The Future: In Whose Hands? - A Revision

William Gibson and Tim Wu, authors of two of the most thought-provoking books that I have ever read, are similar in that they both have visions of the future regarding technology and how the world as we know it will change as technology changes. That, however, is where their similarities end. 

Gibson’s groundbreaking (and mind-boggling) cyberpunk novel, Neuromancer, provides a dark and, in my opinion, very unrealistic perception of a world in which AIs have the ability to control humans and cyberspace is an actual “space”. 

Wu, on the other hand, and his lengthy, intimidating book, The Master Switch, provides a vision of the future which is backed by historical evidence and case study examples of the effects of technological power falling into the wrong hands. 

There is little to no intersection of ideas between these two intellectuals or their literary works, but reading both Neuromancer and The Master Switch was an eye-opening experience to say the least. However, I feel that the fact that I struggled with Gibson significantly more than Wu was due to the immense amount of evidence that Neuromancer lacked. Blame it on my high school and college experiences, but I now find it hard to consider of a piece of writing credible without supporting evidence. In this way I, without a doubt, believe that Wu’s ideas and hopes for the future are more realistic than Gibson’s inconceivable notions of cyberspace.

Here, I feel that it is necessary to acknowledge that I am aware that Gibson’s writing is a work of fiction. Realistically, the technologies and innovations that Gibson describes in Neuromancer are not (yet) possible or open to the general public. It may be the case that the genre that Gibson was writing in had some effect on the response that I had to the two works of writing. However, I stand by my belief that Wu’s vision of the future is more plausible than that of Gibson. 

The aspect of Gibson’s Neuromancer that I struggled with the most was the lack of present government in the world of Case, Molly and Armitage. Government is not mentioned once in the piece of work, and it appears that “megacorporations” have taken the role of oppressive dictatorships that have the ability to take away one’s rights and skills without a second thought. This futuristic anarchy is more of an extreme projection of the power of corporations than a reasonable vision of the future. While the extreme viewpoint may be what Gibson is trying to achieve, I find it more than a bit unrealistic that corporations will ever gain that degree of power. 

There are, however, some historical examples of technological companies whose questionable relationships with the government resembled a child exerting more power than a parent. This relationship is significantly less extreme than Gibson’s world, but may have been the inspiration for his work. The longest running and most questionable of these relationships was that of the government with the largest monopoly the United States has seen - AT&T. 

The Bell monopoly had been a part of American history since the company’s inception in the late 1800s. When the corporation first began to gain power, it is unlikely that anyone could have imagined the effect that it would have on this nation. For example, towards the end of World War II, prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan, President Harry S. Truman enlisted AT&T to perform an unusual task: to overlook the top-secret Sandia National Laboratories. This New Mexico-based government operation was “to extend the basic work of the Manhattan Project into more sophisticated weapons development” and to “serve as the ‘steward’ of the United States’ nuclear arsenal” (Wu 159). Truman’s decision to appoint AT&T to oversee this important and top secret operation was unusual and unorthodox, to say the least. However, as Wu writes, “no other arrangement more clearly bespeaks the trust and intimacy that existed for decades between the U.S. government and the nation’s great communications empire than the privilege enjoyed by the authorized telephone monopoly” (159). This quotation speaks to the affinity held between the AT&T corporation and the United States government at the peak of the Bell monopoly’s power. While it is difficult for me to fathom a company holding as much power as AT&T did at the time of World War II, the cold, hard facts provide a frightening reality which is very much a part of United States history. 

AT&T: Protecting your nation.

Additionally, Wu describes AT&T’s continued involvement in United States operations during the Cold War. The corporation’s contributions included building towers in the northern-most areas of the continent (Canada and Alaska), which were created to warn of incoming ICBMs, as well as a communications network between a radio station and Air Force One. The company also built at least sixty bunkers filled with emergency equipment, which would be used in the event of some kind of nuclear attack. The corporation’s intimate relationship with the government definitely gave AT&T the upper hand, as “the Defense Department would intervene forcefully to prevent the company’s breakup by antitrust suit in 1956, citing a ‘hazard to national security’” (160). 

