Narrative 1: Freedom Sight

In the early 20th century, ads were everywhere and it only seemed like they would become increasingly invasive in people’s lives. There was no way to turn them off in public spaces — Facebook, Instagram, billboards that one must cross — and spaces where they can be turned off came at a cost (click here for the article, Attention Dictatorship in the Early 20th Century). It took another 60 years for people to raise the question, is it ethical that the freedom of vision is not guaranteed when so many other personal freedoms were? It was an absurd period in history where the freedom to bear arms in the former United States of America (click here for the article, The Dissolution of the United States) was so fought for, along with the freedom of speech, including hate speech, while people’s attention economy was at the complete mercy of big companies. Multiple studies revealed that ads were shaping decisions, behaviours, and values in profound ways (click here for the article, Are Your Thoughts Yours? and Why Flat Earth Believers Surged in 2028). Arguably, the most publicized UN Supreme Court case, Martin vs. Instagram, pushed public demand for governments to instate freedom of vision (click here for the article, Why Judge Corseau ruled that Martin’s Heart Attack was Instagram’s Doing). What followed this historic case was the #righttovision movement on social media (click here for the article, Why Sally Gauged her Eyes Out). And yet, governments failed to make any changes to regulate ads. And why should they when they were being lobbied excessively by companies who were making money off of ads, who were simultaneously targeting favourable ads to government officials? The final straw was when textile giant, Fabricate, began selling time on their infits to companies, after 25 years of giving its users 100% control over the content on their clothes (click here for the article, The Unraveling of Fabricate). For our younger readers, there was a time when clothes were static. Such items were called ‘outfits’ (click here for the article, Top 10 Infit Downloads). It came at no one’s surprise when companies like Freedom Sight and Vision Void began to crop up all over the world, offering services to eliminate ads in ways that AdBlock on browsers never could. Freedom Sight and Vision Void, the two giants in the industry competed until 91% of the world’s population had one of their implants. A Red Queen dynamic quickly ensued between companies developing new technology and new methods of ad delivery (click here for the article, IR and UV Ads) and Freedom Sight and Vision Void developing better recognition and blocking technology in their implants. And now, we arrive at the world’s current predicament. What is to be done about the thought disparity between those who can and those who cannot afford to block ads? (click here for articles, Children Without FV/VV Implants Are Less Creative, Should Politicians Without FV/VV Implants Be Elected To Office, Blindness On the Rise from Black Market FV/VV Implants, and Should Babies Receive FV/VV Implants?).

Jane Foley received her implant from Freedom Vision when she was 30 when she sold her great-great grandparents’ antique, non-self driving car, for $50 000 to a collector, and could afford a tier 3 implant. Until then, she lived her life immersed in the ad world. Only 5% of individuals receive their implants after the age of 15. Thus, Jane has a unique ability to reflect and understand the experiences of implanted and non-implanted people. She has been with Pacific Review for 9 years as a reoccurring guest journalist. 

———————————————————

Narrative 2:

Utopia
From Songs from Ustralia, 2061

It began with the rise of the mighty
The rise of the tiny
The rise of the mighty
One small bite and you get a nasty
It really is ghastly
It really is nasty

Tick tock, tick tock
Small bite, impact of a Glock
And you wonder why you ever left your block
To go into the woods, tick tock, tick tock

What used to smell so wonderful
Now warns of something so harmful
What used to cause the mouth to water
Now you double over and falter

Just one taste, it’s ok, you will survive!
Just one bite, it’s ok you will revive!
No such thing, covered in hives
No such thing, the new age arrives

It began with the rise of the mighty
The rise of the tiny
The rise of the mighty
One small bite and you get a nasty
It really is ghastly
It really is nasty

An idea! Problem solved!
Us humans will be evolved!
Convert the compound into aerosol!
It just may save the planet, and us all!

