But more than that, EVE represents a unique object in a world of so few unique objects. The MMORPG world consists more or less of tiny insects scurrying surreptitiously between the feet of a hulking colossus, hoping fervently that World of Warcraft will not deem them a threat and crush them beneath his gargantuan feet. EVE Online, however, isn’t a part of this picture.

As one of the longest running MMORPGs in existence, EVE is unique because it operates in a completely different way than World of Warcraft and most of the others in the genre. Missions, questing and stories do exist, but for the most part, the world is run and operated by players. All of the market sales are player driven and the economy is purely run by people mining, crafting and PvPing. It is a surprisingly well crafted economy in a well crafted game.

What is important about this is that EVE has a devoted playerbase - less, by far than World of Warcraft - but not at all insignificant - of about three hundred thousand people. These people have been running this world, crafting, exploring and building, expanding known space and pushing boundaries further and further. Like Second Life, it is a persistent, player run world, but exists in a completely unique setting.

I think that we will see this come to be the model for a new type of human interaction in the near future - one based around immersive, virtual worlds - while people may denigrate MMOs for being escapist and time-wasting, they are a social interaction in and of themselves, and EVE Online may come to be the mold for future models of this phenomenon.

(And because I’m not too proud to shamelessly self-plug, here are a couple of guides I wrote: 1 and 2)

As such, I wanted to present some ideas on the subject. The great thing about having a blog that no one reads is that I can post as many pages of self-indulgent crap as I want. So there.

I talk a lot about the future here. It is a subject of great interest to me. But often, it is largely theoretical. Today I’d like to talk about something a little closer to home. To sum up, in a completely dishonest oversimplification, the author of Shop Class as Soulcraft discusses the value of manual labor, of traditional trades, such as plumbing, carpentry, auto repair, etc. The problem, as presented, is that our society has been training a generation of “information workers” without actual tangible skills. In theory, the economists and pedagogues say, the future of work takes place in virtual and theoretical spaces.

They weren’t wrong to think so, but they were dumbasses for not realizing that those jobs would migrate overseas as soon as someone realized the same function could performed by an Indian cog-drone in a sweat office in Mumbai for half as much. And yes, while everything physical that we need can be created and shipped in from China, such things cannot be maintained by overseas workers, no matter how much we would love that to be the case. If your car breaks down, you can’t just ship it to China. Though that would be cool.

The point that the author is trying to make, is that there is real tangible value in many “blue-collar” jobs, and not the luddite, reductionist, “simpler time” bullshit that so many people are fond of. A person who can see the products of their labor is more likely to be satisfied with and even happy with their job. What the fuck does a creative consultant do, and do they even feel like they’ve earned their wage?

There’s no need to rehash the argument. It’s smart, interesting, and flies in the face of common wisdom. I would like to address a different point, something that sprang from these discussions and others. While there are many things that can be pointed to as the problem with modern society, I would like to point to one in particular:

Specialization. The hallmark of an advanced society is specialization. As food gathering becomes less imperative, man hours are able to be directed toward increasingly specialized tasks. This phenomenon becomes more pointed with automation, industrialization and computation. There is no secret that our society is radically compartmentalized. A biochemist shares practically no experience with a motorcycle mechanic.

I believe this is a problem. Part of this is because the cutting edge of science - which bears heavily on the functioning of our society - is so far removed from the average person as to be magical in nature. It is difficult for a democratic society to function when so much of human experience is inaccesible to the majority. This also creates schisms between not only classes, but areas of study. With specialization, we form insular communities that work inward, rather than outward. Scientists lack the humanizing touch of poets and artists, and artists lack the technical prowess of the scientific community. This schismatic rift exists in dozens of pairing across society.

I don’t propose any particular solution, but I do believe that we have lost sight of one of the things that makes us as humans so great: diversification. Some of our finest scientists and artists were polymaths, renaissance men who were artists, natural philosphers and athletes: Da Vinci, Newton, Jefferson, etc. It is possible that specialization drives society forward more powerfully, but at the cost of the individual, and at the risk of myopic devastation.

