From:
\nSubject: What *IS* FutureCulture
\nDate: Fri, 29 Jan 93 22:20:53 MST<\/p>\n
WHAT *IS* FUTURECULTURE?
\nA Manifesto on the Here-and-Now Technocultural [R]evolution<\/p>\n
by Andy Hawks
\nahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu
\nahawks@mindvox.phantom.com<\/p>\n
FutureCulture E-List Requests & Info
\nfuture-request@nyx.cs.du.edu <\/p>\n
You are five years old. You are lieing on a grassy hill,
\nblowing bubbles up into a clear field of blue sky. Bubbles. Right
\nnow, as a five year old child, you look at the bubbles, and words pop
\ninto your head: “pretty”, “oooooo”, “float”. To you, the bubbles
\nare almost like people — at least somewhat analogous to Bugs Bunny
\nor a Smurf. Your wide eyes follow the bubbles as they traipse along
\nthe gentle prevailing curves of soft winds, turning, rotating,
\nrevolving endlessly in the air. A sunray beams its light through one
\nparticular bubble you have been admiring, and within its midst your
\neyes become privy to a new world — a heretofor unknown domain of
\nchaotic rainbows swirling about along the bubble. The colors, like a
\nsentient anthill, work at once individually and synergetically to
\ngive the bubble it’s unique flavor, an individual identity among the
\ncommunity of bubbles.<\/p>\n
As you lay your eyes on the continually morphing rainbows in
\nthe bubble, admiring how this internal shapeshifting never ceases as
\nlong as the bubble is “alive”, the wind brings forth from nearby
\nanother bubble. Now you are focused on two bubbles circling each
\nother ever closer, probably communicating in some fashion on some
\nsort of subatomic level. Now that your eyes know to look for the
\nchaotic rainbows, you enthusiastically discover them in this second
\nbubble as well. The rainbows exist in both bubbles, with only a
\nthinly veiled invisible wall of air seperating the two. The rainbows
\ndo not stop in admiration or wonder to ponder the existence of
\nanother bubble, they continue on with their duties in the wake of the
\norbic maelstrom that is the individual bubble. And suddenly, in the
\nmesh of an event that seems at once both predetermined and free, the
\nbubles combine and join forces as one. If the sun catches the
\nbubble-morph at the right angle you can still see a wall, where
\nairspace once existed, within the bubble. All the while, the chaotic
\nrainbows have continued of course, and now willingly flow back and
\nforth between what was once two seperate entities. The shape of the
\nbubble-morph is still oddly circular as a whole, with the original
\nshape of the individual bubble-orbs stil clearly visible.<\/p>\n
The bubble-morph is stil at home among the individual bubbles
\nand still haphazardly surfs the winds as if nothing had happened.
\nLow and behold, a third bubble approaches its vicinity. Same chaotic
\nrainbows, seemingly no different from any other bubble in the group.<\/p>\n
*POP!* Quickly this third bubble seemingly self-destructs
\nwithout any reason, sending a fury of bubble residue out into the
\nwind. Some of it lands on a tree, some on the grass, and yet more
\nlands on the bubble-morph. As the bubble morph continues to rotate,
\nrevolve, spin endlessly, the residue makes it’s way to the
\ntranslucent crease marking the marriage of two individual bubbles.
\nAnd, then, it is gone. Absorbed into the structure of he bubble
\nmorph, evolving into yet more particles of chaos rainbows.<\/p>\n
More bubbles float by the bubbly-morph. Some stumble in it’s
\nwake and escape it’s grasp, some pop, some are attracted to it and
\nbecome yet another aspect of the holistic bubble-creature, still
\nother bubbles diverge into a completely different spacial area. If
\nyou watch long enough, you might even see one portion of the
\nbubble-morph leave, mutating back into it’s original state as an
\nindividual bubble.<\/p>\n
All the while, bubbles are combining into new bubbles, bubbles
\nare popping, bubbles are floating, rotating, revolving, spinning,
\nshapeshifting. Affecting and being affected by each other and other
\nentities such as the wind, a sharp blade of grass, a flower pedal.
