Kristin Scott

Could nanoworms prove to be the cure for cancer? Here’s an interesting article from UC San Diego’s News Center that suggests that we may be heading in that direction.

Excerpt: “Their discovery, detailed in this week’s issue of the journal Advanced Materials, is reminiscent of the 1966 science fiction movie, the Fantastic Voyage, in which a submarine is shrunken to microscopic dimensions, then injected into the bloodstream to remove a blood clot from a diplomat’s brain.”

Yet another example of science fiction’s ability to foresee future events.

I’ve been aware and vaguely familiar with the terms posthumanism and transhumanism, but have not yet had an opportunity to explore either in any depth. From what I gather so far (and I admit to being a newbie to both concepts), becoming transhuman seems to be a necessary first step to becoming posthuman. The prefixes certainly suggest that order — “trans” describing the evolution of the transition of human into a being that is either augmented by or totally transitioned into a technologically-based being, thus describing the process; whereas,”post” describes the result or the “possible future” condition of beings to “radically exceed those of present humans as to be no longer unambiguously human by our current standards” (Bostrom - The Transhumanist FAQ).

Of course, all that is somewhat fluid, open to interpretation, and certainly fodder for much more discussion. The World Transhumanist Organization, for example, writes that transhumanism:

“advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities. We support the development of and access to new technologies that enable everyone to enjoy better minds, better bodies and better lives. In other words, we want people to be better than well.“

But of course, who is to say what “better” means? Do our current or future “standards” of “better” include any specific (conscious or unconscious) alterations or augmentations to race, ethnicity, sex, or other physical differences? Bostrom suggests that transhumanism is “compatible with a variety of ethical systems,” but whose ethics? He offers the following paragraph as descriptive of the common beliefs of most transhumanists:

“According to transhumanists, the human condition has been improved if the conditions of individual humans have been improved. In practice, competent adults are usually the best judges of what is good for themselves. Therefore, transhumanists advocate individual freedom, especially the right for those who so wish to use technology to extend their mental and physical capacities and to improve their control over their own lives.”

But again, all of that is ambiguous enough to be open to multiple interpretations. In any case, transhumanism seems to be a fairly powerful movement, while posthumanism provides the ultimate (and quite Utopic) vision for the future.

Ah, if Aldous Huxley were here to see us now . . .

Lots more to learn, though — I’m just starting to scratch the surface. If anyone has any great reading recommendations, I’d be happy to hear them!

I have to admit, I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with social networking. On the one hand, as a child of the 60s, I’m both continually amazed, impressed, and excited about all the social networking capabilities that I didn’t have growing up. It’s like being a kid all over again, except without all the teenage angst and melodrama (whew — don’t miss those days!). And I have been able to keep up with my friends and family better — if through nothing more than their frequent status updates. And in some cases, I actually learn more about people than I ever would have otherwise.

Case and Point: my brother and sister (both of whom are 26/25 years younger than I, respectively) were pretty much just figments of my imagination until Facebook. Since they live in NYC and I have been living in Chicago, I’ve only gotten to see them every few years — measuring their growth in terms of body parts in photographs (here, they’re just up past my waist — and here, they’ve sprouted to my chin!). I tried to create some sort of relationship with them over the years, as best as I could with 25-26 years and 850 miles between us. I tried writing letters (never a single response), I tried calling (a few sentences spoken here or there - and absolutely no response to cell phone calls or even text messages), and I tried emailing (never a reply!). Then last year, I got on Facebook, hunted them down, and befriended my unknown blood relatives. Now they post on my wall, send photos, and IM me through facebook. I’m actually getting to know them a bit . . . their hobbies, likes, dislikes, etc. And the constant status updates and photo/video additions keep me up to date on their daily lives. I have formed a relationship with them . . . but only with a social networking site as a medium.

I’ve also been able to stay in touch with previous students, keep up with colleagues (lots of faculty going online), and of course, maintain a consistent web presence and active scholarly engagement within my field of study. In fact, it’s this love/hate relationship that has driven me to study social networking, the various modes of cyber-embodiment, and the ways in which technology impacts and reflects our culture. I’m fascinated with all of it. And as one who was once a student of literature and language, I cannot help but be equally as fascinated with the emergence of a new lexicon.

But I also miss the f2f contact, which seems to diminish in both quantity and quality with each high-tech year. Sure, I probably make some sort of connection with at least 50-100 people on a daily basis via technology, but aside from the interactions I have with students in classes or around campus, I don’t actually get much qualitative time with friends anymore. And if I do, it’s usually through the fruits of much labor. First, there’s the multiple emails of inquiry (all those “let’s set a date” “no really, we should” “call me sometime to” and “really, we have to get together” emails); another handful of messages to actually set a date/time; and the all too often and almost seemingly inevitable emails and texts to reschedule or change that date/time to yet another. In the end, after a few weeks, sometimes even months, the date is made and f2f contact occurs — for an hour or slightly more — because both parties, of course, have yet another meeting, appointment, errand, or whatchamajigger to get to.

