jameswharris

Would I Be A Better, Happier, More Productive Person If I Didn’t Use The Internet?

The Internet has consumed our culture. We are quickly becoming a hive society. Is that good or bad? I think it’s good, but like all good things, I think it comes with some bad aspects. Yesterday I watched the movie Chef, a moving story about a father getting to know his son, but also a lesson in how Twitter works, for both good and bad. I also read “How YouTube and Internet Journalism Destroyed Tom Cruise, Our Last Real Movie Star” in the LA Times, about how Internet gossip can create false impressions in the hive mind.

The Internet is capable of spreading liberal and conservative concepts with equal speed. It is just as effective at teaching the truth as it is as spreading lies. The Internet is equally suited to preach Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Atheism. Net Neutrality is an ideal in more ways than one. The Internet can be as addictive as a drug, or as productive as any tool.

The internet is tremendous fun, and I could never give it up, but what if I used it much less? Most companies consider the Internet a productivity waster and limit employee access. Now that I’m retired its very easy to just get seduced into following one link after another, just clicking my way through the day. I have fiction writing and programming projects I dream of doing, but instead I’m enticed by endless tidbits of fascinating facts. No wonder George R. R. Martin writes on an ancient DOS machine using WordStar 4.0.

In some ways the Internet, including all the television, movies, music, ebooks, games, comics, news, magazines and audiobooks it delivers, is the ultimate song of the sirens. Instead of owning a dog, I enjoy photos and videos of dogs on the Internet. If I was younger and hornier, I’d probably be spending my time with virtual women. Instead of watching cable TV, I get my shows via the Internet. Instead of listening to music on CDs I have Spotify. Instead of reading magazines I read Zite and News360. When I want to cook something new I watch a how-to on YouTube.

Everyone sees daily tales about Internet abuse, but who actually walks away? Would I work on my novel full time if I canceled U-verse and unplugged my TV? Is the Internet keeping me from being creative, or am I enjoying the Internet while not facing up to the fact that I’m not creative.

Obviously humanity is not going to reject the Internet any more than it’s going to reject fire, farming, writing and science. The Zen of right living is to use any tool wisely. The Internet is like a telescope, it allows us to see further, but do we always need to observe reality at an eyepiece? Most people believe moderation is the key to everything, but I wonder if we don’t get the most from our tools by learning to use them as little as possible.

What inspired this essay was the realization that I was compulsively reading news stories from the Internet because I felt like I was learning so much. The truth is we forget most everything we read. Real learning comes from distillation of facts, not the abundance of facts. It’s better to read one memorable essay than to read a hundred fascinating essays. Strangely the one essay that stuck with me from yesterday is the one about Tom Cruise, and how the Internet tarnished his reputation. And I have to admit that I went from liking Tom Cruise as an actor to avoiding his films because of Internet gossip.

I would be a better, happier, more productive person if I used the Internet less, and maybe elements of this essay have some 12-step properties.

JWH – 5/25/14

If You Could Time Travel to 1950 Could You Tell People What 2014 Is Like?

Over the the Classic Science Fiction Book Club Dwight proposed the following fascinating question:

If, somehow, you were confronted with a resident of 1950. (USA, large city). He/she would be a college grad working in a mid level management job. He/she would have a layman’s understanding of the state of science in 1950.

You have been given the task of explaining the present to this person. What do you think the hardest thing (Technological, social, political, and or environmental) would be to explain?

Explain, if you would, your assumptions as to the state of knowledge and experience that an adult might have had in 1950. Would you difficult items be different with a man or woman? Would race or religion matter? Would where they lived be an issue? Would their political/religious background be an issue as to what they would find hardest to accept/understand?

I find this to be a very clever question to stir up the book club discussion. 1950 is a very good year to choose too. It’s before science fiction kicked in big time, but after WWII and the atomic bombs. It was also after the 1939 World’s Fair where futurism made a big splash and got people thinking about the world of tomorrow. Having someone show up from the future would be understandable to them, although I doubt they would believe any time traveler without some substantial proof.