\nThe chaos rainbows never cease, the bubbles will always exist as long
\nas you, as the bubble-maker, decide to keep blowing bubbles.<\/p>\n
You are now, let’s say, 40 years old. You are sitting on the
\nsame hill with your five year old child, urging him to discover the
\nwonders of the bubble world. Your eyes are not as wide anymore, at
\nleast not as wide as your child’s. But do you still find delight and
\njoy in the wonders of bubbles? There is beauty in the bubble world,
\neven though you may approach it now from the perspective of an
\naccomplished chemist, or physicst, or artist, or engineer, or
\ncyberneticist, or 7-11 night manager. Hopefully, you have not closed
\nyour eyes to the magic your child sees, the magic you once saw.<\/p>\n
It should be obvious, by now, that bubbles are a metaphor.
\nWhat do you think the metaphor is? I would be interested o hear what
\npeole have to say in this regards. But, since this text is to be
\nconfined to the context of futureculture, the bubbles are meant to
\nrepresent subcultures. The caotic rainbows represent the people, the
\nmaterial articles, the ideas, the *memes* that define those
\nsubcultures.<\/p>\n
Thus, you can see, subcultures combine into cultures or bigger
\nsubcultures (it’s all relative), subcultures may self-destruct, they
\nmay evolve or morph, they may diverge in a seperate direction. But
\nwatever the case, there’s still bubbles because we, as a global
\nvillage, are like the five year old — entrenched in the world of
\nbubbles, looking on with wide-eyes.<\/p>\n
Probably the most important ideas I have related so far are
\nthat: 1) the process is continuous with an infinite amount of ebb
\nand flow among and between and through subcultures with an infinite
\namount of possible outcomes, and 2) when subcultures combine they do
\nnot lose their original individual identity, and may in fact leave,
\nthough a synergetic effect exists which is *unrelated* to the amount
\nof individual bubbles combined to produce the bubble-morph. The
\nbubble-morph being, obviously, the combination in some fashion or
\nanother of seperately defined subcultures. It is also interesting to
\nnote that, ultimately, bubbles are “of the same stuff” which can be
\nparalled to individuals in groups on a vast variety of levels.<\/p>\n
Let us now turn to subcultures, let us see what bubbles we have
\nblown that provide the basic constructs of what we might deem, for a
\nlack of a better word, FutureCulture. When I use the word
\n“FutureCulture” I am referring to the FutureCulture E-List. When I
\nuse “futureculture” I am referring to the culture of the future. But
\nit’s not really the future, it’s here-and-now, and it’s in this
\nwriting. There are some other words with similar connotations, but
\nyet the distinctions need to be mentioned, and then applied to
\neveryday life. The first word is “technoculture”. Like a
\ntechnocracy is a government run by scientists or those who create
\ntechnology, a technoculture is a culture that is fueled by
\ntechnology. America is a technoculture. We would be lost without
\nour televisions, our cars, our computers, our telephones.
\nFutureculture, then, is a way of deciphering what tomorrow will look
\nlike in a technoculture. Another label to mention is “new edge”.