I long for the days when folks just dropped in or a group of us would get together for a spontaneous cook-out, or go out for drinks on a whim. I’m not saying technology is the cause of that decline in real-time social networking, but I do think it contributes. And it’s a major time-suck, too. I can spend hours upon hours in front of the damned computer — loving it and hating it. Dying to get away from it, yet unable to fully pull myself out of the cybervortex. And with each new method of social networking, whether online or mobile, I get sucked in even deeper.

Ok, I’ve been on Twitter now for about two weeks, and I think I have the hang of it now. At first, Twitter seemed rather overly-simplistic (the page layout is very basic); it certainly lacks any aesthetic appeal - aside from offering the ability to change background color, it can’t be personalized. But after having tweaked my twitter a bit, adding both IM and mobile devices, for example, I can better appreciate the application.

After having used Facebook now for a while, Twitter at first seemed like a slightly higher-grade, status update program (Kristin is: tweaking my twitter). And to some degree, that’s pretty much what it is — each twitter entry can be up to 140 words (one long or two short sentences), so there’s not much else you can do but write very brief updates or send a link or two for others to peruse. It also offers updates to devices (cell phone and/or IM), so that you can receive constant updates of those you are following. Of course, I would imagine that this could become quite overwhelming and quickly intrusive if you are following a lot of folks). But I think it’s easier to follow random people that you just find interesting, whether professionally or personally.

With Facebook, you have to have a profile, be affiliated with a school or group, and so its less likely that you’ll befriend someone you don’t already have a connection to (even if it is through six degrees). Twitter allows you to search by terms (i.e. culture) and browse members you might like to follow (much like how many people choose blog feeds to follow). I’ve seen it used as a professional updating system (i.e. a colleague of mine will post links to conferences, musings on teaching, or new software/technological applications) and for personal/social reasons, such as just updating friends and followers on daily philosophical musings, experiences, events, and so forth. Most I know on Twitter (not many yet) do both. The most cool thing for me is the ability to text a short update from my cell phone that then shows up on the website (and/or to others devices, if they have them turned on).

And then there’s Mambo . . . no, not the dance, but the open source content management system (CMS) that can serve a number of different functions. So far, that’s about all I know . . . I’ve downloaded the system to my domain, as well, and will spend the next several weeks (perhaps even months) determining how it might be of use. While it can be used for a blog, it’s a lot more complex than a blog, though from initial impressions, it doesn’t seem to difficult to manage. I’ve not yet done anything to it, but you can see how the system/structure is set up by going to my mambo: http://kristinscott.net/mambo. I’d love to see how others are using it. If you have a mambo website you’d like to share, I’d be really interested in seeing it!

I have a former student, Paul Sernatinger, that sends me very cool links every now and then, and he recently sent me some really interesting ones. I was particularly struck by how researchers at Osaka University, in Japan, for example are in the process of developing robotic body parts that will be controlled by thoughts through the use of electrode sheets placed directly on the brain — creating a brain-computer interface (or BCI). This marks some very interesting developments that, until recently, have only been imagined in the realm of science fiction. But then, science fiction has done an astounding job of predicting a number of events.

My head is beginning to spin with all the social networking, blogging, RSS stuff with feeds and reads and whew! And here comes yet another. Shyftr, which means “Share Your Feeds Together,” is a new “social RSS reader.” What’s different about it is that this feed reader combines RSS feeds you read (or other media stream feeds you follow) with a social network. Some laud the new service or at least see its potential, such as like Louis Gray and Robert Scoble; others, such as Tony Hung of Deep Jive Interests says it crosses a line.

I just subscribed to it, so I’ve not yet got an informed opinion. But it seems Shyfter is attempting to not only aggregate, read, and organize all the feeds people read, but allow you to share and comment on the feeds in one central location.

Considering all the various websites, media streams, blogs, social networking sites, and then all the feeds that connect us to all the above, and of course, the numerous feed readers (how many feed readers are YOU subscribed to?), it might be a worthwhile endeavor. We’ll see . . .

My only complaint so far is that in order to subscribe feeds, you have to have the rss or atom feed url, which is a pain in the ass. I’d like to see them add some kind of search engine that hunts down the needed rss or atom feed once you’ve indicated the website. Bloglines has this feature, which I like very much — keeps me from having to hunt and peck and click into infinity searching for the right bloody url.