Liberal arts colleges attempt (in theory) to remedy this, by teaching cross-disciplinary classes and encouraging diverse pursuits, but even in these institutions that most resemble a renaissance university, insularity and separation still persist. What we wish as a culture we must cultivate in ourselves, and if we wish to be a full, healthy and well-developed culture, we must be full, healthy and well-developed people. Artists taking chemistry, writers fixing motorcycles, scientists writing poetry. Interdisciplinary pursuits do not weaken a person’s intellect and drive - they strengthen it.

Or that’s how it seems to me, wasted off my ass at eleven o’clock on a wednesday.

ORIGNAL (FUTURE) SCREENPLAY

40-YEAR OLD SUPERBAD KNOCKED UP VIRGIN

(Scene 1: It is the near-but-not-too-near future. Technology has advanced magnificently, producing a high-tech utopia where disease and death are unheard of, fields of crops produce nigh-inifite amounts of food, and advanced computers provide unlimited access to all available information at all times. Everything is possible. Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd sit in Rogen’s basement, unshaven and in stained, unflattering clothes. The ragged, patched couch has enveloped their engorged posteriors and it is unclear if they have moved at any point in the recent future. They play the the PS7 unenthusastically.)

Rogen:…

Rudd:…

(This goes on forever. End.)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'that meme is tired dude'...

That’s right ugly kitty. We could all lose the place we live in, not just fluffy bunnies and three-toed sloths.

What is it?

Many science fiction authors have put forward images of a future in which the primary unit of value is computing power. Imagine a future where all but the most entrenched luddites have uploaded into some form of computerized consciousness and the only limit on intelletual and social mobility is the quantity of computing power you have access to. So once all the silicon and other relevant materials have been sucked out of the earth, where do we turn? Well, several more science fiction authors have suggest that in the future we will produce a hypothetical element called computronium, which utilizes, by means of nanotechnology, every last atom to produce computing power. Some radical scenarios suggest that eventually all other elements will be useless, and that our future computer selves (named Vile Offspring by Charles Stross, a name I highly enjoy) will tear apart the entire inner solar system, including the earth itself, to produce more processing power.

Likelihood?

Hard to say. Human civilization has not exactly been one long forward movement. We take a lot of steps backwards too. (You may be familiar with one such millenium long cessation of thought…) So while things like mind transfers and the invention of computronium are theoretically possible in the coming infinite lifetimes of humans, it is hard to tell whether or not we will continue to follow the technological path we’re on. Also, we humans are notoriously sentimental, so we may move on to other sources of raw material before breaking down the earth itself, though this assumes a level of environmental consciousness we haven’t exactly maintained throughout history.

Pain Factor?

Minimal. Unless you count the soul-crushing pain of watching the only home you’ve ever known get chewed up by tiny machines in order to make it easier for Jim the Porn-Entity to spam your virtual inbox for the rest of eternity.

In addition to being a pretty neat set of standing stones, this particular monolith has a fantastic history behind it. Apparently, in the late 1970s, a man approached a granite company about building a monument in Elbert County, Georgia, the granite capital of the world. The man used only a psuedonym, and refused to reveal who it was that he represented. The monument that he wanted built would be one of the largest constructed in the modern era and far larger than anything the granite quarries of Elbert County had ever handled. He paid the exorbitant fee for the stones to be built and left detailed astrological and linguistic instructions for their construction. Surrounded by mystery and controversy, these stones have stood as a monument to some bizarre new age philosophy since the date of the completion. Located deep in the Bible Belt, the guidestones have been criticized as the devil’s handbook and as objects of occult fascination. Even though the man who encouraged their construction has long disappeared, they still manage to stir emotions around the country.