\nThis is a trendy, shortsighted term that has little relevance to the
\nperpetual realities of technoculture and futureculture. New Edge is
\na here-and-now-gone-tomorrow ideal. Fairly soon, it won’t be “new”
\nand increasingly so it is definitely not “edge”. The other misnomre
\nto mention is “cyberculture”. Cyberculture is probably most closely
\nassociated with the idea of futureculture, yet cyberculture is often
\nmis- and over-used. If you look at the meaning of the word “cyber”,
\nbasically “information” in an oversimplified context, it has little
\nto do with frequently-used notions of cyberculture, specifically a
\nGibson-esque cyberpunk world as it exists today or in the
\nnear-future.<\/p>\n
These are my own personal reflections on the world of bubbles,
\nand these labels and subcultural labels I am using are better thought
\nof as what I see as the most outstanding reference points to use in
\nthe context of getting The Basic Idea ™ across. Relative labels
\nand reference points, no dictatorial lines being drawn here.<\/p>\n
Each mention of a subculture will be followed by a basic
\nreasoning by a defense in applying the group to the idea of
\nfutureculture. The idea of futureculture evolves *from* the
\nrelationship between different bubbles and buble-morphs. These core
\nbubbles and bubble-morphs produce noticeable ideas, trends, and
\nmaterial objects for example, which are deemed by some relatively
\nlarge bubble-blower (ie society) to reflect the evolution of society
\nand world culture. Simply put, FutureCulture represents an internal
\nand external effort, both passive and interactive, observational and
\nparticipatory, to: discover these trends\/ideas\/objects or at least
\nbring acknowledgement of their existence to a larger segment of the
\nglobal populous, provide an interactive forum for the global populous
\nto discuss such matters and to reflect and refract varying cultures
\nand subcultures, to then apply this discussion to existing cultures
\nand subculture to plant the seeds spawning further
\ntrends\/ideas\/objects. Thus one can begin to see the infinitely
\ncyclic nature of the process. It is a process which you are at
\nvarying levels of consciousness engaged in every moment you are
\nalive, by everything you say or do, and every sensory input. By
\nproviding the on-line interactive forum of the FutureCulture e-list,
\nwe as individuals and members of varying subcultures and cultures can
\nmerge the unconscious acts of participation in culture with a
\nconscious understanding, to create\/construct\/deconstruct\/destroy and
\nevolve reality and people’s lives on an individual and group basis.
\nBasically, we are analyzing existing culture, we are creating
\ntomorrow’s reality, and we are doing it on a here-and-now, globally
\ninteractive, seemingly real-time forum.<\/p>\n
Thus I submit the reference points, the subcultures, the basic
\nbubbles that are essential to futureculture:<\/p>\n
Virtual Culture – This is probably the easiest to “define”. We can
\n————— all say with assurance, that to some degree, in any
\n basic sense of the word, we are all
\n participants and members of Virutal Culture.
\n The essence of Virtual Culture lies in the
\n notion of cyberspace. In this context I might
\n define cyberspace as that frontier defined by
\n electronic communications towhich georaphy has
\n little or no relevance to being a member of the
\n group. If you regularly use a phone, modem,
\n fax, or networked computer terminal,
\n videophone, or interactive video, consider
\n yourself part of virtual culture.<\/p>\n
Technology is a key aspect of tomorrow’s reality. Technology
\n seemingly provides the basis of all constructs we produce.
\n Virtual culture, then, is a giant leap forward for humankind in
\n terms of the way we approach ourselves as individuals, and the
\n nature of how we approach individuals in groups. Basic
\n sociological structures will eventually be realigned to conform
\n to this key evolutionary step as technology continues to
\n increase exponentially, thus forever expanding the limits of
\n virtual culture and therefore potential of all cultures.
\n Non-communicative technological forces will be mentioned
\n briefly throughout this writing, but the most interesting
\n applications of technology increasingly revolve around aspects
\n of communication.<\/p>\n
Psychedelic Culture – Arguably begun in the 60’s, this subculture
\n——————- revolves around the use and effects of
\n psycho-active drugs, particularly
\n psychedelics like LSD, to mainfest new
\n ideas, new ways of thinking, new ways
\n of approaching reality and
\n consciousness.<\/p>\n
One of the mysteries of modern day society is the nature of the
\n mind and consciousness. Psychedelic culture is vital in
\n exploring these areas. These areas in turn are vital to our
\n understanding of who and what we are as humans and the basic
\n philosophical questions homan have asked for centuries.