I’ve noticed a fairly new trend in mainstream film and television that seems to reflect the younger generation and those within it who believe that sexual identity is more fluid than categorical. Or perhaps these shows reflect a growing acceptance of various sexual identities, but also a struggle with the various ‘cultures’ that often accompany sexual labels. When I say “younger generation,” I’m referring primarily to those who are now in their early 30s and younger.

The films/TV shows that I’m thinking of are those that have incorporated a number of storylines and characters that resist categorizations of gay, straight, lesbian, or even bisexual, but rather seem to seek out more fluid sexual identities and ways of being. They seem to abound on television now, but below are two examples (one television, one film).

Cashmere Mafia, for example, a new show on ABC, explores this issue with the character Caitlin Dowd, played by Bonnie Somerville, as she struggles with not just her sexual identity, but also the accompanying labels, boundaries, and social “rules” of being a lesbian. It’s clear that while she seems to enjoy her relationship with another woman (though that has its challenges in other ways), she seems to struggle more with the lesbian ‘culture’ than with the sexual nature of the relationship itself.

Or a recent film I saw on television a few nights ago entitled, Puccini for Beginners (a really witty and intelligent film that I highly recommend), in which an avowed lesbian, Allegra (played by Elizabeth Reaser), suddenly finds herself within a love triangle (with a man and his ex-girlfriend). Allegra doesn’t simply begin to question whether she really is or isn’t a lesbian (in fact, she spends an inordinate amount of time declaring her lesbianism - and some may argue thou dost protest too much), but the situation leads her to challenge the idea of categorization itself.

For quite a few years now, I’ve heard younger people talk about how they don’t want to label themselves, how it doesn’t matter “what” they are, or just seem to fluidly slip into a variety of dating scenarios without much fuss or discussion. So while the concept itself (of sexual fluidity) is certainly not new, these shows/films are beginning to bring these ideas into mainstream media with characters who don’t fit into any of the sexual “molds” so to speak, and/or characters who seem to resist all categorizations, preferring, instead, a certain sort of sexual ambiguity.

Of course, the old arguments remain . . . they just can’t make up their minds or it’s a cop-out (better to be “fluid” than gay), but I wonder how many of those arguments are more about old internal defense mechanisms kicking in than truth. I really don’t know. I grew up in an era in which being anything other than straight was a huge challenge (socially, politically, sexually, etc.), so my generation was too consumed with either attacking or defending any kind of sexual or gender ‘deviation’ or variation from the “norm” to give this idea of sexual fluidity any sort of real consideration.

And then there are a few recent articles and books that seem to suggest that sexual fluidity is more linked to women than men. I’ve not yet read it, but a new book from Harvard University Press, Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire, “argues that for some women, love and desire are not rigidly heterosexual or homosexual but fluid, changing as women move through the stages of life, various social groups, and, most important, different love relationships.” Instinct tells me that if this is true, it’s likely more a social phenomenon than a scientific one, but a number of other articles (most notably from the New York Times) asks whether women even have sexual orientations or explore the scientific nature of sexual fluidity.

In any case, it seems to be a topic that will be much discussed in the future . . .

I got into the Cultural Studies PhD program at George Mason University! Yipppee!

Ok — I’ve spent a little over one year now in Second Life, and I’m not terribly convinced of its educational potential for college students in the humanities. Yes, I’ve been to a variety of educational events, have seen some pretty interesting simulated literary/historical environments, have even brought my own students into this virtual environment on numerous occasions, and have engaged quite a bit with other academics in the field.

While I see Second Life (and other similar virtual environments) as having the greatest potential in fields such as interactive multimedia, media studies, graphic design, architecture, etc., where you can perhaps better practice some of the conceptual applications of one’s field, I think that these virtual environments, for the most part, water-down, rather than enrich, the study of the humanities. Such virtual learning environments have what I think are too many practical problems — many students simply don’t have computers powerful enough to run the program without crashing; graphics can sometimes take too long to load and/or SIMS get sluggish; virtual environments often experience lag, various interruptions or griefing from other avatars often occurs; and the significant amount of additional time an instructor must spend to even set the virtual stage for learning can be exorbitant. The actual learning experiences currently just don’t seem worth all these headaches. But more than that, I question the value of the experiences themselves.

Yes, I can imagine and have seen a variety of simulated environments that brings literature, history, theatre, music, and other sociological interests “to [virtual] life.” I know that one can now visit a virtual old London community (or something like it) to see what the buildings, foods, clothing, etc. of Shakespeare’s time looked like. I know that one can be a part of (rather than just an attendee) of a performance of an in-world play. And I have teleported myself to the virtual Camp Darfur in Second Life and have had the “chance to walk through a ghosttown [sic] of a refugee camp, victimized by years of torture and genocide.” I’ve experience a number of these types of educational environments.