And so in secret, the compound was bred
And so in secret, the compound was spread
Into the water, into the wind
It landed in the eyes and on the skin

Just one taste, surely you’ll survive!
Just one bite, surely you’ll revive!
No such thing, covered in hives
No such thing, the new age arrives

And so ranches became branches
And pens became cleanses
Steaks became dates
And chops became crops

Goodbye polluting farming
Goodbye global warming
Hello healthy living
Hello arteries clearing

That smell that was so wonderful
What was it, we are forgetful
That red that made our bellies full
What was it, we are forgetful

It was built on the backs of the mighty
With the strength of the tiny
The secrets from the mighty
One exposure and you get a nasty
Is it really ghastly?
Is it really nasty?
This Utopia?

———————————————————

Reflection: I began this narrative by contemplating this thought in Dunne & Raby (2013), that problems that seem unsolvable can only be approached by changing our values, attitudes, and behaviour. I can think of no bigger problem than climate change and how unsuccessful one solution is — eat less meat. By eating less meat, we would produce less greenhouse gases and use less land in the raising of livestock. Although veganism is trending and a significant number of people know about this solution, little is done. This is because it is difficult to change our attitudes and values around diet. I mean, meat just tastes so good; I made roast for dinner. We are a consumer society and “it is through buying goods that reality takes shape” (Dunne & Raby, 2013, p. 37). Because the demand for meat is always present, abolishing the livestock industry is a “rejected reality”.

So how do we move the immovable object that is our cravings? Well, instead of focusing on how to change attitudes and values, what if we just eliminate the attitude and value altogether? What if we could design a way to make people get physically sick upon ingesting meat? Surely, the demand for meat would decrease. This technology, would fall under the “possible” cone in Dunne & Raby’s (2013) potential future diagram. Such technology may not be plausible due to the hurdles in ethics (is it ethical to force people to dislike something?), it may not be “probable”, and it certainly is not “preferable” by the individual who would like to continue to enjoy their steaks and bacon. Technology does not always have to be “good” to start, but perhaps it could be good in the long run if the results are overwhelmingly beneficial to humankind. I envision a world with this dark design whereby the most effective ways of change — protests, boycotts, and critical consumerism — are forced (Dunne & Raby, 2013). If an ideal society is a sustainable one, then our current reality where meat is not only consumed, but overconsumed, is an absolute failure.

My poem was inspired by the news article, “Red Meat Allergies Caused by Tick Bites are on the Rise” and a CBC video. The ticks are referenced in the poem as “the mighty” and “the tiny” as such a small creature can cause huge behaviour changes in a person. They are also referenced in the line “tick tock” which alludes to the time between a tick bite and the onset of symptoms, and the time between a bite of meat and the onset of an allergic reaction. At the end of the poem, “the mighty” refers to the scientists who made the decision to use the compounds in a tick bite to change the human population. They must have endured a heavy ethical burden. I imagine that this speculative event took place after global warming became even more pronounced than it is now. The scientists enacted their solution to the problem in Australia where the compound’s spread could be limited to just one continent. Initially met with anger, citizens quickly realized that the outcome was pretty beneficial for the environment and their health. The solution was eventually embraced and red meat was forgotten. Australia became Ustralia as people began to put themselves at the front and center of solving the climate crisis. It also signifies the removal of cattle ranches because beef is graded with the letter, A.

———————————————————

References

Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

My initial response to this week’s task of data analysis is an overwhelming sense of frustration and confusion. The only things included in the data are the song names, how many times a song was selected, and the name of the person who selected it. Other than seeing the popularity of the song by looking at how many times it was selected in the class, nothing else can really be said. I find it absurd that with just this small bit of data, we have to try to make profound conclusions about the political standing of our peers, what generation everyone belongs to, the personalities or preferences of the participants, or what similar traits ties us together. To do any of these deep analyses, data on demographics need to be included – each person’s age, cultural background, gender, sex, profession, etc. Almost nothing can be gleaned from a person’s name only, other than maybe their sex. Even then, it is tricky because some names are unisex, and others come from cultures that I know very little about. To do just a little bit of analysis, I would have to go to everyone’s blog to try and pull all this personal information from.

