I think it’s wrong to choose a definition for Cyberspace. Cyberspace is about the future and by choosing a definition for it (even if it’s from a most highly esteemed professor’s list), we destroy everything that cyberspace stands for. Yes cyberspace is about increasing technology; yes cyberspace is about computers; yes cyberspace is about research, but morally, cyberspace simply should not have a list of attributes. It deceives us into thinking cyberspace is ultimately a good thing and therefore controllable. Humans think that if we can include something in a list, it means it has been catalogued and thus easier to influence. This is when Cyberspace appears harmless. The maxim (meaning the philosophical term) of any technology is catastrophic to humanity as beings with free will because what is meant to make our lives easier ends up taking them over completely.
Cyberspace is about eventually combining all technologies to completely destroy human kind. You think I’m joking. Cyberspace is about making humans not human. Cyberspace is a suicidal venture…without death. A perpetually zombie existence. People always talk about the zombie apocalypse, but the problem is that zombies exist today, in the form of people who spend all their time on computers, or texting or in some other way being absorbed by what is referred to as Cyberspace.
Yes Cyberspace is all the things on the list, you got me… But none of these items contain the goal or the purpose of cyberspace, which is far more ominous and important, I think, than providing a “list of cyberspace attributes.”
The goal of Cyberspace is to escape who you really are. It provides this by offering one or more of the following promises:
1. Escape being tortured by mental problems (remembering people’s phone numbers for example)
2. Escape being tortured by emotional problems (I have no friends and I can be popular on “SecondLife”)
3. Escape being tortured by physical problems (I can run fast… without real legs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-466904/The-fastest-man-legs-Olympics-sights.html)
Cyberspace is the bane of humanity, because it takes away weakness and covers up our flaws (botox, spellcheck, etc.). It is the culmination of technologies that, when classified as individual technologies are not always harmful.
Some people may say that anything, even a pond in the case of Narcissus, can serve as a tool for destruction, and this is true, but the difference between Cyberspace and a pond is that cyberspace is often used contrary to it’s original purpose. A pond was not invented to have someone stare endlessly into it until they die. The existence of Cyberspace is solely to allow people to escape themselves. Yes, perhaps they have a terrible life and they NEED the brain scanner thingy in order to communicate with their loved ones (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230092/Rom-Houben-Patient-trapped-23-year-coma-conscious-along.html) Which is fine and dandy but it doesn’t excuse the fact that by creating this machine which helps this one man, eventually will result in millions eventually becoming zombies.
3 comments:
Brandon,
Even though your post has the tone of blatant pessimism, I think I understand what you're getting at. You make an important point.
However, at the same time that you believe that trying to define cyberspace would be immoral, I believe cyberspace itself was/is inevitable given the evolution of technology, and that cyberspace itself is amoral. There's plenty of things that fit that trait. Take money for instance; it isn't bad, but the love of it is. Greed casues plenty of bad. I make this point simply to say that you're right in the sense that when you throw in the human equation into any amoral circumstance, it is definitely possible to come out with an immoral result. Its not the tool's fault solely, is it? I would bet immorality solely on problem that is human nature. Sure, we'll undermine the "right" thing for convenience any day. This of course is a brash generalization, but I hope I made my point.
I think cyberspace exists, not because of some twisted dark fantasy like in the old sci-fi books, but because implanted in people (please don't start a nature vs. nuture argument) are visions of the idyllic (like Benedikt's reference to the "Heavenly City") and the exponential increase and expediency of technology and flow of information meeting at a happy medium so to speak.
But ya, here's to hoping we have the desire to live in the real world without the fear of a sudden disconnect down the road. I kinda feel naked without my cell phone already...eek
Obviously humans create technology, but the danger is when technology begins to create itself. Which probably won't happen. And I hope you get credit for making this post :)
I should just let Josh respond to everything. That would work out well for me!
Post a Comment