What if Klaatu had landed in Washington in his flying saucer, but it wasn’t from space, but a time machine. The Day the Earth Stood Still came out 9/28/51, so it’s around Dwight’s target date. Dwight imagined you or I magically talking to a person from 1950, but I’m not sure he figured out how that might happen. If you were just dropped into the past, and could only verbally describe the future, I’m not sure anyone would believe you.

Let’s imagine on 1/1/1950 a big flying saucer lands in Washington DC and out pops a 2014 person. They announce that they’ve come in peace to warn Earth about the future. That inside the saucer are twelve theaters, each showing a TV network in sync with one in 2014—CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, HBO, CNN, FOX News, Discovery Science, MTV, HGTV, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera. To make this equal to other cultures and languages, other flying saucers show up in their capitals with cable channels from their part of the world. The time travelers tells each host site that the machine will be there for one year and the government can allow whoever they want to view the screens. I think this is a sufficient scenario to assure that 1950 people will believe what they see. Remember Klaatu’s ultimatum? Our time travelers could give a similar warning. They could say humans are consuming the Earth, destroying the environment, killing off all the other life forms, and dooming life on Earth. They can brag that personal freedoms have never been more widespread and many have found material wealth, but we don’t know how live disciplined lives, and we’re breaking down into more and more polarized factions.

Now the big question is: How will they react? Will the white people of the United States believe there is a black President in 2014? What will they think of women’s behavior, gay marriage and legalized drugs? Could they even comprehend personal computers, the Internet and smart phones? If they caught episodes of Breaking Bad, Two and a Half Men, The Big Bang Theory, Shameless, etc. could they even understand the shows without freaking out? What would they think of the nudity, bad language and ultra-violence in entertainment? What about the music, visual art, computer animation, etc.? What would they think of the rise of Geek culture? Or the sexual revolution and The Pill?

Would they hate the future? Or would they be dazzled. Would they see the future as an extrapolation of the present, or a total surprise?

And what would they think about global warming? Or the war on terrorism? Or the rise of religious right. The motto “In God We Trust” wasn’t adopted until 1956, and didn’t show up on paper money until 1957, or coins until 1964. Would they even understand ecology and environmentalism? Jim Crow and sodomy laws were the norm back then, as were all kinds of censorship. If they watched Two Broke Girls or The View, or read an issue of Cosmopolitan would they be baffled by the change in women? Would the women of 1950 cheer? What would they think of food ads, and news stories about obesity? Would they admire the science and technology, or fear it? Would they get excited about all the new kinds of sports? Would they be outraged by women’s fashions and surprised that men’s suits don’t look that much different? Would they be amazed by our houses and how big they are compared to 1950’s houses.

Would they take notes about the destruction of the environment and enact laws to avert global warming? Would they stop the invention of junk food? Would they reign in the misuse of antibiotics? 2014 TV shows should show them how we evolved, but also show all the mistakes and suffering we went through to gain whatever wisdom we do have. Could people from 1950 absorb the wisdom without paying the price of suffering?

This is a fascinating idea. But it’s a fantasy. What if we could see 64 years into the future, what would we do? How many science fiction stories written before 1950 prepared the world of 1950 for our times? Is there a chance that modern science fiction writers can prepare us for the year 2078? Is that expecting too much?

JWH – 5/22/14

Does An Organized Desk Mean An Organized Mind?

Recently I read “10 Things Organized People Do Every Day” by Jordana Jaffe at MindBodyGreen. Jaffe is the founder of Embarkability, and her ten simple habits about being organized seem very practical and real. I hope she doesn’t mind that I quote the ten for those people too lazy to go read her article with explanations. They are:

They plan each day the night before.
They have and keep only one to-do list.
They spend at least 30 minutes going through and addressing emails in their email inbox.
They clear their desk of paper piles.
They have a morning routine and an evening ritual.
They spend 10 minutes at the end of each day tidying up.
They put their clothing in the laundry bin.
They never leave dishes in the sink.
They carve out time for lunch.
They open up their mail.

The ten truly resonates with my cluttered lifestyle, so I feel maybe she’s right.