Even the idea of how popular a song is by virtue of how many times it was selected, is misleading. What does it mean to be popular? I am certain that everyone in the class selected their songs using a different criterion. A song that was selected multiple times, was it its tune that was appealing, its diversity in instruments, or something else entirely? Track 7 Johnny B. Goode was selected 19 times. Was it selected because it is a catchy, upbeat song, or was it selected because it sounds so different than all the other songs, being the closest thing to pop music on the Golden Record? The 19 people, including myself, who selected it, are we all of a younger generation when compared with the rest of the class? It is impossible to know why Track 7 is so popular with just this limited data set.

I suppose this is why data mining is so huge on the web and why social media companies, like Facebook, are in the business of selling personal information. All the data collected from clicks, mouse hovering, purchases, mean very little compared to what could be concluded if personal information behind each click was gathered.

In thinking about this week’s content on search engines, the only conclusion I can make here is that if a search engine was built using this data, then Track 7 would be the first search result to appear if someone looked up the Golden Record. Track 7 would seem to be the most relevant result to this search engine because it was selected the greatest number of times by the class, therefore seeming to be the most important in the topic of the Golden Record. Tracks 8, 4, and 27 would appear last. Only three people chose these songs, so they have less value.

In my final attempt to make any conclusion at all from the data, I organized all the students in an outer ring and put all the songs in the middle. Because the only person I know in the data set is myself, I started to group the data to my own traits. I put people with Asian surnames near me and all other surnames on the opposite side. This was futile, of course, because just because a surname is Asian, doesn’t mean that that person grew up immersed in Asian culture. The person could have married an Asian person or could have been raised in the West since birth. I put my own song selection near my own name and all the songs that I didn’t choose on the opposite end as well.

The tracks that I chose and the total number of people who chose them are as follows:

• Track 7: 19
• Track 14: 16
• Track 12: 14
• Track 19: 11
• Track 6: 11
• Track 3: 11
• Track 11: 11
• Track 21: 7
• Track 1: 6
• Track 16: 5

Out of 23 students, a majority vote would be 12 students, or a song is selected 12 times. Out of my 10 tracks, I was in the majority three times (tracks 7, 14, 12) and in the minority seven times, which means that more people selected not to include the remaining 7 songs that I chose than people who did. This is not so bad considering that only 6 songs landed in the majority yes vote (tracks 7, 25, 14, 12, 11, 15), and I selected 3 out of those. So, what conclusions can be made here? I suppose this just says that I am average!

In looking at who had the greatest number of song selections in common with me, I anticipate that no one would have more than 5 songs in common with me. Musical taste is so personal and we were not restricted by any specific criterion to select the songs with that it is hard to imagine that any two people would share any more than 50% of their list. To my surprise, Megan Cleaveley and I chose 8/10 the same!

What does this say about the two of us? Nothing, because there is a lack of personal data to make conclusions from! Other than that we are both female, no other similarities between us can be gleaned from the data. If I selected my songs to be as diverse and different from each other as possible, perhaps she did something similar. Other classmates with 8/10 in common exist too, to my surprise, but only one other pair, Deirdre Dagar and James Seaton. The least number of songs in common between any pair of students is 2. I suppose the lesson here is that people will always share some similar ways in thinking, no matter how different they are. I realize, however, that the 23 of us are actually not that different if we all selected to take this course. This exercise, in finding commonalities between people, makes me wonder if this is how dating apps work. Is Megan my academic soulmate?

Would an extraterrestrial being care about humans and the Earth? Plenty of people would care about extraterrestrials, but just because we care, is it correct to assume that an extraterristrial species would too? Is this an egocentric idea, that we must matter to beings elsewhere? It is interesting to think that contact with another species would benefit us. Perhaps we would learn from them if they are more scientifically advanced, but it is just as easy to imagine a scenario where the extraterrestrials are aggressive or selfish. After all, if one human race tried their best to annihilate another human race upon landing on the shores of North America, is it unreasonable to expect the same to occur between two entirely different species?