Since the climax of AT&T’s influence on the United States government, politicians, economists and civilians have all taken notice of the negative aspects of monopolies. AT&T’s break up was one of the first steps towards more government regulation in the corporate world, which remains a top priority for the US. Because of our experiences as a nation with the power of monopolies, we are now much more wary of aspects of monopolistic control in the business world. 

Although the relationship between AT&T and the United States government is frightening in hindsight, it is nothing compared to the world that Gibson imagined and described in Neuromancer. I disagree with his vision of the inevitable lack of government intervention in the technological and innovative world. I believe that it is actually because of Gibson, and those like him, that our world will never become what he fears. The warnings found in Neuromancer cause people to be more cautious when corporations approach the amount of power and influence that Gibson describes. Because we have experienced how much of an effect a single, powerful corporation can have on a nation’s government, as we saw with AT&T and the U.S. government, I think that we will be even more vigilant in the future. 

I believe that Wu has a much more realistic approach and vision of the future and government-corporate relationships. After presenting numerous historical examples of, what he refers to as, “the Cycle” of technology empires and their individual rise and fall, Wu presents his proposition for the future: the Separations Principle. 

The Separations Principle, in essence, states that the only way for information and technology to remain free and open is for complete and total separation between the government and corporations providing services. Wu’s more constitutional approach to the future of information industries is, in my opinion, a practical and attainable aspiration for the future of the United States’ relationship with the information industry. Wu describes his principle as “the creation of a salutary distance between each of the major functions or layers in the information economy” (304). Wu’s world is one in which developers of information, owners of infrastructure and controllers of access points would have no contact with one another. The government would also stay away from information economies, as to eliminate any biases towards certain technologies or corporations.  

I think that Wu’s vision of the future is much more appealing than Gibson’s because there are so many examples in American history which reflect the need for his Separations Principle. Examples of the issues with corporations having close relationships with the government can be found in nearly every information industry; radio, television, communications and, most recently, the Internet. In all of these examples, it has been more economically favorable for the government to stay out of the corporate world. Government involvement not only hinders the natural state of competition, but also eliminates the potential for growth in smaller companies, two essential parts of the economic cycle. As Wu writes, “[s]uch interference...is ultimately destructive of both a free society and the healthy growth of an information economy or any other kind” (304). 

Wu’s comparison of the Separations Principle to the United States Constitution also helps to add validity to his argument. By describing the parallels between the Separations Principle and separation of powers, Wu allows the reader to relate his ideas to something that they have prior knowledge to, creating connections between the two concepts. 

Future of information industries?

He writes, for example, “...like the separation of powers, the Separations Principle accepts in advance that some of the benefits of concentration and unified action will be sacrificed, even in ways that seem painful or costly” (305). This aspect of the Separations Principle would probably be the most difficult for society and corporations to accept, as society would not want to give up potential goods and services provided by corporations and corporations would not want to give up the potential profits which those goods and services would provide them. Additionally, corporations which already have close relationships with the government would, most likely, not be willing to give up the benefits which their connections bring them. 

In this way, the Separations Principle may be a bit unrealistic, especially considering that the current use of separation of powers in the United States government is not as effective in practice as it is on paper. In my opinion, however, the Separations Principle is still more plausible than the world found in Neuromancer. The future that Wu envisions is one filled with hope and equality, while Gibson’s dark and cynical future is one which, to be honest, is quite frightening. Perhaps my optimism and confidence in the future of society is a reason why I am more inclined to support Wu’s vision rather than Gibson’s. Overall, however, when I picture the future of information industries and based on events which have occurred in the past, my view is closer to that of Wu’s than that of Gibson. 

Works Cited:

Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Knopf, 2010

A New Perspective

Overall, my experiences with First Year Seminars here at the University of Richmond have been very positive. Last semester, my seminar was called “Old People” and focused on the age group of the elderly, and I loved it. I thought that the class was a great way to expose myself to an aspect of life that I have not experienced and will not for many years to come.