I guess this is why I’m not a successful entrepreneur. I do eat lunch every day, mainly because going without would be painful. And I’m pretty good about putting my dirty clothes in the proper bins. But I’m pretty bad about the rest, especially opening mail, processing email, and leaving piles of paper on my desks. To pat myself on the back a little, some days, not most, but some, I put the dishes right into the dish washer after eating. I keep trying to-do lists and failing, and I’ve often tried to develop morning and before bed planning times. Unfortunately, I always drift back into unorganized chaos.

My scientific question is: If I faithfully make these ten routines into regular habits will it change my brain so I’m an organized person? People seeing the way I work and live will not believe this, but for my whole life, I’ve wished I could have an organized person with an orderly desk. Jaffe tells us organized people follow these habits, but I’m not sure if changing my bad habits into good ones would transform my brain and make me into an organized person. It’s an interesting experiment to consider.

However, looking at the piles of unopened mail, magazines, forms, warranties, etc. sitting on my desk, and checking that my email inbox has 2,054 messages, makes me think it might take a while to get my neurons to dance a different jig. I think I’ll try, and I’ll even tell my wife and lady friends to nag me thoroughly, which they love to do, and I start testing this hypothesis.

I wonder how many days of following these ten habits will it take to rewire my brain?

JWH – 5/20/14

The Secularization of the Undead

If you only know vampires, werewolves and zombies from modern fiction you won’t understand what I am about to say. If you haven’t read Dracula by Bram Stoker this essay won’t mean much. The origins of all the famous species of undead in fiction are shadowed in long forgotten myths. They come from a time in human history were good and evil meant something very different than what it does today. Primitive people saw reality created by two forces – the divine and evil. The phrase the Devil made me do it wasn’t just some cop-out excuse for shirking responsibility. People were either filled by the spirit of God or possessed by Satan. To modern believers, God or Devil, at best influence people. They bargain. Even the most ardent feel they have free will to choose. In the past that wasn’t always so.

As an atheist I don’t believe in the supernatural, but that doesn’t mean I don’t see it everywhere in people’s minds. In Bram Stoker’s Dracula, vampires were pure evil, to be avoided at all costs – even to the point of committing suicide. Whereas modern vampires are sex objects, and even the worse of them aren’t evil in the old sense. As society moves away from religious beliefs, it is transforming its ancient symbols and myths. This can be seen clearly by reading books about vampires in the 19th century, and then watching how the role of the vampire has changed through the 20th century and into the 21st.

A distinction we should make is between morality and ethics—the two main systems of determining right and wrong. Legal systems are a strange hybrid of the two. For most of history morality was defined by God and people were expect to follow his rules. That’s the original definition of morality As society became more secular people became philosophic, and right and wrong was hammered out with logic and rhetoric to eventually become ethics. Ethics is the system by which humans decide what is right and wrong. Many secular people still use the word morality, so it’s also being transformed. There are even scientists who seek to find moral origins in biology and animal behavior. But I’ll use morality in its original intent, as rules handed down by a divine being.

Vampires were immoral immortal creatures. They were agents of Satan, and represented the flow of evil forces permeating the world. Evil is seen as an absence of divine force, and its actions are in opposition to moral laws. Modern vampires have become secularized so they are no longer evil or agents of evil, but they can be unethical. We have also secularized the words good and evil. Good used to mean the divine, and evil the lack of God, or the force of Satan. Now good means many things, but it’s taken on a political correctness to mean what is socially acceptable. Bad and evil, mean something different too. Evil has taken on the connotation of something extremely bad, or extremely unethical. Hitler was evil. By the old definition of evil, that would have meant Hitler was an agent of Satan, working for the forces of evil. By modern standards he was a psychopath that killed millions of people through his own intent and not the Devil’s.

There are philosophical problems here. If God is all powerful, how can evil exist? Does God allow Satan his domain in reality, or does Satan have his own power that God can not touch? In Bram Stoker’s Dracula evil is darkness, without any goodness, that does have its own power. Characters in the story protect themselves from evil by embracing God. Thus the defensive power of the cross and holy water.

