The Internet and our Future Selves

Back in the salad days of my university years I was told by my professor and my advisor that I should take a weekend, get a bottle of scotch and read Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons, I still haven't done that, although I did try and read it once, and this might be the year when I do. Nevertheless I think his theory as described is highly relevant to our relationships in a digital world.

The theory itself is fairly abstract, which is why it requires the the intensity of a bottle of whiskey and a dedicated weekend, but in short he postulates on the notion of personal identify and morality. Morality is often defined in the term of relationship and how we ought to treat others. If you think about the harm principle as an example or even the golden rule, they are defined by how what is morally right in the context of relationship. It is predicated on the interactions of different people at the same time, but does not consider the interactions of the same person at different times;  Parfit considers these to be of equal importance and further if it is incumbent upon society to protect different people from harming one another, then it is also incumbent on society to protect the same person from harming future versions of themselves.

Heraclitus foreshadowed Parfit's theory by several thousand years when he suggested that we could never walk into the same river twice. Because the second time we step into the river we are a different person, we bring with us a new series of experiences and new identity. It's like reading a book or seeing a movie for the second time, it always has different meaning for us because we have a different subset of experiences.

So I realize that last two paragraphs are a bit of a mindfuck and has massive ideological implications, but I think there are interesting applications for this is the way we manage our day to day affairs. The crux of the matter is what is our responsibility to future versions of ourselves and how is that responsibility altered or compromised by the digital world where everything we do online has the potential to be recorded online for posterity.

The classic example of this that most of us have considered is the posting of a photo online that shows us in a compromising situation, drunk or doing something stupid and it being seen by co-workers, bosses, family members. The possible harm to careers, reputations, and relationships is manifest especially if the photo is taken out of context. This is the fear that if others post those photos, and conventional morality deals is equipped to deal with this; but what of the people who post those photos of themselves, not uncommon for the generation in their university years right now, who may be harming future versions of themselves, since they will unlikely be able to hide what has been posted online.  What is amusing today may not be so in 10 or 20 years.

In the past as people evolved they were able to leave their pasts behind them, to grow up and join the adult world, (now there is a crisis in North America of adulthood, but that's another post). They would reminisce with their close friends about those silly things they did back in the day, or even allow those things to be forgotten, with little fear that they would be confronted with them at some point in the future. Not so today, our lives are recorded for all to see, and though it is often an image (see my previous post, Whither the Shadow) it is still recorded digitally for the world to see.  This is particularly true even if we evolve our image. For example university kids often want to create an image of someone fun and sexy, versus serious and staid, as we advance in our lives that image may change and evolve, however because of the internet, it is much harder to shed an older image of ourselves.

There is a great story in the Bible where Jesus is rejected by the people in his hometown of Nazareth.

"I tell you the truth, he continued, no prophet is accepted in his hometown"

The reality for the people of Nazareth was the Jesus was just Jesus, that little boy they knew who was the son of Mary and Joseph and grew up in the neighbourhood. They could not fathom the man that he had become. The relevance for humanity of this story is how hard it can be to forge a new identity in one's hometown, it is challenging to rid oneself of one's baggage, of being the snotty nosed kid who used to kick the teacher and get suspended from school, to truly become new one must leave the place where he has come from

How much this is exacerbated as our hometown is now our network of Facebook pages and how much more difficult it is to form a new identity when our old identities are available on the internet for anyone to see, and recorded there for all time. Which brings me back to original point about the responsibility we have to our future selves and the care that must be taken of our present selves on the internet so as not to harm our future selves.

The problem is how can we know what will harm our future selves, and the risk is that constantly worrying about future versions of ourselves will render us hopelessly neurotic and incapable of making decisions. So we can apply the principle of reasonability and say what we should not do things that would harm a reasonable person, but even then, what may be harm for one, may not be for another. For me, not to write this blog was harming my future self, but writing this blog, may come back an haunt me one day. I don

I have to be honest I haven't figured this one out, I never promised I had answers here, but I think it raises a lot of important questions.  For me, not to write this blog was harming my future self, but writing this blog, may come back an haunt me one day. I don't know how to resolve this but I am intrigued by the question. I hope you are too.

The Journey from Lurker to Contributor

In the years BI (Before Internet) it was nearly impossible to be anonymous, let alone be a lurker, at least in the sense that we mean it today. You were either present or you weren’t. While Victorian literature is rife with stories of secret admirers and anonymous messages, the truth usually would out because communities were small and fairly transparent. 

The internet is full of lurkers, people who visit sites, blogs, chatrooms, Facebook, and read or view but never contribute or add any comments. Even Facebook which is participatory by nature encourages lurking. I am confident that there are people who view my photos, see my status updates, my “Facebook Likes” and never comment or add anything to the conversation. I am certain the same occurs with this blog, I have six followers and yet over 50 views a week, so there are at least 44 lurkers on this blog (You know who you are!). 