While my Cyberspace FYS has little to nothing to do with the elderly, the exposure to different aspects of life is still there. I have never been on Second Life, pictured an avatar as a blue alien with a tail and could not tell you how to operate a weekly blog. 

I think that being a part of this seminar has been a learning experience, in more ways that one. 

For me personally, the world that has been brought to the surface the most as a result of this course is that of addictive MMORPG players. Both Julian Dibbell’s book, Play Money, and the documentary “Second Skin” have given me a new perspective on online gamers. 

For the most part, I find the amount of time that gamers spend on their games to be comical. It is not my intention to bash what they are doing, I simply cannot fathom spending eight hours a day working and “living” in a world that does not exist. While watching “Second Skin”, I found myself actually laughing out loud at how serious some gamers were taking their games and lives in their World of Warcraft, neglecting their work and family for their “friends” and “lovers” in their virtual world.

Just a couple of gamers from "Second Skin"

While most of that opinion has not changed, my exposure to these people, who come from all walks of life, has forced me to reconsider my original judgements. For some, especially the disabled, virtual worlds serve as a place that they can just be themselves without stereotypes. I think that it would be difficult to find someone who would think of that as comical and not want to reach out to these people. For others, online gaming is a serious addiction, one that can even lead to depression and suicide, which requires a healing process similar to any other addiction. The seriousness of their condition is nothing to laugh at and I wish that I could help those people see that the real world can be just as wonderful as their virtual world.

So, in conclusion, I must admit that I was a bit too quick to judge those who play virtual online games. This is not to say that I will be going out tonight and buying World of Warcraft or making an account on Second Life, but I will do my best not to judge people based on how they want to spend their time. I am a strong believer in open-mindedness and MMORPGs are just one more aspect of human life that I will accept. 

When Does Play Become An Addiction?

For me personally, play has been a huge part of my life for as long as I can remember. The mindless, silly games that I played as a toddler and younger child had an impact on how I look back on my childhood. Although I am now a college freshman, I still believe that playfulness is an important characteristic of human nature. 

But is there a point at which play in virtual worlds becomes too immersive? When is the appropriate age for play to, essentially, take a back seat to life in the real world?

Julian Dibbell’s 2006 book, Play Money, poses these questions and, as the book continues, Dibbell attempts to answer them. 

During his time as a fellow at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, Dibbell was granted the ability to pursue any research that interested in the field which inspired him. He chose to attempt to make a reasonable income in virtual worlds, mostly Ultima Online. While watching his young daughter play with her toys, Dibbell began to pose questions regarding to play and how they related to virtual worlds.

Interestingly enough, in my Introduction to Psychology class, we recently read an article titled “Taking Play Seriously” by Robin Marantz Henig. I immediately made the connection between Dibbell and Henig’s works. The article, published in The New York Times in 2008, described the debate occurring amongst psychologists regarding the play in young children. Henig writes, “[p]lay...is a central part of neurological growth and development - one important way that children build complex, skilled, responsive, socially adept and cognitively flexible brains” (Henig). She continues, “play evolved because it is good preparation for adulthood. It is a chance for young animals to learn and rehearse the skills they will need for the rest of their lives, and to do so in a secure environment, where mistakes will have few consequences” (Henig). 

How I picture play

Returning to Dibbell’s work for a moment, he writes of a John Dugger, a fellow player on Ultima Online, although addict would be a better word to describe Mr. Dugger. Dugger, a Wonder Bread delivery man who had separated from his wife a few years before, spent most of his time in, what he referred to as, the dungeon - “a section of the garage walled off to make a small, barely ventilated room, where he sat five hours a night, eyes fixed on his computer screen and on the tiny, make-believe self he maneuvered through Britannia’s cartoon landscape” (Dibbell 51). 

