In Professor Fullers lecture "Humanity 2.0: A 21st Century View of the 'Two Cultures' Problem", he discusses the 'modern artifice' of enhancement as the third historical phase of the 'humanity project'. Essentially this discusses issues of genetic engineering and biological enhancement as methods engaged to increase our more desirable qualities and thus become 'more fully human'. This raises a complexity of questions and conundrums. Being 'human' is as he states an artificial concept. But are we technically becoming machines if our natural genetic coding has been manipulated and altered? Programmable, as unborn fetuses our parents can decide on our IQ, our hair colour, our height, gender, talents by just adding and subtracting the appropriate DNA. What will happen to the quirky, hereditary, family traints? With increased genetic engineering skills and a desire to tamper with nature, I feel individuality will be increasingly under threat.
'What impact will this have on education?' The film 'Gattaca', by Andrew Niccol, explores the result of this concept. He raises the notion that the non-enhanced members of the community will become the new discriminated group.
"Vincent is one of the last "natural" babies born into a sterile, genetically-enhanced world, where life expectancy and disease likelihood are ascertained at birth. Myopic and due to die at 30, he has no chance of a career in a society that now discriminates against your genes, instead of your gender, race or religion." Cynan Rees; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/plotsummary
Assuming this all to be possible, initially only the wealthy sector would have the financial opportunity for such genetic manipulation. Would this change with time? I suspect a future with this sort of manipulative possibility would involve the gap of social opportunity widening further. The impact on the education project could be catastrophic. In our schools we already are experiencing technological inequalities, the 'haves' and the 'have nots' with basic computer, internet access and IWB technology available in some schools (usually wealthy cohort) more than others (less wealthy cohort).
Desert car
Northern Territory by Anah Creet
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
Sunday, 10 February 2013
Gamification, future technology and culture
The films 'Sight' and 'Future States' as well as the two advertisements for the future use of glass all set up a vision of a future where humans really have little choice about their interaction with technology. They show a vision of hard determinism and dystopian outcomes as consequences for humanities obsession with technology. Luddites or technology immigrants don't exist in these worlds where everyone must be technology savy or not be part of society.
Looking at the advertisements first. These both shared commonality in their vision. They both projected a world of interactive computerised glass, where information was at the fingertips for everyone, everything, everywhere, everyday. Transforming the way home, work and school environments function. Would it be as fabulous & utopian as the ads are portraying? From the MOOC discussions, many people felt this future was sterile and lacking original thought. These ads raise questions about programming control, information control and the quality of learning without first hand life experiences. Theorists supporting the notion of technology based learning through games, such as Pensky, seem to think this future is inevitable due to a changing in brain structure and hence learning styles. I am not sure I agree. There does appear to be a new culture evolving around technology and communication in the youth, however they still learn as humans have always learnt through hands on experience. A child learns to walk by getting up and falling over, the essence of learning a new thing hasn't changed. As a teacher and a parent these experiences, especially when enjoyable, still hold the greatest retention in a child's memory. However I guess only the future will truly tell us what will happen.
Secondly the two short films, Sight and Future States, both project a view of a world where there is some kind of nanny state embedded into the society. Technology has become so symbiotic with the expectations of life that humans implant computerised components into their bodies in order to function within the culture. In 'Sight' this computerisation has humans computerised via their 'Sight'. This film raises questions about the ethics of gaming, corruption and manipulation of personal identities, safety and data in a world where everything is connected to some massive information web. I feel this film shares similarities to the Matrix, humans living through some kind of computer system as well as the connections to gaming. 'Future State' was, for me, an anecdote to this world view. To belong in the society everyone was chipped. However Charlie, a 13 year old, defies the system. He acts as an individual and chooses his own future, free from the machine. I found this refreshing in comparison to 'Sight', because it showed there will always be the rebels, the questioners, the critical thinkers and those that resist following for the sake of following. Without these individuals, the world truly would be the dull and mundane existence projected in the future glass advertisements.
Questions I have been asking myself about the future raised this week are: How can these types of technology truly be used without manipulation or personal agenda, for authentic learning in the future? How can we as the creators of such technology minimize the potential negative consequences, such as dumbing down, or the censoring and manipulation of information? And can the use of extrinsic rewards and gamification really change the way the human brain learns or is it just a ploy by media investors?
Please note the films are in my resources pages if you wish to view them.
Looking at the advertisements first. These both shared commonality in their vision. They both projected a world of interactive computerised glass, where information was at the fingertips for everyone, everything, everywhere, everyday. Transforming the way home, work and school environments function. Would it be as fabulous & utopian as the ads are portraying? From the MOOC discussions, many people felt this future was sterile and lacking original thought. These ads raise questions about programming control, information control and the quality of learning without first hand life experiences. Theorists supporting the notion of technology based learning through games, such as Pensky, seem to think this future is inevitable due to a changing in brain structure and hence learning styles. I am not sure I agree. There does appear to be a new culture evolving around technology and communication in the youth, however they still learn as humans have always learnt through hands on experience. A child learns to walk by getting up and falling over, the essence of learning a new thing hasn't changed. As a teacher and a parent these experiences, especially when enjoyable, still hold the greatest retention in a child's memory. However I guess only the future will truly tell us what will happen.
Secondly the two short films, Sight and Future States, both project a view of a world where there is some kind of nanny state embedded into the society. Technology has become so symbiotic with the expectations of life that humans implant computerised components into their bodies in order to function within the culture. In 'Sight' this computerisation has humans computerised via their 'Sight'. This film raises questions about the ethics of gaming, corruption and manipulation of personal identities, safety and data in a world where everything is connected to some massive information web. I feel this film shares similarities to the Matrix, humans living through some kind of computer system as well as the connections to gaming. 'Future State' was, for me, an anecdote to this world view. To belong in the society everyone was chipped. However Charlie, a 13 year old, defies the system. He acts as an individual and chooses his own future, free from the machine. I found this refreshing in comparison to 'Sight', because it showed there will always be the rebels, the questioners, the critical thinkers and those that resist following for the sake of following. Without these individuals, the world truly would be the dull and mundane existence projected in the future glass advertisements.
Questions I have been asking myself about the future raised this week are: How can these types of technology truly be used without manipulation or personal agenda, for authentic learning in the future? How can we as the creators of such technology minimize the potential negative consequences, such as dumbing down, or the censoring and manipulation of information? And can the use of extrinsic rewards and gamification really change the way the human brain learns or is it just a ploy by media investors?
Please note the films are in my resources pages if you wish to view them.
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
MOOC beginning.
Hi, this is a learning process for me. I am currently studying a MOOC in E-Learning and Digital Culture, which is absolutely awesome by the way! As part of this course I am being challenged to step into the cyber world a fit further than I have before. I am exploring blogs, massive online discussion forums, Google + and I may even try.... the dreaded...the inane.... twitter!! I haven't gone that far yet, but I am trying to work out how best to interact with my fellow MOOCers and this appears to be a popular method. Anyway as part of this blog I will be posting course discussions, hopefully collating resources and generally learning how this whole blog thing works:) Cheers Anah
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)