...

Genesis, part un...

Sheila(on the phone): So Tim, what about that new thai restaurant at Columbus? Wanna head there this evening?

Tim: Tonight? Well ya, I've been wanting to go there for...

Tim is interrupted.

Cathy: Tim, I thought we'd go for a movie tonight! Its the premier of 'Sex and the City'! We could...
Tim: Cathy cmon, we can do that later...

(Her voice turning ever so whiney)
Cathy: WHyyyyyyyy, lets go for the movie! I've been planning this for...

Sheila sighs.

Tim: I cannot handle tis right now! Cathy will you please 'SHUT UP'!
Cathy goes cold and motionless.

Sheila: Cmon Tim, why do you treat her that way?
Tim: She's just so whiny and girly!

Sheila: But isn't that what you wanted? Why do you treat her that way?
Tim: Sheila, whats the damn difference? She's a machine!

Sheila: Tim!

No, Tim was not speaking metaphorically. Its the year 2157. Skin jobs, or 'live machines' now 'live' amongst us. Anyone who wishes to 'own' one has to pass a licensing exam. It entails going through a three week 'live machine user and ethics course' called Genesis. It trains people with respect to dealing with live machines; what can be said to them, what should NOT be said to them, how should they be treated, how to deal with a hostile or malfunctioning live machine - just some of the reading and learning material given to prospective live machine owners at Genesis. Once they passed the exam, they were free to buy live machines, ones that would be customized to their needs. One could not only decide the sex and age of the live machine, but also its characteristics. These characteristics could also be modified later, for a price of course. Upgrades or changegrades. One needs to be atleast 18, to be able to write the Genesis exam.

Long before the new Battlestar Galactica, ever since the Matrix, I had imagined Tim to be having such conversations. Its only a matter of time now. That time could be 200 years or 500 years but nevertheless, it will happen. If it doesnt, the reasons would hardly be technological, perhaps political or philosophical, but not technological for sure. We have always wanted to defy nature and I don't see why we would do any different in this realm. Unfortunately, I might not be there to witness it, but I think this blog would be. (I trust Google!)

But what happens then? What are the issues we might encounter? I am not referring to machines taking over the world and such; I speak of the social ramifications of including them in our day to day lives. Perhaps we would stop wanting to hang out with real people. Real people are flacky, capricious, hard to deal with. Live machines provide almost the same deal, except they might agree with you. They could be switched off with keywords. Tim chose 'Shut Up'. Would goverments enforce rules to force 'human' social involement? Would it be considered dangerous and unlawful to spend more time with live machines than humans? It sounds too 'sci fi ish', but think about it. Why not?

What happens when a live machine commits a 'crime'? Would the owner be held responsible? Would the manufacturing company be held responsible? Or perhaps there would be a 'trial' or 'image download' to determine if the live machine committed the crime on someone's insistence. I think thats a huge can of worms and live machines would come with not just warranty but also 'risk factor'. Imagine QA for that!


Sheila, Tim and Amit at Wild Ginger (the new thai restaurant?)

Amit: This coconut curry is really tasty!
Tim: You should try the penang here...

(A poker faced Sheila, turning red)
Sheila: I am still bumbed about how you treated Cathy this morning. Did you learn nothing at Genesis??
Tim: We're still on that? Am I crazy here or is she not a machine anymore?? She'll be fine. She doesnt feel anything.

Amit: How can you say that?
Tim: What do you mean? She's programmed to say all those things. She doesnt feel pain or get hurt!

Amit: But she doesn't know that she cant! You could shut her off but if you're rude to her, I don't see how she would 'feel' any different from you and me.
Tim: This makes no sense. She has no mind.

Sheila: Amit is right. She is designed to have neurons, except they are not organic. Pain is a also simulated in her, just like any other emotion. And you are subjecting her to it. This is live machine rights violation!

I think the most interesting aspect of this technological marvel would be the eventual discussion and deliberation on live machine rights violation. The debate of whether or not they can 'feel'. And while strictly biologically, we might say no, perhaps there would be advocacy to change the very definition of 'feel'. Perhaps everything cannot really be compared to human biology. This debate might eventually lead us to abandon this luxury once and for all.