As to their purpose, it is unclear, but the mostly likely suggestion is that these guidestones are designed to provide rules and encouragement for a post-apocalyptic humanity trying to rebuild. The stones are inscribed with instructions in eight languages, and the capstone is adorned with a sort of mission statement written in four dead languages (Ancient Greek, Egyptian Heiroglyphics, Sanskrit and Babylonian Cuneiform). This mission statement is fairly innocous, reading: “let these be guidestones to an age of reason”. The rest of the instructions are somewhat more controversial. They offer vaguely eugenic  tips such as “guide reproduction wisely—improving fitness and diversity”. There are also calls to reason that irk the faith based local communities, such as “rule passion—faith—tradition—and all things with tempered reason” The true purpose of these stones remains unclear, and their creator isn’t talking - he appears to have vanished around the time of 9/11. Suggestions range from a new age mystery cult to a Rosicrucian secret society to a New World Order plot.

Here is a link to a full article on the subject. Absolutely worth reading. Link.

Cylons

Important philosophical quandary, or just eye candy?

The new BSG took a step in an entirely  new direction with the Cylons when the restarted the franchise, replacing the clunky plastic robots with sexy women possessing uncontrollable libidos. While I secretly suspect that all the foreshadowing, mysticism and God-talk was just an excuse for the directors to write an overwhelming number of scenes with Tricia Helfer whispering innuendos into Baltar’s ear, there are a number of things to be considered. First, there is the obvious Blade Runner question: what separates man from machine? If a perfect human replica was created, would we be able to tell the difference, and would it matter? (And of course, the most important question, could we have sex with it?)

BSG operates on the premise that there is not a whole lot of difference between the cylons and humans,  and especially by the end of the series, they come to be accepted as equals, more or less. Actually, the writers kind of pass over this issue without dealing with it. The humans are vehemently opposed to the very existence of cylons, and then, without really dealing with the issue, they kind of just accept the presence of Athena and later the final five. No big deal. No one on the show really asks the important questions about the nature of human existence, and the differences (if there are any) between them and the cylons. They just kind of feel it out, acting largely emotionally, which is rather unsatisfying.

Still, I think that it’s an important question. As AI technology advances, this question is going to become more important and less theoretical. And maybe when our robot masters watch Battlestar Galactica and see our sexy representation of them, it will sate their burning desire to murder us and use our bodies for fuel.

Proto-Luddites

Advanced technology has brought us space flight, longer life spans and sexy robots. But clearly we should give it all up and live like monkeys.

When the colonial fleet finally reaches (new) Earth, they come to a decision. They will break the cycle of human builds robots, robots and humans kill each other, by flying their fleet into the sun, throwing their technology away and going to live among the prehistorical humans of this world. While the motivations behind this action are, at best, strange, and at worst, fucking stupid, it does raise a number of interesting questions. (I could talk to you about the interesting take on Neitzche’s idea of eternal return, but falling asleep at your keyboard makes all sorts of funny lines on your face, and I don’t want that)

Actually, it raises an interesting question. Scientists (and other, less intelligent people) have been asking if we are capable, morally, of dealing with the technology we have created. Einstein said, “It has become appalingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity” (As evidence of this I would like to point to the abundance of fart applications on the iPhone). While this may or may not be true, it is an interesting choice that the humans of the colonies make in the final of Battlestar Galactica. While it may seem strange that the writer of a science blog would respect this decision, it is a valid point they make. All too often we make technological advances because we can, without ever stopping to ask if we should (Figure out what movie I stole that from and earn a virtual cookie). While I don’t advocate a primitive technology purge or anything of the sort, I would strongly encourage humanity as a whole to think a little harder about the ramifications of what it is they are doing when they advance their science.

Though I will say, that despite all that, the weird robot montage at the end of Battlestar Galactica was pretty stupid. Is that the note you want to end on? Fear the robots?

"Pew pew"

What is it?

