Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Friday, 21 January 2011
The Myth of Efficiency or "Entropy, my dear Watson".
There is a common belief held in the modern world that to make something easier or faster is to make it more efficient. We have a tendency to strive for the efficient as a marker of progress and proof of civilisation in action.
Human intelligence is unique and our problem-solving abilities are truly remarkable, however one-dimensional they tend to be. We celebrate solutions and progress above all else in our quest for maximum efficiency, stream-lining and accelerating culture in the process.
This is seen as unequivocal progression along a mutually assured time-frame, with chaos at the beginning and Utopia at the end. So clear is this path that to look beyond, to consider an alternative is widely disregard as counter-productive or worse, anti-modern. The love of the modern is to look always to the future, casting off the shackles of the past to allow our collective conciousness to exponentially soar to ever higher heights.
When we allow ourselves to be be indoctrinated into this mantra of growth, acceleration and efficiency, we externalise the negative aspects of the system, ignoring entropy.
If there is indeed a limited amount of energy in the universe, then it is safe to assume that applying energy in any direction is to disperse energy in the opposite direction. This maintains the universal balance of available energy. Following that principle, creation must be mirrored by destruction and progress in one area must lead to regression in another. Simply put - you can't have your cake and eat it.
Take my job for example; thanks to advances in digital technology, I am able to deliver upwards of 1000 products a week with a role-over of 12 hours. My position involves constantly tweaking the process in order to increase the quality of the product and the speed/efficiency of it's production. 20 years ago, I would have been working manually, that is to say, with analogue technology. I would maybe be able to produce 50 products a week with a role-over of 3 days.
However, the time per product saved has not freed me from my labour, and the increase in production has not made me rich. In fact I am more stressed than ever before, with increasing demands on quality coupled with shorter and shorter deadlines. The relative value of my product has been reduced 100 times over due to the simplification of it's production. The increase in efficiency has only led to an increase in demand and a lowering of real quality and value of my position. Where once there was a skilled profession in what I do demanding respect and honour, there is now just the mass-production mentality of the factory floor and all the deterioration of pride and security that comes with it.
Efficiency leads inevitably to destruction. Civilisation and technology can only expect diminishing returns in a finite universe. The equilibrium of the natural universe can only be maintained by slow, complex and often chaotic principles. Any interference on the behalf of intelligence to make efficient these principles, can only accelerate their death.
Human intelligence is unique and our problem-solving abilities are truly remarkable, however one-dimensional they tend to be. We celebrate solutions and progress above all else in our quest for maximum efficiency, stream-lining and accelerating culture in the process.
This is seen as unequivocal progression along a mutually assured time-frame, with chaos at the beginning and Utopia at the end. So clear is this path that to look beyond, to consider an alternative is widely disregard as counter-productive or worse, anti-modern. The love of the modern is to look always to the future, casting off the shackles of the past to allow our collective conciousness to exponentially soar to ever higher heights.
When we allow ourselves to be be indoctrinated into this mantra of growth, acceleration and efficiency, we externalise the negative aspects of the system, ignoring entropy.
If there is indeed a limited amount of energy in the universe, then it is safe to assume that applying energy in any direction is to disperse energy in the opposite direction. This maintains the universal balance of available energy. Following that principle, creation must be mirrored by destruction and progress in one area must lead to regression in another. Simply put - you can't have your cake and eat it.
Take my job for example; thanks to advances in digital technology, I am able to deliver upwards of 1000 products a week with a role-over of 12 hours. My position involves constantly tweaking the process in order to increase the quality of the product and the speed/efficiency of it's production. 20 years ago, I would have been working manually, that is to say, with analogue technology. I would maybe be able to produce 50 products a week with a role-over of 3 days.
However, the time per product saved has not freed me from my labour, and the increase in production has not made me rich. In fact I am more stressed than ever before, with increasing demands on quality coupled with shorter and shorter deadlines. The relative value of my product has been reduced 100 times over due to the simplification of it's production. The increase in efficiency has only led to an increase in demand and a lowering of real quality and value of my position. Where once there was a skilled profession in what I do demanding respect and honour, there is now just the mass-production mentality of the factory floor and all the deterioration of pride and security that comes with it.
Efficiency leads inevitably to destruction. Civilisation and technology can only expect diminishing returns in a finite universe. The equilibrium of the natural universe can only be maintained by slow, complex and often chaotic principles. Any interference on the behalf of intelligence to make efficient these principles, can only accelerate their death.
Check out what my brother has to say on a similar subject, albeit from much farther down the rabbit hole than I ever dare to venture....
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Super-mega-like
Maybe it's time to apply the same privilege system that Google operates to Facebook.
People can pay a premium to ensure higher placings in comments and "likes" to strengthen essential friendships (particularly amid a sea of congratulations under a new-born baby photo, for example).
This promotes the same kind of healthy competition within social networking as we apply in the financial world.
People can pay a premium to ensure higher placings in comments and "likes" to strengthen essential friendships (particularly amid a sea of congratulations under a new-born baby photo, for example).
This promotes the same kind of healthy competition within social networking as we apply in the financial world.
Monday, 17 January 2011
Risk / Cost Analysis (Business Model)
As stated here.
Boils down to payment in court for bereaved relatives being cheaper than fulfilment of government regulations. Corporate law requires maximization of profits for share-holders at all times and the subsequent out-sourcing of damages.
Or in a nutshell, collateral damage :)
Source; The Corporation by Joel Bakan
Saturday, 15 January 2011
Little Brother
One way to create media-savy young adults out of children is to expose them to the lens as early as possible. That way you can monitor their relationships and collect data on their consumption patterns. Great for making a race of adults totally submissive to free market principles.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/boys-and-girls-alone
It's just the loss of innocence that William Golding warns of in Lord of the Flies. Seen as a nightmare scenario 50 years ago, now the ideal.
Maybe Mcdonalds can get in on this, prehaps a tie-in happy-meal with a hidden camera in the toy? Sorry, Mattel have already cornered the pre-teen webcam market;
If that makes you feel uneasy (as it does I) then read this;
http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781845298807/Consumer-Kids
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)