...to be continued

(p.s. She's a model at SVA; the closest to 'stoic' I could find...)

Labels...revisited

Identifiers? Barometers? A stranglehold? What purpose do labels serve exactly? Why is it that most people are obsessed or particular about labels? 'GF', 'husband', 'wife', 'date', 'fling', 'friend'...

Is it for security? Or perhaps, liberty; liberty to be able to indulge without fear...and conversely, could it be for protection; used in order to firmly "draw the line"? But does it also not restrict the possibilities? It does seem to typecast the relationship and force it to behave a certain way...a way that might sometimes be out of character. Does it not apply pressure on the relationship? Do labels really protect relationships from disintegration? Or are we just too afraid of a label-less relationship?

Shouldn't bonds between individuals be independent of labels? Or is it that we want to predetermine the behaviors of the many labels that one wishes in life and then find people to slot them into each? There might be certain merits to it too but what is the trade off? Are we losing more than we stand to gain?

What about children? They know not about labels. Do they not feel a need for security, protection, etc? How do they get by without labels? When a child calls out "maa", is s/he really looking for a "mother" or is it looking for that particular unique person who makes him/er feel secure? Do they not feel all the emotions we do? I wonder how they feel when they are in "love" how unadulterated! They "feel" at the lowest most basic level. Perhaps they not know what might hurt them, yet would they feel more alive and free? Why can't we be like that??

(p.s. i wish i could find this couple and give them this snap...fortuitously, i happened to be sitting behind them a few yards, and my telephoto was able to freeze a beautiful moment!)

Fact is stranger than Fiction?

Quite the cliché.

But could it be true? Could the labrynth of life suddenly expose us to events we thought could only happen in a badly written script? Are we all victims of the "this cannot happen/happen to me" syndrome? Art is said to imitate life; it does have that creative licence to go that extra mile and while we might get deeply involved in it, we are still very aware that it is 'fiction'.

But what happens when life starts imitating art, incidentally...

In the meanwhile...

In the meanwhile, he scrambles through interior south India, perambulates the streets of the village, Kumbokonam, and marvels the countryside. He is confronted with images of where he came from. He finds people in poverty completely oblivious to the riches of the world. He finds adolescents devoting their entire lives to temples and helping the needy. He wonders what goes through their minds. He wonders how they live in dilapidated shelters when anything short of 5th Ave makes him scowl.

He visits the place his grandfather used to frequent and meets his peers, many of whom discarded by their posterity. He finds the inevitability of old age unnerving. He finds those who built their lives and lives of many others, living in utter dependence. They are about to complete the circle.

He realises yet again, life is toooooooo short! He recalls he has a great life back home (NYC), and smiles :)

(p.s. that is my photography professor at NYU; he emotes on queue!)

"I do" but only when they "can" do it too...

Much like dating and premarital sex used to be points of contention in yesteryears, (well ya, Eastern world, it still is) Gay Marriages, not necessarily gay sex, is now a raging debate in constitution. Women's Rights Activism still in its infancy, we already have another section of society under heavy prejudice, fighting for acknowledgment, survival and legitimacy.

An excerpt from "The Philosophy Gym", one of my favorite books,
(http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Gym-Short-Adventures-Thinking/dp/0312314523/sr=8-2/qid=1165976793/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-9744516-4390206?ie=UTF8&s=books)

God: "Wrong? Is it wrong?"
Jarvis: "You said so yourself in the Bible"
God: "Ah, the Bible, why do you assume that the Bible is a hundred per cent reliable?
Jarvis: "You mean it's not?"
God: "I didn't say that. But look, if you plan to base your morality entirely on the contents of
one book, you'd better be sure that it's the right book. And you'd better be sure to what extent it can be relied upon, hadn't you?

The Lord pointing to the Bible in Jarvis's lap.