\n Recently, psychedelic culture has bubble-morphed with virtual
\n culture as seen in the potential exploration of the
\n technoligcal advancements of virtual reality as a means of
\n “opening the doors of perception”. Here-and-now extrapolations
\n are evident in the use of “mind machines” as well as the
\n resurgance of 60’s guru Timothy Leary as a spokesperson for
\n virtual reality. And need we mention the unbelievable
\n explosive return of LSD acros the US and other parts of the
\n world.<\/p>\n
Rave Culture – If you don’t know what raves are, I will attempt to
\n———— explain it, though with a parallel that will disturb
\n many ravers (myself included in the group of ravers
\n disturbed by the anology). Aforementioned
\n psychedelic culture reached a “peak” with the
\n community of Woodstock. Think of rave culture as
\n woodstock in the 90’s, though wih obvious notable
\n advancements and progressions: smaller and more
\n specific communities allow for more woodstock-esque
\n events to occur more often and produce a higher
\n deree of community, the music reflects technology —
\n techno music is the mainstay – music that may often
\n range between 0 and 160bpm that is almost entirely
\n created on computers and modern audio technology and
\n is an evolutionary mutation of disco music
\n generally, and finally, raves are often times
\n associated with psychedelic culture in a general
\n desire to create one’s own reality or be part of
\n some sort of *gestalt-consciencous* event. And,
\n most importantly, the idea of raves is to have
\n fun!!! We most not overlook outlets of communal
\n entertainment in futureculture. At raves, the vibe
\n is generally happy and easy to catch, the people
\n generally fun, the music is cutting edge, and, if
\n you want, you can further entertain yourself with
\n nootropic or other psycho-active substances.<\/p>\n
Basically, raves are the entertainment aspect of the evolving
\n futureculture as it stands now. Undoubtedly raves will
\n eventually morph into something else, as this particular side
\n of culture rises and falls quickly in proportion with people’s
\n day to day lives. Raves, as mentioned before, are deeply
\n intertwined with technology as well as some aspects of
\n psychedelic culture, thus their inclusion in futureculture.<\/p>\n
Cyberculture – This is a difficult culture to explain as it is still
\n———— in its infancy, thus it is still comprised of
\n aspects of the varying other subcultures. I will
\n do my best to set it apart from other subcultures.<\/p>\n
Cyberculture is a here-and-now reality that grew
\n out of the science fiction movement of “cyberpunk”.
\n Look at the word “cyberpunk” — broken down you
\n have “cyber” and “punk” which roughly translates to
\n people using technology and information in ways
\n that deviate from the expected norms and mores and
\n laws of society.<\/p>\n
Hackers are part of cyberculture. I will draw more
\n criticism by defining a hacker as a “cyberpunk” —
\n as previously stated, one who uses information and
\n technology in ways that go against the grain of
\n norm society.<\/p>\n
Let me put to rest an ageold debate that persists
\n among aspiring futureculturists, he said while
\n slowly walking backwards to the bomb shelter.
\n Hackers originated in the 60s, and basically did
\n they same things hackers do now, unly possibly with
\n less of a violent nature attached. Somewhere along
\n the line, those hackers gave up their
\n antiauthoritarian ideals and merged into mainstream
\n society, though they still wanted to be called
\n “hackers” because they can program a computer in
\n nifty ways. Modern-day hackers came along, the
\n WarGames generation, and the connection between
\n illegality (antiauthoritarianism rather) and
\n hackers resurfaced. Old hackers got pissed, and
\n have done their best to dissociate themselves from
\n the genreally-accepted term of modern day hacking.
\n This is most clearly seen in their attempt to
\n seperate “hackers” from “crackers” which I won’t go
\n into because old hackers don’t realise that
\n cracking is still hacking in the original true
\n sense — it does take skill and requires privied
\n information.<\/p>\n
Hackers nowadays, post-Wargames hackers at least,
\n have as their motto “information wants to be free”
\n and thus that is their goal in hacking or, more
\n appropriately, being a cyberpunk.<\/p>\n
Cyberculture, at its roots, appropriates (samples)
\n heavily from other subcultures. This could be
\n easily guessed because of the inclusion of the
\n prefix “cyber”, referring to information. In this
\n context I would like to see usage of the term
\n cyberculture return back to its roots — the idea
\n of an information culture. That is, a culture
\n where information is an important commodity, if not
\n the most vital commodity. Information is an
\n important commodity in modern global culture, as
\n witnessed by the power and popularity and
\n prominence of CNN and Mtv in our society. When
\n people talk about an information society, they are
\n actually talking about cyberculture, and they are
\n actually talking about a soon-to-be historical
\n shift in society that is currently in it’s infancy.