Mr. Dugger would later refer to his online activities as “play”, but when one compares what this 43-year old is doing to Henig’s definitions of play, one would notice a distinct difference. Henig’s definitions of play, which I agree with, state that play is an important part of a child’s life. Nowhere in her article does Henig mention virtual worlds as a form of play and I, not being a gamer, certainly would not either. While I would agree that playfulness is an important part of life, I think that the amount of play that gamers, like Dugger, take part in cause them to lose touch with reality. 

Play, I would argue, is most important during childhood, as a part of a young child’s development. Those similar Mr. John Dugger are done developing and, in my opinion, should not use play as a reason behind excessive gaming. Whether virtual worlds are an escape for a gamer or an addiction, for many, it is past the point of play. 

Works Cited

Dibbell, Julian. Play Money, Or, How I Quit My Day Job and Made Millions Trading Virtual Loot. New York: Basic, 2006. Print.

Henig, Robin M. "Taking Play Seriously." The New York Times 2008. The New York Times. Web.

The Future: In Whose Hands?

William Gibson and Tim Wu, authors of two of the most thought-provoking books that I have ever read, are similar in that they both have visions of the future regarding technology and how the world as we know it will change as technology changes. That, however, is where their similarities end. 

Gibson’s groundbreaking (and mind-boggling) cyberpunk novel, Neuromancer, provides a dark and, in my opinion, very unrealistic perception of a world in which AIs have the ability to control humans and cyberspace is an actual “space”. 

Wu, on the other hand, and his lengthy, intimidating book, The Master Switch, provides a vision of the future which is backed up by historical evidence and case study examples of the effects of technological power falling into the wrong hands. 

There is little to no intersection of ideas between these two intellectuals or their literary works, but reading both Neuromancer and The Master Switch was an eye-opening experience to say the least. However, I feel that the fact that I struggled with Gibson significantly more than Wu had a lot to do with the immense amount of evidence that Neuromancer lacked. Blame it on my high school and college experiences, but I now find it hard to consider of a piece of writing credible without supporting evidence. In this way, I, without a doubt, believe that Wu’s ideas and hopes for the future are more realistic than Gibson’s, in my opinion, inconceivable notions of cyberspace.

The aspect of Gibson’s Neuromancer that I struggled with the most was the lack of present government in the world of Case, Molly and Armitage. Government is not mentioned once in the piece of work, and it appears that “megacorporations” have taken the role of oppressive dictatorships who have the ability to take away one’s rights and skills without a second thought. This futuristic anarchy is more of an extreme projection of the power of corporations than a reasonable vision of the future. 

There are, however, some historical examples of technological companies whose questionable relationships with the government resembled a child exerting more power than a parent. This relationship is significantly less extreme than that which Gibson describes in Neuromancer, but may have been the inspiration for his work. The longest running and most questionable of these relationships was that of the government with the largest monopoly the United States has seen - AT&T. 

The Bell monopoly had been a part of American history since its inception in the late 1800s. When the corporation first began to gain power, it is unlikely that anyone could have imagined the effect that it would have on this nation. For example, towards the end of World War II, prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan, President Harry S. Truman enlisted AT&T to perform an unusual task: to overlook the top-secret Sandia National Laboratories. This New Mexico-based government operation was “to extend the basic work of the Manhattan Project into more sophisticated weapons development” and to “serve as the ‘steward’ of the United States’ nuclear arsenal” (Wu 159). Truman’s decision to appoint AT&T to oversee this important and top secret operation was unusual and unorthodox, to say the least. However, as Wu writes, “no other arrangement more clearly bespeaks the trust and intimacy that existed for decades between the U.S. government and the nation’s great communications empire than the privilege enjoyed by the authorized telephone monopoly” (159). 

AT&T: Protecting your nation

Additionally, Wu describes AT&T’s continued involvement in United States operations during the Cold War. Their contributions included building “a system of towers across the top of Canada and Alaska designed to warn of approaching ICBMs, a secret radio network to provide communications for Air Force One, and at least sixty hardened and underground bunkers housing emergency equipment” (159). The corporation’s intimate relationship with the government definitely gave AT&T the upper hand, as “the Defense Department would intervene forcefully to prevent the company’s breakup by antitrust suit in 1956, citing a ‘hazard to national security’” (160). 