God: "Flip back a couple of pages. Scan down a bit. That's it. Leviticus xi, 7-8. What does it say?
Jarvis: "'And the swine, though he divide the hoof...he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat'."
God: "Ever eaten a bacon sandwich? Then you have sinned! Now a little further down."
Jarvis: "''These shall ye eat of all that are the waters; whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales...'"
God: "'...ye shall not eat of their flesh.'. Didn't your last meal include moules marinière? Why aren't you Christians boycotting seafood restaurants and warning of perils of lobster thermidor?"

Jarvis turns a bit pale.

God: "If you read over the page from the passage about homosexuality, you will discover that it's also wrong to wear a jacket made from a linen/wool mix.
Jarvis: "I hadn't notice that before."
God: "Further it says it's sinful to lend money for interest. Yet you condemn not one of these things, do you?"
Jarvis: "No."
God: "But you confidently cite that particular passage of Leviticus to justify your condemnation of homosexuality. It seems you are picking and choosing.

(p.s. this couple near columbus circle almost gave me one of the most candid moments, but i was a fraction late to press the shutter, evidently!)

Bugs

Of the 7000 off years of human civilization, many social institutions and ideas have come to be established. But rarely have they been revised. And even if they have, the rate of revision seems to be far slower than the rate of revision in non-social institutions / organizations like business, education or software. I'd like to call these unrevised social institutions as "social software". Perhaps invisible, but they are software none the less. We feel the need to use them. We "buy" them ( yes we pay a price or two :) ) and sometimes also dispense them.

A computer software, created keeping the customer requirements in mind, and intensely geared towards customer satisfaction, roughly goes through 4 major revisions a year. It either did not necessarily conform to the needs/requirements of the customer or it contained bugs. Social software, on the other hand was created, not necessarily keeping customer satisfaction in mind. There was perhaps, little survey, and almost no feedback loop. Is it so incomprehensible that it could contain "bugs"? or that it indeed did not satisfy the said requirement.

Sometimes, companies create new software for a certain need instead of packing it in a current software, so as to relieve the customer of the extra baggage and redundancy. My own company, DataSynapse, is now working on establishing credibility for its new software, "FabricServer", that facilitates distribution of web servers, while its previous product, "GridServer" facilitates parallel computing by distributing libraries (DLLs, POJO, Assemblies) They couldve added the new functionality to GridServer but they deemed it prudent to go in for a new software. It was a decision based on market research, customer surveys, as also in-house discussions and deliberations. It made sense. One size does not fit all. Customization has become the key factor in staying competitive...Why then, is it so incomprehensible that social institutions too, do not necessarily satisfy the needs of all "customers" and perhaps newer institutions need to be established?

Marriage seems a one-stop shop for sex, companionship, emotional and financial stability, social benefits and many other needs. While it may boast of being able to provide all of the above under the "same roof", it seems to leave little room for customization. Perhaps a 9th need may indulge a customer which perhaps is in contradiction to some of the needs, rights or privileges, that outline marriage. Of course, what exactly these rights or privileges are, remain undefined to this day, and best leaft to the imagination of the customer! Can you believe we actually have been buying something for centuries without a spec!??? Isn't it funny that we customize and re-customize computer software to satisfy the capricious needs of clients, and yet, social-software like marriage, largely undefined, are thought of as one-stop shops, where one size fits all?

While a non-satisfactory software can easily be dispensed with, or requested alteration, a similar approach to a social software like marriage does not seem possible. "Cmon, people are not software! You cant just deal with them the same way! You cannot get so technical about this!..." is the favorite rebuttal from the puritans. Yes of course, people are not software and they need to be dealt with more "respect" than perhaps a computer software. But that fact only strengthens the case for a more thoughtful process in evaluating and using these social software. If it is so obvious that people are more "important" than software, then why is it so incomprehensible that more thought needs to be put into creating and using social software as opposed to computer software? In fact, interviews for HR managers and others requiring to work closely with people, contain a barrage of questions pertaining to their social and communication skills. Even developers like myself have to go through one of these rounds in order to prove I am socially competent to work, in addition to my programming prowess. Why then must the same logic not be applied to more informal social institutions like marriage?

Apparently it shouldn't. Apparently, we must go through life and all its software because we "must". We have "no choice". And we have no choice since we have no control and we have no control since we have transferred it to the Matrix. (the Matrix?? Read previous post)