\n Contributions to this shift will be seen in the
\n wake of the ISDN (Integrated Services Digital
\n Network) and other such technologies as they become
\n more readily available and approachable to the
\n mainstream.<\/p>\n
We might say then, that cyberpunks (hackers, not
\n just computer hackers either) provide the deviant
\n portion of an existing cyberculture. Cyberculture
\n should *NOT* be confused with technoculture, new edge,
\n or futureculture, all of which will be put in the
\n proper context later.<\/p>\n
As I have said, cyberculture is in its infancy. We really
\n *don’t* live in an information society, because economics, not
\n infomics or infonomics if you will, is the underlying thread
\n that holds our society together. However, this may be
\n beginning to change, as witness in our reliance on economic
\n credit systems (your credit is just information, which can be
\n hacked) as well as on a political scale the intertwining of
\n political, media, and international-conglomerate businesses as
\n the definite powerhouses. At the turn of the century, it was
\n basically just political forces. Post-WW-II, as postindustrial
\n society developed, it became politics + business which
\n continues to this day, but now media (information power) is a
\n substantial force in the global power game.<\/p>\n
Rudy Rucker, prominent writer and scientist, is credited with
\n the outstanding motto of cyberculture as a whole — “How fast
\n are you? How dense?” The phrase should be examined in the
\n context of information processing, individuals dealing wth a
\n world that is transforming and morphing from economics-based to
\n infonomics-based.<\/p>\n
Industrial Culture – This is a misnomre, actually, since we
\n—————— realistically live in a postindustrial
\n society. At any rate, industrial culture is
\n most noted for a musical movement.
\n Industrial music is highly technological,
\n though it has a definite rebellious spirit
\n that can easily be likened o the punk
\n movement of the late 70’s. Thus, industrial
\n musicians could easily be considered
\n cyberpunks, and sometimes are.<\/p>\n
Industrial culture also consists of other
\n types of performance art other than music.
\n One notable inclusion is Survival Research
\n Laboratories, which builds robots, and
\n usually does strange things with them like
\n putting it inside a rabbit carcus and having
\n the rabbit carcuss walk around and fall into
\n an acid bath. Again, very cyberpunk.<\/p>\n
These postmodern industrialists are easily
\n seen as a byproduct of postindustrial
\n ziabatsus arising out of the sleek, slick,
\n greed-filled 80s and their never-ceasing
\n propagation, as seen in the motivations of an
\n indivudal like Michael Milken or a zaibatsu
\n like Sony.<\/p>\n
Again, technology is prominent in this subculture and by now
\n you are probably beginning to see the extent of the overlap
\n that occurs among these subcultures. The further you go, the
\n more indescribable as individual entities they become, thus the
\n need for a meta-subculture or meta-culture that encompasses the
\n important attributes. From here on out, then, the focus will
\n shift to smaller or more humanities-oriented topics.<\/p>\n
PostModernism – Postmodern art and philosophy arises out of the
\n————- here-and-now state of our world as it has evolved
\n and changed, using WW-II as a reference point to
\n seperate modernism and postmodernism. In the
\n postmodern world, technology is prominent (tv,
\n radio, computer). Information is important (se
\n cybcerculture). Ideas are easily constructed and
\n deconstructed. Communication is more readily
\n accessible and is an artform in itself, witness
\n the popularity of appropriation (sampling) as seen
\n in industrial and hip-hop culture as well as the
\n works of writer Kathy Acker. Politically,
\n postmodernism acceps the reality of a
\n postindustrial world moving towards an
\n information-based world.<\/p>\n
Postmodernism is a tricky subject, and a parallel between
\n mentioning postmodernism can be drawn to the use of the word
\n “shaman” in psychedelic culture – overused, often misinformed,
\n often appropriated without true understanding. Postmodernism
\n has been around for some time now and stands on its own, thus
\n it is difficult to incorporate it in this context. We must at
\n least, however, acknowledge the fact that the threads of
\n postmodernism reality provide the basis for the evolving
\n futureculture, technoculture, and cyberculture.<\/p>\n
Street Culture – Primarily Afro-Centric because of the racism and
\n————– general inequality that exists in America
\n (specifically), the motto of street culture is
\n given to us by William Gibson: “the street
\n finds uses for itself”. Thus, Street Culture can
\n often be considered D.I.Y. (Do It Yourself) culture.