The undercurrent of Stoker’s Dracula is sex. His Victorian novel was not allowed to be explicit, but it was obvious enough. Evil conquers the virtuous through sex. In modern stories, sex is still the major theme, but it’s been converted. Sex is no longer evil, and neither is sex with a vampire.

Modern vampires can be good, and even seek to regain their souls, but this isn’t because divine forces won the war with the undead. As women were emancipated in the 20th century and gained both political and sexual freedom, they no longer needed the protection of males, and they escaped the prison of being the icons of virtue. Women writers refashioned vampires and the other undead minions for their own purposes. Women writers have decided the undead are hot, and they have cleaned them up ethically, and made them into objects of sexual desire. Stoker believed Victorian women should be protected from vampires. Modern writers have made vampires into the ultimate bad boys of desire, very fuck-worthy, and perfectly suited to become Mr. Right.

Strangely, most modern male readers and writers would prefer that vampires stay ethically bad or even evil so it’s socially acceptable to kill as many as possible with no guilt. We still like the Victorian attitude of the only good vampire is a staked vampire. Action fiction demands a bad guy to be killed, so the soulless undead make great targets for first person shooters. But even here, the undead have been secularized. They are no longer agents of Satan, but just plain vanilla bad guys. If the story was a morality tale it would require that the protagonists be moral, and the theme of the story would be morality, and that’s disappeared too.

Vampires were the first to become love objects, but slowly all the undead, even the gruesome looking zombie, are being transformed into protagonists of romantic interest. It appears the whole pantheon of the undead have become symbolic figures in stories of teenage angst over sex and violence. Any psychoanalysis of this fictional evolution would take book length studies requiring years of research. For instance, one aspect to explore is immortality. In the old days of God, immortality was conferred by the divine. I doubt many believe in real vampires, but they do reflect a desire for another path to long life. One where you keep your body and live a very long life on Earth. Earthly life has become a secular heaven.

These stories have been further secularized by writers coming up with pseudo-scientific reasons to explain the undead and their powers. But if we were a completely scientific society vampires, werewolves and zombies wouldn’t exist at all, even in fiction. As an atheist I have little interest in the undead other than to see them as literary symbols. It means as long as we have stories about the undead, then we have audiences and readers desiring aspects of the supernatural for some psychological reason or another. We like to think it’s all childlike fun for goose-bumpy making tales but I worry that they are a kind of Freudian desire for things we can’t have.

JWH

My War On Ads!!!

Is it me, or am I seeing an explosion of ads on the internet? First it was on page ads, then pop-up ads, then double pop-up ads, and now we’re seeing new kinds of animated ads attacking us from the bottom up, or expanding out from the sides of our web pages. We’re forced to see video ads that demand 30 seconds of our precious time – when will it be 60 seconds? This sucks. If I had to watch ten 30-second ads a day, that would be 300 a month, or 1.5 hours a month devoted to waiting to see content. I’m getting old, and time counts, because it’s running out.

Everywhere I look there is bait to trap me into viewing ads. Are we intelligent beings seeking information, or just gerbils being trained to click on ads.

Again, is it me, or is the web content changing, so as to trick us into seeing more ads by offering more prurient content? Many sites are sexing up their article come-ons, either with sexy photos, or with outrageous titles, or tempting us with juicy tidbits of gossip, to get us to click to read, only to force us to wait through one or more ads before rewarding us with their lame-ass stories. Often a promised video news story is shorter than the ads I have to watch to pay to see it, and often that news is seldom worth seeing.

I completely understand that nothing in life is free and I have to pay for my lunch, but some techniques used by contemporary publishers are just so damn annoying that it makes me want to avoid their wares completely and the products they advertise.

This morning The Mail promised me story about adult elephants rescuing a drowning baby elephant, but when I clicked to see the video they asked me which ad I wanted to watch. Neither were appealing, so I just closed the window. If they had had an ad for something I’m interested in I might have watched, but most ads are for things I completely don’t care about. The time it takes to watch them are a complete waste of my life.