I read one of the best science fiction trilogies last year, The Three Body Problem by Liu Cixin, where the human race finally realizes the truth of the universe, a truth that most advanced civilizations understand and live by. To let other extraterrestrial civilizations know that we exist is suicide. When communication is difficult (as it ought to be when two civilizations are light years apart, having developed in completely different environments), when we do not understand how the other thinks or what they value, and in a situation where the other civilization may have enough technology to devastate our civilization, it is much safer to open fire and destroy the other before they have a chance to destroy you. This truth is based on two axioms. The first is that the goal of any civilization is ultimately survival. The second is that civilizations grow, but resources in the universe are finite. Thus,

[t]he universe is a dark forest. Every civilization is an armed hunter stalking through the trees like a ghost, gently pushing aside branches that block the path and trying to tread without sound. Even breathing is done with care. The hunter has to be careful because everywhere in the forest are stealthy hunters like him. If he finds another life — another hunter, angel, or a demon, a delicate infant to tottering old man, a fairy or demigod — there’s only one thing he can do: open fire and eliminate them (Liu, 2015)

before they have the opportunity to eliminate you. So this Golden Record project, which can be sampled and dated for age, and given its velocity, trajectory, and the celestial objects that it has likely passed by, can be traced back to Earth. This project might have been our civilization’s greatest folly!

The project’s purpose seems to be to serve as evidence that we existed. It is not so much a communiqué as it is a glorified tombstone. This record of information is about preservation. The construction materials chosen were specifically selected to endure for millions of years. If the goal was to establish communication with another being, then more attention would be paid to the message and the modes of communication. Instead, the record attempts to depict diversity as best as it can. If this is the goal, then the criteria to select just 10 songs to be on the album is simply that the songs be as different as possible. There should be instrumental songs with as many different instruments as possible and vocal songs. The tempos, pitches, rhythms, and moods (I find it silly that we chose “joyful” music when we do not even know if extraterrestrials know what joy is or represent it the same way that we do) should also be different in each. The complexity of the notes, that is, the progression and pattern of notes should range from simple to the very complex. The range of the songs should vary from small to multiple octaves.

————————————————–

1. Tchakrulo – Choir – Georgia

• Male voice, multiple layers of harmony, mild tempo

2. Tchenhoukoumen, percussion Senegal

• Instrumental, percussion, rhythmic, quick tempo

3. Bach, Brandenburg no 2, part 1

• Instrumental, strings, wind, complex note progression that is very mathematical

4. El Cascabel-Lorenzo Barcelata&the Mari

• Strings, wind, male voice, very fast tempo

5. Fairie Round – cond David Munroe

• Wind only, medium tempo

6. Iziel je Delyo Hagdutin – Bulgaria

• Horn, wind, female voice, slow tempo, not a lot of different notes – small range

7. Johnny B Goode – Chuck Berry

• Piano, strings, percussion, male voice, upbeat

8. Melancholy Blues-L Armstrong&HisHotSeven

• Percussion, wind, horn, strings, mild tempo

9. Sacrificial dance-comp&cond Stravinsky

• Strings, wind, percussion, jarring mood

10. Mozart – Queen of the night- Eda Moser

• Female opera voice, strings, medium tempo

————————————————–

In thinking about the question posed by Dr. Smith Rumsey, “What can we afford to lose” (Brown University, 2017), I cannot come up with an answer. According to her, the value of a piece of information cannot be determined at present, but only in the future in retrospect (Brown University, 2017). Is any of the information on the Golden Record of value to extraterrestrials millions of years from now? Perhaps what would be of value is the information about resources and habitable environments if we are to believe the axiom that all civilizations strive to survive. I do, however, note what we have conveniently left out of the record, and that is anything perceived as negative or dangerous about us. There is no mention of our violent nature or our war rich history. Was this wise? From our perspective, this may have been the most valuable piece of information to send if we are to believe the Dark Forest theory. Perhaps it is better to appear dangerous so that we warn other civilizations to stay away, that we are capable of defending ourselves if attacked.

Brown University. (2017). Abby Smith Rumsey: “Digital Memory: What Can We Afford to Lose?”

Liu, C., & Martinsen, J. (2015). The dark forest. First edition. New York: Tor.