\n Hip-Hop (Rap) music is a prime example of this.
\n Kids create singles in their basement (which is
\n also the case with rave music and industrial
\n music) and then market it themselves, or, better
\n yet, market *themselves*. Street fashion is
\n equally D.I.Y. — small, sometimes local labels
\n that use postmodernism elements like
\n appropriation, also a key elemnt in street music.
\n For example, as I write this I am wearing a shirt
\n by a group called 26 Red. On the back, the shirt
\n has a picture of Charlie Tuna with the words
\n “Human Safe”. This is copywright infringement,
\n but it is also appropriation and a realization of
\n the realities of pop culture and not being afraid
\n to apply them. Graffiti is street culture art,
\n as well.<\/p>\n
Street Culture is a product of a key shift in our postmodern
\n world, which could best be stated as a movement towards
\n individualization and specialization, hence the importance of
\n D.I.Y. aspects in futureculture. You can’t wait for someone to
\n produce something to appease you, appease yourself instead.
\n Create your own art, your own clothes, your own music, your own
\n reality, your own manifesto, whatever…..Action is a *vital*
\n element in all of this.<\/p>\n
Fringe Science – The idea of hyperreality is very important in this
\n————– conglomeration of cultures. Hyperreality might
\n best be explained by looking at the realities of
\n the world that brought Rudy Rucker to make the
\n aforementioned statement “how fast are you? how
\n dense?” Our world is now moving very fast, and
\n is very dense. There is so much out there, that
\n people have come up with new ways of looking at
\n Why Things Are ™ — new explanations for new
\n realities. Cellular automata, chaos theory,
\n singularity, maybe even quantum theory. Time,
\n space, dimensions, reality, consciousness, life,
\n cybernetics, intellignece, artificial life,
\n subatomic realities, genetic mutations — these
\n are a few of the fringe scientist’s avorite
\n things.<\/p>\n
A lot of Fringe Science is an outgrowth of people involved to
\n some degree with psychedelic culture. That aspect, combined
\n with the fact that fringe science is “fringe” makes it less
\n valid to some minds. However, these scientists are the
\n post-Einstiens and should be loked at in that perspective.<\/p>\n
Technology is readily being accepted as a foundation of
\nhumankind, and that belief continues to gain prominence in a world
\ntechnology increases exponentially. Witness the idea of an
\ninformation society — that could not occur in a world where
\ntechnology and the desire to Make Something New ™ plays second
\nfiddle. Technology in our world is rapidly surging us upward, to a
\npoint where we are not even knowing What’s Going On ™. Witness
\nthe out-and-out FEAR of people accepting the TRUTH that is outlined
\nin this writing, witness the fear of computers, the fear of hackers,
\nthe fear of evolution, the fear of genetic engineering… Those of
\nus who are out there now LIVING this reality that’s supposed to be
\nfor the *future* have one thing in common – a DESIRE to explore the
\nunknown, to alter our realities, to alter ourselves and our lives,
\nand to alter our real lives ourselves. Simply said, we are morphing.
\n Constantly. On an individual, cultural, and global societal level.