Although the relationship between AT&T and the United States government is frightening in hindsight, it is nothing compared to the world that Gibson imagined and described in Neuromancer. I disagree with his vision of the inevitability lack of government intervention in the technological and innovative world. I believe that it is actually because of Gibson, and those like him, that our world will never become what he fears. The warnings found in Neuromancer, in fact, cause people to be more cautious when corporations approach the amount of power and influence that Gibson describes. Because we have experienced how much of an effect a single powerful corporation can have on a nation’s government, as we saw with AT&T and the U.S. government, I think that we will be even more vigilant in the future. 

I believe that Tim Wu has a much more realistic approach and vision of the future and government-corporation relationships. After presenting numerous historical examples of, what he refers to as, “the Cycle” of technology empires and their individual rises and falls, he presents his proposition for the future: the Separations Principle. 

The Separations Principle, in essence, states that the only way for information and technology to remain free and open is for complete and total separation between the government and corporations providing services. Wu’s “constitutional approach to the information economy” is, in my opinion, a practical and attainable aspiration for the future of the United States’ relationship with the information industry (304). Wu describes his principle as “the creation of a salutary distance between each of the major functions or layers in the information economy” (304). Wu’s world is one in which “those who develop information, those who own the network infrastructure on which it travels, and those who control the tools or venues of access [would] be kept apart from one another” and “the government also keep[s] its distance and [does] not intervene in the market to favor any technology, network monopoly, or integration of the major functions of an information industry” (304). 

I think that Wu’s vision of the future is much more appealing than Gibson’s because there are so many examples in American history which reflect the need for his Separations Principle. Examples of the issues with corporations having close relationships with the government can be found in nearly every information industry; radio, television, telephony and, most recently, the Internet. In all of these examples, it has been more economically favorable for the government to stay out of the corporate world. Government involvement not only hinders the natural state of competition, but also eliminates the potential for growth in smaller companies, two essential parts of the economic cycle. As Wu writes, “[s]uch interference...is ultimately destructive of both a free society and the healthy growth of an information economy or any other kind” (304). 

Wu’s comparison of the Separations Principle to the United States Constitution also helps to add validity to his argument. By describing the parallels between the Separations Principle and separation of church and state, as well as separation of powers, Wu appeals to the reader’s patriotic nature, thus causing them to see the positive aspects of his ideas. 

Future of information industries?

He writes, for example, “...like the separation of powers, the Separations Principle accepts in advance that some of the benefits of concentration and unified action will be sacrificed, even in ways that seem painful or costly” (305). This aspect of the Separations Principle would probably be the most difficult for society and corporations to accept, as society would not want to give up potential goods and services provided by corporations and corporations would not want to give up the potential profits which those goods and services would provide them. Additionally, corporations which already have close relationships with the government would, most likely, not be willing to give up the benefits which their connections bring them. 

In this way, the Separations Principle may be a bit unrealistic, though, in my opinion, more plausible than the world found in Neuromancer. The future that Wu envisions is one filled with hope and equality, which Gibson’s dark and cynical future is one which, to be honest, is quite frightening. Perhaps my optimism and confidence in the future of society is a reason why I am more inclined to support Wu’s vision rather than Gibson’s. Overall, however, when I picture the future of information industries, based on events which have occurred in the past, my view is closer to that of Wu’s than that of Gibson. 

Works Cited:

Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Knopf, 2010

Human Emotion: Preventing Gibson's World From Becoming Reality?

As a young adult in today’s day in age, I am not ashamed to discuss my extreme use of technologies, especially communication technologies. Between text messaging and Facebook, it is difficult for me to even estimate the amount of time that I dedicate to communicate with others using technology. I was shocked, but not necessarily surprised, at what I found.

