— Originally posted at Fashioning Circuits —
The greatest improvements in medicine in the last few decades have been made possible by advances in technology. Today new personal and mobile technologies are just beginning to allow us to take charge of our own health and medicine. Smartphone apps compile data and provide solutions, and wearable technology such as fitness bands track movement, heart rate, and more. But this is just the start of a new wave of tech gadgets and apps that will revolutionize how we care for our bodies.
The sophistication and widespread availability of mobile technology for all aspects of healthcare are about to take off, and this advanced tech will help us to take responsibility for our own health. Mobile apps that help you count calories, lose weight, get fit, quit smoking, track your alcohol intake, or manage a specific health condition are already available and in use.
Health apps of the very near future will include the likes of Babylon, an app that books virtual appointments, tracks symptoms, and receives your prescriptions with no wait time. Or you might use WellDoc, which could be prescribed by your doctor to support chronic disease management “by integrating clinical, behavioral, and motivational applications with everyday technologies, like the internet and cell phone, to engage patients and healthcare providers in ways that dramatically improve outcomes and significantly reduce healthcare costs.”
“During the next five years, health apps will empower consumers to make improved and informed lifestyle choices leading to better health and reducing the risk of chronic disease,” says Damon Lightley, managing director at Genetic Apps, an app developer for the health, sports, medical, and pharma markets. “They’ll also enable healthcare professionals to detect diseases earlier and reduce care costs.”
Current wearable technology for healthcare includes fitness bands that track steps like Jawbone UP and Fitbit Flex, the Withings Pulse O2 which combines a pedometer with a heart rate and blood oxygen monitor, and Google Glass—which, among its myriad of uses, helps doctors to see more patient data in real time, hands free, and allows surgeons to better perform minimally invasive operations requiring reliance on imagery.
Some of the new and upcoming wearable technologies that are focused on improving health sound strange, but are currently under development: a shirt that detects irregular blood sugar levels, contact lenses that monitor changes in the retina, and intelligent fibers in clothing that keep track of your pulse, breathing, and heart rate. Other developments on the way include a smart sock that keeps track of people with Alzheimer’s disease, a skin patch that provides hypodermic injections throughout the day, and Digitsole—an insole that connects to a mobile device allowing you to adjust the temperature of your shoes, track activity, and also help adjust your posture.
Remember what I said about how great Codecademy was when I first tried it back in February?
I TAKE IT ALL BACK.
Maybe it’s the website, or maybe it’s the coding language, or maybe it’s just me, but this was the worst, most unbelievably frustrating thing I have had to do for this class. And this class has not been a cake walk!
Below is my research proposal for my EMAC 6300 class. It is not the same as my original ideas, which I found to be a bit difficult to research. I have also attached my proposal in a pdf file here:
Evolution of Digital Books vs. Physical Books
The history of the printed word—and thus physical book publishing—is rich with intrigue and vital cultural relevance. When Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, society began to undergo a fundamental change in the way people communicated and even their very thought processes. According to McLuhan, we live under a “typographic spell,” instituted by the creation of the printing press and the subsequent inundation of modern society with physical books and the ability to read them. Today it would be hard to imagine a world without books and all the vast and entangled changes that they have brought to society—many of which we may not even recognize.
Now we face a new chapter in the history of books in which they are being transformed into various digital formats for consumption by both readers who are long familiar with physical books, and new generations who are much more comfortable with all things digital. The printed book industry is facing major upheavals as the media transitions to digital formats. These changes will likely affect society in a similar way to the original printed word.
I want to explore the new forms that books are taking, and discover how readers are reacting to these forms. I hope to find out which formats are being favored, or if readers still prefer physical books on the whole. To narrow the focus of this paper, I will research several websites and digital book subscription offerings to discover what options are available and how they compare to one another. I expect that my findings will help me select a single media object, or maybe two or three for comparison, on which I can focus more carefully. I will also briefly review the history of book publishing and the relevant effects it has caused, to emphasize the magnitude of these new changes and provide background for the current status of the industry.
- How do new digital formats for books compare to each other and to physical books?
- What trends are emerging for digital book use vs. physical book use?
- Do book readers want to engage with literature the way they engage with magazines?