That’s what I do more and more, close the window or tab, rather than see the ads. I’ve even thought about going back to paper magazines to learn about the world, because web page ads are ruining the internet for me.

Demanding Our Attention

I understand that reading on the web requires seeing ads. Ad supported sites are the norm. However, the visual bombardment of ads on landing on a web page seems to be escalating to the point that I wished I could tell Chrome and Google to ban some sites for the rest of my life. The other day I went to a site that resized the screen to blow up ads on the right and left, and along the bottom of my screen. And pop-up windows with ads is becoming the norm. And audio ads that automatically turn on are growing in popularity too, even though they are extremely annoying.

Advertisers are finding ways to capture our attention and not let it go until we’ve seen what they want us to see. I hate that. I wish there was some way to send you the finger online.

I’ve learned from growing up reading newspapers and magazines how to tune out passive ads. And I’ve tried Chrome extensions like AdBlockPlus, but it doesn’t work perfect, and I’m not really sure it’s kosher. I’m willing to pay for my supper, if it’s reasonable. That’s the trouble with internet ads, they aren’t reasonable. Neither, are television ads. Or phone soliciting. Because I don’t subscribe to cable, I get over-the-air TV, which is chock full of ads.

A big portion of my retirement life is avoiding ads. It’s becoming a war.

Ads want our attention, and that’s understandable. If only I only had to watch or read ads for things I was interested in. The advertising world is based on grabbing our attention, but I can’t believe all the expense they go to in gaining our attention is practical. How many people actually buy something because of an ad?

What we need is a new ad paradigm.

Information in Slide Shows

A common trick now is to have a sensational topic that involves 12, or 15 or 25 pages of slides. Each segment of the list involves reloading the page, and thus regenerating ads. Isn’t this just web page trickery to add counts to their ad counters? Part of the problem is not the advertisers, but the publishers. All too often content on the web is geared to making us click. Just how much worthy news do we need each day. Certainly not enough to fill millions of web sites.

We’re just rats in the maze being taught to click. That’s not good for us, or for people selling stuff. I want people who have something worthy to sell to succeed, but find success with people who need and want their products. I hate that the internet has become a click factory generating economic activity.

Man, we really need a new ad paradigm.

How Could Things Be Different?

Aren’t web cookies, the NSA, credit card transactions and cash register scanners already supposed to know what I buy? Why can’t I log into a web site daily and see ads meant just for me and earn some kind of ad income credits to be automatically spent as I go to web pages during the day? They could see I’ve already prepaid and let me look at their content without annoying me.

I’m willing to pay not to see ads. I subscribe to Rdio, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Spotify, Warner Instant Classics so I don’t have to see ads. I also subscribe to Hulu Plus, and they force me to see ads, which seems incredibly unfair. I’m seriously thinking of canceling them because of this. If I pay for a subscription I should NOT have to see ads. I also subscribe to The New York Times, and their site does have ads, but so far they aren’t too annoying. Yet, every time they interrupt my reading with a pop-up, I think about cancelling my subscription.

There’s got to be a better way. However, I don’t think Advertising Age disciples are thinking in that direction. Generation Like, as one PBS documentary called our young people of today, not only accept ads, but embrace them, becoming marching morons for advertisers and these kids don’t even understand the phrase “selling out.” Our modern world has become so Orwellian in ways that George Orwell failed to foresee. He thought only communism would use Newspeak to conquer the masses, not understanding that capitalism would use it too.

In my war against ads and telemarketers, I feel like I’m Winston from Nineteen Eighty-Four always seeking ways to avoid the view screens of Big Brother. John Varley wrote the classic paranoid science fiction story about machine intelligence called “Press Enter _” back in 1984. In it, his character moves off the grid and won’t use anything electrical to escape from an evil intelligence living on the net. Is that the only way to escape the advertising world?

Take Up the Cause!

Watch what you click. Don’t encourage the enemy. Close those windows. Don’t go to sites that take advertising too far. And please some of your brilliant tech gurus, invent some way for people to market their wares to people who want them without making billions of us not have to see trillions of ads we don’t want to see.

JWH – 5/14/14