The first thing that I do every morning, without fail, is check my phone for any text messages that I may have received in the eight hours that I had spent sleeping. Occasionally, I will have a text message from my boyfriend, friends, or parents from earlier in the morning or later the previous night. Because I am incapable of leaving messages unanswered, as I learned while observing my behaviors, I answer the text message right away. This means that by 8:07 AM, I have already begun my day long interaction with others via technology. 

Who I start and end my day with, every day.

Throughout the course of the day, I will text my boyfriend, who attends college in Baltimore, any opportunity that I get. I do not text during class, when I am at the gym, or when I am sleeping, but other than those instances, you can always see me on my Blackberry, most likely texting him. It is definitely difficult being one half of a long distance relationship, but text messaging is one of the major reasons that we have remained so close during our time at separate schools. It is a simple way for the two of us to know what is going on in each others’ lives, yet does not require the “effort” of a telephone conversation. I am sure that there are many people out there who would disagree with this claim, but I make it only because, personally, I am not a big phone person. I have never really felt comfortable talking to people on the phone, although I have learned that it is not quite as awkward as I once though it to be. 

I will also text my friends here at UR throughout the day so that we can make plans for dinner or going to the gym together, but the texting conversations with them don’t get much deeper than that. I think that this is because we would rather talk face-to-face, rather than the somewhat impersonal form of text messaging. 

Now I know that I basically just contradicted myself with this situation and the one mentioned previously, but I think that the two circumstances are completely different. In one instance, I am physically unable to see and talk to the person, a fact which I can accept, while in the other, I only need to walk down the hallway to have a face-to-face conversation. 

I think that this simple fact is the reason that we have not created the 3D “consensual hallucination” that William Gibson discusses in Neuromancer. As a species, we are able to accept the fact that there are some times that you will not be able to physically be with the person that you want to talk to. This has always been true, and will remain true forever. I think that it is an essential part of us as a species. If we had decided to follow Gibson’s vision of the Matrix, we would be disregarding an innate human emotion; longing. The uncomfortable, sometimes painful emotion of longing for something, or someone, that you cannot have or physically be with is something that everyone experiences. Although it is an awful and upsetting feeling, I would argue that it makes us what we are, what we’re supposed to be.

Would we still feel this in the world of Neuromancer?

Until the time that Neuromancer’s world comes to be, which hopefully will not be for a long time, I think that we will be content with the world that technology allows us, even if it means being apart from the ones that we love. 

How Did They Get Here?

William Gibson’s classic 1984 novel, Neuromancer, is easily one of the most difficult books that I have ever read. The abstract concepts of cyberspace and the matrix paired with difficult vocabulary from many different languages (some of which are made up, i’m sure) has made reading the novel quite a challenge for me. 

However, the plot and diction have not been what has been causing me the most distress during my reading of Gibson’s work. 

For the entirety of my time with Neuromancer, I have found myself questioning all that Gibson has yet to explain and hoping that eventually he will. The characterization of Case, Molly, Riviera and Armitage have been what I have found to be the most fascinating aspect of the book. There has been one single question that has lingered in my mind since the beginning of my reading...

How did the characters that Gibson is describing on his pages come to be? 

I want to know the backstories of all of the characters in the novel, but particularly that of Case. How did he become a cowboy? Why did he want to steal from the firm he originally worked for? What was his childhood like? Is he anything like we, as humans, are today? 

Where'd you get those claws, Molly?

In the case of Armitage, as far as I have read, Gibson has provided us with some amount of background information. He was originally known as Colonel WIllis Corto and was involved in a US operation in Russia which failed, costing him his legs, sight, and most of his jaw. Following his reconstructive surgeries, Corto was essentially used by Congressmen to cover up the failed expedition. It can be inferred by the reader that Corto’s feelings of betrayal by the Congressmen are what have fueled his desire to join Wintermute in whatever it is that they have planned.

Unfortunately, as of Chapter 10, where I have read up to, the rest of the characters and their backgrounds are not quite as clear. My hope is that Gibson will answer some of my many lingering questions as the novel continues. 

I can honestly say that I have no idea of what is yet to come in Neuromancer, and I am excited to see how everything will tie together.