- Can they afford to do so? Will people sign up for yet another monthly charge?
- Will digital book subscribers have the intellectual bandwidth to consume what they bought? Does that matter?
- Will they come to trust or despise the online studios pushing books onto their phones and iPads any more or less than current physical book publishers?
Potential sources from outside of class:
Tate, R. (2014). The Future of Books Looks a Lot Like Netflix. Wired.com. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/business/2014/03/books-become-magazines/
Peterson, P. (2014) Love libraries? Then you’re probably ahead of the technological curve. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/03/13/love-libraries-then-youre-probably-ahead-of-the-technological-curve/
Open Library. Retrieved from https://openlibrary.org/
Nawotka, E. Bexar County’s Library on a Cloud. Texas Monthly. Retrieved from http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/bexar-countys-library-cloud
Allen, D. (2014). How Complexity Theory Affects Social Media, Streaming and Musicians. LinkedIn.com. Retrieved from http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140122193329-269150-complexity-theory-and-its-effect-on-social-media-streaming-music-services-and-musicians?goback=.nmp_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1&trk=nus-cha-roll-art-title
Potential sources from class readings:
Drahos and Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?
McLuhan, “The Medium is the Message”
“Maoism, formally known as Mao Zedong Thought, is a political theory derived from the teachings of the Chinese political leader Mao Zedong… Maoism sees the agrarian peasantry, rather than the working class, as the key revolutionary force which can fundamentally transform capitalist society towards socialism. Holding that ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,’ Maoist organizations mainly draw upon Mao’s ideology of the People’s War, mobilizing large parts of rural populations to revolt against established institutions by engaging in guerrilla warfare. Maoism views the industrial-rural divide as a major division exploited by capitalism, identifying capitalism as involving industrial urban developed ‘First World’ societies ruling over rural developing ‘Third World’ societies.”
“Although Maoism is critical of urban industrial capitalist powers, it views urban industrialization as a required prerequisite to expand economic development and socialist reorganization to the countryside, with the goal being the achievement of rural industrialization that would abolish the distinction between town and countryside.”
“Maoism can also refer to the egalitarianism that was seen during Mao’s era as opposed to the free-market ideology of Deng Xiaoping…”
“Egalitarianism… is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status… the term has two distinct definitions in modern English. It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralisation of power.”
…I took these definitions, amusingly, from Wikipedia. I needed something more to ground my understanding of the essay by Jaron Lanier, “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism,” as it has been some time since I studied world history.
When I first read through the essay, it seemed to make a lot of sense to me. I was surprised, therefore, to find that a number of other forward-thinking authorities on the subject appeared to disagree with Lanier, at least in some respect. The featured comments following Lanier’s essay offered a broader range of thoughts relating to the subject and Lanier’s chosen descriptive term, Digital Maoism. Reading through these prompted me to question whether I fully understood the concepts and his argument, and if I really agreed with what he was saying.
If Lanier’s basic points were these:
- Wikipedia is troublesome because, “A core belief of the wiki world is that whatever problems exist in the wiki will be incrementally corrected as the process unfolds,” but unfortunately, “Sometimes loosely structured collective activities yield continuous improvements and sometimes they don’t.”
- Online collectivism is hazardous because, “In the last year or two the trend has been to remove the scent of people, so as to come as close as possible to simulating the appearance of content emerging out of the Web as if it were speaking to us as a supernatural oracle. This is where the use of the Internet crosses the line into delusion.”
- He also says, “The beauty of the Internet is that it connects people. The value is in the other people. If we start to believe the Internet itself is an entity that has something to say, we’re devaluing those people and making ourselves into idiots.”
- But collectivism can be useful when, “The reason the collective can be valuable is precisely that its peaks of intelligence and stupidity are not the same as the ones usually displayed by individuals. Both kinds of intelligence are essential.”
- And also, “If the code that ran the Wikipedia user interface were as open as the contents of the entries, it would churn itself into impenetrable muck almost immediately. The collective is good at solving problems which demand results that can be evaluated by uncontroversial performance parameters, but bad when taste and judgment matter.”
- Lanier concludes with, “The hive mind should be thought of as a tool. Empowering the collective does not empower individuals — just the reverse is true. There can be useful feedback loops set up between individuals and the hive mind, but the hive mind is too chaotic to be fed back into itself.”
