? We can fix that!"

"Jim! Been worried about your blood pressure / cholesterol/ weight lately? Ask your medical practitioner about Shonkyl today!"...

It may also no longer be a one-sided issue of walking away from a sidewalk poster or video message that doesn't interest you. The tech outlined in the article (and in books like my own 'Mallcity 14') will not let you go that easily...if it misses the first time, I'd bet that the programs will regroup, perhaps choose a different algorithm, a new strategy, and try again. Will there be any escape from the consumer maze?

It's one thing to choose to walk past a conventional billboard and ignore it. But what if that billboard - every new billboard, and more - is backed by programming and algorithms designed by the brightest computer experts, craftiest mindbenders and good 'ole fashioned advertisers, with access to your most intimate details (did you forget about that racy vid you bought online when you thought no one was looking, or that special gift for a special friend? The Billboards won't...). It's really a one sided battle - no matter where you go, that billboard's brother or sister will be ready to hit you with the most persuasive arguments, and they won't tire like you will. You'll be pleading a case, all day every day with the most powerful electronic judge and jury who perhaps know more about you and what you've done than you do.

No matter what you call it - '1984', 'Brave New World', 'Mallcity 14', 'Big Brother' or 'Little Brother', the outcome will be the same.

Your place in the maze is being reserved right now.

Summer time on Fox

Gratuitous posting alert!!! yep, I have seen the first two episodes of The Sarah Connor Chronicles and I have to say that I am not overly impressed. Wait though, compared to what the Sci-Fi channel kept and threw away? No more SG-1 but ran Flash Gordon? Yeah if we want to compare the crack heads' over at Sci-Fi programming, well Sarah Connor Chronicles is award winning television! And so what is the big draw for TSCC? Anyone who has watched, knows already. But for the uninitiated, Summer Glau late of Fire Fly is now John Connor's ass kicking mecha body guard. And without trying to sound to punny....Summer has really come into her season. In Fire Fly, I totally bought her character, not that her newest gig, calls for much acting range - However Summer walks that fine edge where she always appears to be not quite "getting it" and still remain believable as an emotionless killer. ( after putting 2 into the black market id provider, she replies to to Sarah's query as to why she did it "Because I knew you couldn't" done completely deadpan...) You have to admit, as a terminator, she is a complete package. Ok Ok, I just wanted an excuse to post a pic! I confess!

An Open Letter to the Sci-Fi Channel

Now you have heard me bitch about the Sci-fi channel's idiotic scheduling and show choices. I didn't think I could be that far off, and according to Marc Bernardin over at PopWatch blog, I am not. Marc echoes all my complaints over the past fuew months very well indeed! Here is a cut from the "letter"

Dearest Sci-Fi,

Why are you not way more awesome?

Don't get me wrong, when you're good—like with Battlestar Galactica or Eureka (and I'll even give you credit for Doctor who, despite that being a BBC show you just imported)—you're a phenomenal destination network. But let's be honest here, there's not a lot of "good" on your schedule. The Stargate franchise is stale, Flash Gordon (right) is a derisible, stillborn remake, and ECW Wrestling is…wrestling! (And I swore an oath never to speak of Who Wants to Be a Superhero again.)

He goes on for a bit more, and it's great fun, and he makes some really good point to book. Click here to read more

The Difference Between SciFi and Fantasy

From Unabashed via SFSignals, Matt Mitchell takes on a subject that has fueled many an argument. What exactly is the difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction? Matt posits that science fiction differentiates itself from fantasy by being believable. He writes:

We believe it because we want to believe fantastic things are possible, and this is especially the case with readers of SciFi. One advantage SciFi has over fantasy, however, is that SciFi generally resounds with possibility. Even though its ideas may be impossible now, one who has the foresight to dream of tomorrow can see the inherent potential in virtually any work of SciFic.

There are two basic ways to write fantasy, and neither of them have to be believable in the least:

1. Real world, whether it be historical or modern-day.
2. Other world, in which another universe is created specifically for the story.

The rest of his short article is equally interesting and thought provoking. click here to read more

Great OP-ED Philip K. Dick piece in the NYT

I won't copy over the text from the NYT, but if you would really like to read a well written op/ed write up on Philip K. Dick, click over to the site on the New York Times and check out this little jem. I really enjoyed it. (pac)

Thanks to Nelson Cole for the Post

click here for the op/ed piece