\nConstantly. On a multitude of levels. Constantly.<\/p>\n
We live in a world full of infinite potential. Reality is what
\nwe make it. This may sound like I’m speaking a small fringe special
\ninterest grop, but that is not the case. I am speaking to every
\nliving individual human being, especially those privelaged enough to
\nlive in a postmodern postindustrial world filled with art and
\ntechnology, money and information, pop culture and subcultures.<\/p>\n
The future is now. That phrase is overused a lot, but in this
\ncontext I mean that our visions of the future, what we have written
\nabout, fantasized about, our hopes and dreams of what will be — the
\nseed of those realities exists NOW.<\/p>\n
In the linear flow of history, we found ourselves at an
\nimportant nexus in which linear seems much too confining when we live
\nin a technoculture that seems poised to greet an exponential model of
\ntime with open arms. Here-and-now and tomorrow we are creating New
\nforums of communication, New philosophical schools, New art, New
\npolitics, New technologies, New realities.<\/p>\n
In comprehending and dealing with these New realities, it is
\nimportant that we reshape our mindstyles NOW to adjust to constant an
\nconsistent fast and dense change. It is no longer enough to say
\n“change is the only constant”.<\/p>\n
We must try and keep as open a mind as possible: keep all
\ndoors of perception open, prejudices of *any* sort will not meld (and
\nI don’t mean prejudices only in the physical sense, of course — I
\nmean in the mindstyle sense, the “faith” sense, the action sense,
\netc.). An open mind, open to all ideas, all experiences, all people,
\nall communications, allows for a completely new transreal way of
\nlooking at ourselves, our world, our realities. In that transreal
\nmindstyle we should constantly look and redefine ourselves and our
\nworld if it is necessary. For example, we, as a technoculture, need
\nto transcribe *everything* we can via some means, whether it be via
\ncomputer netowkr, video or audio tape, pencil, etc. Everything from
\nthe most individual moments to the most important global occurances.
\nIt’s not enough that we have I-Witness videos and America’s Funniest
\nPeople and then CNN. Everything that’s important and meaningful to
\nyou and your life, record it in some fashion or another. This
\nrecording allows you not only to better future generations by way of
\nsharing the past, but it allows you the potential of looking at
\nyourself in different lights, different angles (both literally and
\nfiguratively depending on the means of recording).<\/p>\n
We should continue to develop the means and resources to
\nfurther the specialization and individualization of interactive
\ntechnologies and interactive communication forums. Basically, this
\nis just the idea that the more say each individual has in their
\nreality, the better. It ultimately promotes democracy and stronger
\ncommunities. For example, presidential candidate Ross Perot
\nmentioned “Electronic Town Halls”, the Internet is a prime example of
\nspecialization and individualization and interactivity, and more
\nspecialized newspapers and magazines, etc., are also a good idea.<\/p>\n
Relative to a previously mentioned idea, we need to be more
\nopen to change on every level, not only within our own personal
\nlives, but in small groups, subcultures, and societies. We need to
\nbe able to deal with the exponential growth of communications in the
\nworld, and to do that we are being forced to change a lot of
\ndeeply-set ideals about the nature of communities, organizations,
\netc. For example, dealing with this change might include saying
\n“Hey, we live in a system of representative government created 300
\nyears ago when travel was difficult and communication very slow.
\nFairly soon we’ll live in a world where everyone has some means of
\ninteractive electronic communication in their home, whether it be
\ntelephone or interactive-television or computer-network. On the
\nbasis of travel and communication, therefor, is representative
\ngovernment still a necessity?”. On a more realisitc level, we must
\nown up to the fact that in a constantly changing envionment,
\ntradition for the sake of tradiition is futile and luaghable. If the
\ntradition does not serve well the current environment and has no
\npurpose, it should quickly be thrown out and changed. This idea
\noperates on every level, from dealing wih the national deficit, to
\nhow you arrange your desk at work, to the nature of power structures
\nthat govern the masses.<\/p>\n
These are not radical ideas, they are just an acknowledgment of
\nnecessary changes in how we live our day to day lives, how we operate
\non every level, from the individual all the way to the individual
\nplanet.<\/p>\n
— <\/p>\n
ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu\t FutureCulture: In\/f0rmation
\n ahawks@mindvox.phantom.com\t\tfuture-request@nyx.cs.du.edu<\/p>\n