- And, “The illusion that what we already have is close to good enough, or that it is alive and will fix itself, is the most dangerous illusion of all. By avoiding that nonsense, it ought to be possible to find a humanistic and practical way to maximize value of the collective on the Web without turning ourselves into idiots. The best guiding principle is to always cherish individuals first.”
Then some of the points and counterpoints from responders that I found most valuable were these:
- Lanier’s piece hits a nerve because human life always exists in tension between our individual and group identities, inseparable and incommensurable. For ten years now, it’s been apparent that the rise of the digital was providing enormous new powers for the individual. It’s now apparent that the world’s networks are providing enormous new opportunities for group action. Understanding how these cohabiting and competing revolutions connect to deep patterns of intellectual and social work is one of the great challenges of our age. — Clay Shirky
- The bottom-up hive mind will always take us much further that seems possible. It keeps surprising us. In this regard, the Wikipedia truly is exhibit A, impure as it is, because it is something that is impossible in theory, and only possible in practice. It proves the dumb thing is smarter than we think. At that same time, the bottom-up hive mind will never take us to our end goal. We are too impatient. So we add design and top down control to get where we want to go. — Kevin Kelly
- This rich context, attached to many Wikipedia articles, is known as a “talk page.” The talk page is where the writers for an article hash out their differences, plan future edits, and come to agreement about tricky rhetorical points. This kind of debate doubtless happens in the New York Times and Britannica as well, but behind the scenes. Wikipedia readers can see it all, and understand how choices were made. — Fernanda Viegas & Matthew Wattenberg
- My response is quite simple: this alleged “core belief” is not one which is held by me, nor as far as I know, by any important or prominent Wikipedians. Nor do we have any particular faith in collectives or collectivism as a mode of writing. Authoring at Wikipedia, as everywhere, is done by individuals exercising the judgment of their own minds. — Jimmy Wales
- The debate does demonstrate how much we need to update our media literacy in a digital, distributed era. Our internal BS meters already work, but they’ve fallen into a low and sad level of use in the Big Media world. Many people tend to believe what they read. Others tend to disbelieve everything. Too few apply appropriate skepticism and do the additional work that true media literacy requires. — Dan Gillmor
- …collective action is not the same as collectivism. Commons-based peer production in Wikipedia, open source software, and prediction markets is collective action, not collectivism. Collective action involves freely chosen self-election (which is almost always coincident with self-interest) and distributed coordination; collectivism involves coercion and centralized control; treating the Internet as a commons doesn’t mean it is… — Howard Rheingold
And best of all, I felt, was the response by Esther Dyson. It seemed to me to be an argument slightly in disagreement with Lanier, and one where I can see both his points and hers, and agree with some of each.
I think the real argument is between voting or aggregating — where anonymous people raise or lower things in esteem by the weight of sheer numbers — vs. arguments by recognizable, individuals that answer the arguments of other individuals… Arguments may win or lose and a consensus argument or belief may arise, but it is structured, and emerges more finely shaped than what mere voting or “collectivism” would have produced.
That’s why we have representative government — in theory at least. Certain people — designated “experts” — sit together to design something that is supposed to be coherent. (That’s the vision, anyway.) You can easily vote both for lower taxes and more services, but you can’t design a consistent system that will deliver that.
So, to get the best results, we have people sharpening their ideas against one another rather than simply editing someone’s contribution and replacing it with another. We also have a world where the contributors have identities (real or fake, but consistent and persistent) and are accountable for their words. — Esther Dyson
I think just reading Lanier’s essay is a way to get an intelligent, but one-sided opinion. There are definitely multiple views on these issues, and the other writers here offer those quite eloquently. If I had just read the first part, I probably wouldn’t have fully understood the discussion.
It seems that the problem with collectives OR collectivism can be quite real, but that perhaps Lanier did a disservice to his argument by not fully recognizing the extent of his examples. I agree with his ultimate conclusion, but I also agree with the other writers here who suggest that Wikipedia isn’t such a murky collectivism as Lanier perceives it to be, and that it and similar sites that offer “collective action” are more coordinated and intelligently designed than they might appear.