As of right now, military lasers are pretty innocous. The only likely use they will see in the near future is as countermeasures to mortars and rockets, and 105 kilowatts is barely enough power for that particular application. There are significant obstacles to militarization of lasers, mostly in terms of minaturization. Scientists are still working on getting a powerful laser to fit into a small enough space to militarily viable, and powering such a weapon is still difficult. Still, if such obstacles could be overcome, a laser or similiar energy weapon could make its debut on a modern battlefield in a decade or so. But…

Really, modern war is fought and won by treasuries, and if the prevalence of cheap, reliable AK-47s in the hands of militaries around the world tells us anything, it’s that laser rifles are unlikely to  be a mainstream weapon of war (if such a weapon is even ever developed) any time in our lifetimes. It is, however, not impossible to imagine that such a weapon could be useful in one relatively untouched theater of war…

Likelihood?

As mentioned before, it is highly unlikely that any of us will be on the recieving end of a military grade laser any time soon. There are just too many reasons not to build one, not when bullets keep doing such a good job of killing us already. Still, if we act on the assumption that longevity treatments are coming, it is not inconcievable that sometime in the more distant future, a larger, planet or starship scale laser will  be pointed in your direction. But don’t hold your breath, good old-fashioned projectile weapons have a lot going for them.

Pain Factor?

Depends. If someone pointed one of those 105 kilowatt lasers at you, I guarantee it will hurt like hell, if it even manages to kill you. It will burn your flesh away in tiny increments, which is, as I understand it, pretty damn painful. As the power of such weapons increases the pain factor will probably go down, in fact, and you’ll die a lot faster. At least you have something to look forward to.

No, not like that...

Daily Galaxy recently posted an article on longevity and the possibility of living to 1,000. The article is good, but not remarkable, but what is interesting is that this article made it to the front page of digg, a social news site that get upwards of a million visitors a day. For something that a decade ago was considered science fiction to be considered legitimate news is a huge step forward. Here’s what the article said:

“Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey has famously stated, “The first person to live to be 1,000 years old is certainly alive today …whether they realize it or not, barring accidents and suicide, most people now 40 years or younger can expect to live for centuries…

…There are many, many different components of ageing and we are chipping away at all of them,” said Robert Freitas at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, a non-profit, nanotech group in Palo Alto, California. “It will take time and, if you put it in terms of the big developments of modern technology, say the telephone, we are still about 10 years off from Alexander Graham Bell shouting to his assistant through that first device. Still, in the near future, say the next two to four decades, the disease of ageing will be cured.”

Actually, even though I said there wasn’t a lot of uniqueness to this article earlier, there is a very interesting of discussion of people who don’t believe longevity is possible or even ethical.

“I just don’t think [immortality] is possible,” says Sherwin Nuland, a professor of surgery at the Yale School of Medicine. “Aubrey and the others who talk of greatly extending lifespan are oversimplifying the science and just don’t understand the magnitude of the task. His plan will not succeed. Were it to do so, it would undermine what it means to be human.” (Emphasis mine)

This is an important point, and one I think we all need to consider. There is no contention that much of what gives life its meaning is the fact that we die at the end of it - without that constant threat, will we be able to produce such beautiful works of art, and will we even have a desire to live if the threat of death doesn’t drive us to succeed and endure?

Of course, most longevity enthusiasts don’t suggest that they can completely defeat death, only stave it off for longer than previously considered possible. I do have some fear that if this comes to pass, then it will mark an end to an era of human productivity, or worse. Yes, would it not be wonderful if Einstein or Michaelangelo or Shakespeare had lived to work and produce for centuries, but what of Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon? What do we have to fear from an immortal dictator, or an undying tyrant?

In any case, I think this article is a little optimistic - it simplifies the process of defeating aging quite a bit, but it bears consideration. As in all things, I think that this is a supremely ethical act. Humans deserve the right to choose to live or not to, if it is within our power to give them that choice. And more than I fear an end to beauty and productivity, I look forward to a marked shift in the paradigm of human existence that will come about through an end to aging.

Check out the article, it’s definitely worth a read. Link.