But this is not meant to judge lurking, I am self-confessed lurker, I have been lurking on the web for years and continue to do so especially on Facebook, but with this blog and writing a few restaurant reviews on YELP in the last few weeks (You can read them here) I have been making the transition from lurker to participator in the modern digital dialogue. 

My first attempts at participation were somewhat furtive and led to disappointing results. I had decided to make use of the comments section on the Globe and Mail’s website and write something that while maybe not intelligent at least thought provoking. The response was, rather than creating any meaningful dialogue, was a barrage of insults and character assassinations.  I never bothered posting again, it seemed the anonymity of the comments section rather than forcing people to think about and stand by their ideas and opinions, was nothing more than an outlet for bias and prejudice, today, I don’t even read them, the comments are usual banal and childish. 

It seems that the anonymity of the internet has made people forget their manners. If only people would heed their mother’s advice that if you don’t have anything nice to say then don’t say it. There is a great quote in Tempest Tost, by Robertson Davies, “ that a true gentleman was a man who even used a butter knife when alone”. Literally I am not sure if using a butter knife makes a man a gentleman but figuratively I think there is a valid point here; that a true gentleman is a man who behaves morally even when anonymous.  This meaning has taken on new life in the post Internet years, where being anonymous is both possible and almost encouraged by the medium.

One of the consequence of this lurking is that it can create an imbalance in what we know about people. As an example I have been lurking on another blog for a few weeks and I feel like I know this person far too well, and I actually know him in person. Now when I speak to him I feel like I know him, but I don’t really and unless he is also lurking on my blog he knows even less about me. It’s created a weird sort of dynamic and makes me feel slightly awkward when I am in person with him. I have even noticed the same awkwardness in other people who I know in person who read my blog, but don’t want to talk to me about in person. 

The reverse of lurker can be even worse. People who participate for the sake of participating. I mean if you don’t have anything to say, don’t say it. Mindless participation is the death knell of chatrooms and newspaper comment sections. 

Saying that, I hope I have something to say, I guess this blog is a test of that. Which brings me back to my main point which was about my own journey from lurker to contributor. To be a contributor is extremely risky especially in the age of the internet and especially when eschewing anonymity. I am exposing myself to ridicule for my ideas, some of them may be crazy, some of my personal revelation that comes out, exposes me on a deeply personal level, and on top of that because the of the nature of the internet it is all saved for posterity. I can never destroy all the copies of what I have written. I can never deny what I have put out there for the world to see. 

Being a writer has always been a risky proposition, it has always been to expose oneself. And when it comes to writing everyone is a critic. I think it’s possible that the internet has potentially made this a riskier proposition but at the same time it presents an interesting opportunity, never before would it have been possible to do what I am doing here. I would have had to seek out a publisher and beg a newspaper or journal to print my musings so there is perhaps a double edged sword here. 

Anyway, for all of you lurkers out there, lurk away, it’s not a bad thing, and when, if ever, you feel like commenting rest assured, I appreciate the inner challenge that that participation represents. 

The Value of a Book

I've had a couple of experiences in the last few days that set me to thinking about books, and the role books play in our lives. I've always been very attached to my books and I am something of a collector of books, I have several editions from the Folio Society that I am particularly pleased with (they even have an entire series dedicated the Renaissance, and a beautiful version of Leonardo DaVinci's notebooks that I would like to add to my collection), but lately I've been wondering about the value of books, the value of personal libraries and this whole industry of book selling.

In the age of the renaissance, and up until at least the middle of the last century, the idea of the average bear having an extensive library was nearly unheard of, or if they did, it would consist of a few cherished items one of which was most likely the Bible. Extensive libraries were the domain of the rich and the clergy.  Nowadays it seems that every middle class, educated family has a library. I have two. I have one in my home and one that is still in my parents house where I grew up.

My parents have asked me (I've yet to comply) to do something with all those books, which is what got me thinking. What does one do with one's books. If this was the early 20th century instead of the early 21st century I would have been able to donate them to schools, or libraries or universities and they would have welcomed them with open and grateful arms. Today they would probably politely decline my gift even though in my collection are some nice books. The fact is there are a pile of books out there in the world, relative to the entire history of humankind and Chapters/Indigo and Barnes & Noble have built a whole culture around buying books.

When you think about getting a book most of us think about buying a book, sure we might go to an independent book store, or even a used book store but we rarely think about going to the library. So we continue this great accumulation of books that at some point will end up in the garbage, (hopefully recycled) since no one really wants a bunch of old books since they have their own collections. Chapters and Barnes & Noble have become the modern library but it costs more than the $5 it would cost to get a membership at the local library and you never have to return your books. So aside from the obvious environmental impact of all these books. I am wondering what is the value of book ownership. There are a ton of books on my shelves that I wish I had borrowed and not bought since I will never read them again.

It is nice to have some books, and there are books on my shelves that I re-read on a regular basis because they are great, but I also have books that I have read once and that I am not likely to read again, and the dilemma remains nobody wants those books and I feel like they cost me too much to get rid of, so instead they collect dust on my shelf until I die and someone else throws them out.

On top of all of this we now have new technologies that threaten to replace the book. We have iPads and Kindles, and e-readers that all make the idea of owning books more and more anachronistic. Now I am told, although I can't speak from experience yet, that all of the technologies for reading are not as user friendly as the book and that while you can read articles it is not as comfortable to read a novel. Those of us with books still have a romantic vision of "curling up with a good book" but the fact remains that reading technology is moving faster than Gutenberg and his first printing press and where we will land nobody knows.

I did have one positive experience with book ownership this weekend, my brother and sister-in-law were here for the weekend, and took the opportunity to raid my bookshelf and borrow a few of my favourites, they couldn't really do that on an iPad but it also highlighted to me that my book shelf is getting a bit too full since I am now creating double rows to accommodate my new purchases and the truth is I don't have anywhere to put any more new books but there is a ton of stuff I want to read. I have thought up a sneaky plan that I may have to start putting to use; I will go into chapters and write down the titles I want to read and then go the library and borrow them. I actually did this once,  and then when i was done I went out and bought the books because they were so good. (Who knew what a genius Robertson Davies was? I still re-read them on a regular basis).

Personal libraries are a reflection of one's character and I have often peered into a friend's book shelf to gain a glimpse of who they are, it's far more revealing than looking in their medicine cabinet. I know what I want mine to say about me and I used to think if my house was ever burning down i would foremost want to save my books, I'm not as sure anymore. There is still a ton of value in what's in the book, but I wonder if it is a technology that is becoming more and more obsolete as we discover new ways to read. I'd like to be reactionary here and say that we must defend the book and get thee to a big box book store and buy some books but I guess as long as people are reading it doesn't matter what technology they are using. We might be entering an age when being a renaissance man no longer requires an extensive library of books, but may just mean having a your digital library at your fingertips.

Technology and the Tyranny of Efficiency

We are used to thinking about our technology in terms of gadgets and scientific enhancements, we are not usually comfortable thinking about technology in moral terms. We are also used to thinking of technology as something that is morally neutral and out of the control of normal human behavior like the weather; something that must be dealt with and integrated into our way of life over which we have no control. It is this view that I wish to challenge and which is why we are in need of a renaissance.

Jacques Ellul was a french thinker who in his famous book on the subject, The Technological Society, discusses how technology shapes the moral condition of humanity, by creating a tyranny of efficiency. He defines technology as any technique that has as its goal the efficient ordering of human activity. As if the most important object of human life is the optimization of efficiency. In a godless world, efficiency has become the new god, the standard by which we measure our lives, our work, our governments our politics and our relationships and all other human activity.

Democratic governments are often criticized for their lack of efficiency in decision-making. The messiness of government is inefficient and surely we cry as a public, there is a more efficient way of doing things. The cult of efficiency has caused us to loathe the machinations of our government but perhaps, I would argue, the inefficiencies of our government are what makes us a human society. Yes there are more effective ways to make decisions but they are not necessarily better.

If we consider our politics as well. the one thing that we seem to judge our politicians on is the efficient managing of the economy. It is the only thing that seems to actually rile people up enough to comment on the politics of the day. Politics has not always been so. The politics of the past had a much stronger moral component, politicians argued more about what kind of world they wanted to live in, today they all agree unilaterally they want to live in a more efficient world, they only disagree about how to get there, and even then less and less. One of the reasons, I think, that our politicians, have become so bland and that our political culture has become one of the personality cult is that there is little of substance to truly differentiate our politicians from one another than their self-created images.

We can take this idea of efficiency down to our own lives as well and the way that we judge ourselves and others. The amount of ink, digital and traditional, that has been spilled over the last number of years on how to better organize our lives and live more efficiently. Everything from how to organize our closets better to how to organize better our relationships, how to accomplish more, as if we need only apply the right technique to an aspect of our lives to make it better, where better is more efficient. The whole culture of self-improvement is about applying the concept of efficiency to our lives.

The thing about efficiency is a measure of our lives is that it requires some sort of measurement. So if it is a diet it is number of pounds lost in a certain number of weeks, it is a certain number of tasks to accomplish in a certain period of time, how to live longer. It all comes down to trying to achieve a certain number either higher or lower than the one we are currently at which we are constantly told is sub-optimal. The ones who win in this life are the ones with the lowest bmi, the longest life, the most organized closets.

But can we measure the value of a human life in years lived, in pounds lost, in the numbers in a bank account, in the number of Gigabytes/second? It seems to me the measure of man is the life in the years not the years in the life. I don't want to be cliche here because I think it can be really challenging to learn how to live especially in the modern world where the promise of technological improvements to our lives are everywhere, it has become more difficult to choose the moral life but perhaps even more meaningful.

I don't wish to discourage people from trying to improve their lives that would seem to be a bit contrary to the purpose here as a blog for the modern renaissance man. But what I would discourage is the attempt to improve ones life by trying to achieve efficiency or get to a number. Live, laugh, love, it is messy and rarely efficient but the it is the moral life.