And I do think one of the strongest potentials, though not utilized nearly enough, is that of foreign language education, especially since voice came to Second Life. One of the things that students get most strongly in a foreign language classroom environment is speaking (though most typically with the teacher, who may or may not be a native speaker); less often, however, do students get an opportunity to interactively engage with native speakers in writing - particularly one that is as fluid and spontaneous as that of a virtual environment. Though one of the pitfalls, of course, of a virtual foreign language learning environment would be the same problem often experienced in one’s native language when communicating online, which is the proliferation of text-speak.

I certainly see the potential for virtual environments as an addendum to learning, but certainly not a major tool of learning. Not yet. Honestly, I think films, photography, literature, and real-life experiences have the potential for a more powerful effect if one wants to immerse oneself in the culture of yesteryear, a literary narrative, culture, or the plight of the victimized and powerless, precisely because they put more responsibility on one to engage with one’s internal self — one’s critical, intellectual, and imaginative processes.

I am concerned that the influx of virtual learning environments have an equal potential to remove us from the reality of social, political, and other humanistic concerns as they do to offer connections. I see virtual media (as it currently exists) as more often providing a barrier between us and that which we are trying to more deeply understand <insert learning lesson or communicative purpose>. Virtual media, in essence, is mediating too much.

Why go into a virtual post-Katrina New Orleans if you can pull together a bus load of students to go down there and see for themselves; better yet, to go assist those who need help and have a hands-on learning experience that they will never in their lives forget? I know — a lot of people can’t travel either to another destination or into the past, so virtual environments give students a different type of access. Virtual environments are “interactive,” allowing students to not just see the 18th century nuances portrayed in vivid colors on a film screen, but allow them to step inside the 18th century, so to speak, and interact with the 3-D environment. The rhetoric is obviously convincing, especially when one looks at the ever-burgeoning list of colleges and universities purchasing virtual property, including my own, to create virtual campuses and interactive educational projects. But I don’t think that the current technology is delivering the promise of such rhetoric. Not yet.

I’m not totally against virtual education, nor have I lost hope for a greater potential. I see its benefits for distance learning (most strongly); being in a virtual environment seems much better than simply visiting and engaging student colleagues on a discussion board or through email. If you cannot have a real classroom, a virtual one can be more engaging than an online class chat, for sure. I also see the advantages to elementary, junior/high school students — it’s cool, it’s interesting, it’s visually engaging, and when you’ve got a room full of sluggish or tired students, it’s a waker-upper. And no matter how good of an educator you may be, these kids today need occasional jolts of visual/interactive stimuli to get those neurons firing. Virtual learning environments can often have the same effect for college students, though they are much more difficult to impress. So I see its ability to become a rather helpful and interesting supplement, but I don’t believe it is, in any substantial way, a replacement for one-on-one class time.

I’m also concerned about what influence such learning tools may have on our own motivation (or lack thereof) to experience things for real; our ability to imagine in our “mind’s eye” the intense fear, pain, and smells of the cholera epidemic in East End London in 1866; or our ability to communicate our thoughts and concerns in well-thought out, well-articulated verbal and written expressions — the kind that come from long moments of solitary reflection, rather than instantaneous interactive text-messaging — short bursts of words that are often way low on the Richter scale of significance in meaning. And while I’m not by any means scientifically inclined, I wonder what, if any, effect virtual education in large doses may have on our intellectual, conceptual, and emotional processes.

This topic is far too large to tackle in one (or even several) blogs. I’m sure, however, that the conversation will continue, and I’ll be interested in seeing how virtual educators will feel after several years of teaching in these environments. I suspect that some will remain as fascinated by its potential as when they first entered the virtual education domain, while others will likely begin to more rigorously question its pedagogical effectiveness.

I am an educator who came in quite excited about the possibilities, but after a year of engaging with this technology, I am rather disappointed. Perhaps we’re just in that really raw, rough stage of figuring out how we can make it work best for us; perhaps we’re on the dawn of a revolution in education; or perhaps we’re just starting to close our eyes and enter our worst nightmares. Only time will tell, but it’s worth talking about, as we navigate this virtual terrain.

Ok, so I plugged it as a cool concept a few months ago, but only just recently tried Bookmooch myself, so want to plug it again. On Thursday, I joined (free), uploaded 26 books into my inventory that I want to give away (easy to do — just put in the ISBN and all the info pops up), and within a few hours, I had 9 mooch requests! So I’ve got to send books out this weekend to some folks in Washington, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina (from a small town I used to live in like 30 years ago — had a great email conversation with the man), and London. I chose to say yes to sending internationally — you get more points that way — but we’ll see how it pans out financially.

Anyway, with the points you earn (some by uploading books into your inventory, most by having others mooch your books), I now have collateral with which to mooch off of others. For each book you agree to send out, you get a point (three if international), and with those points, you can equitably mooch books from others. The idea is that the books, themselves, are free, you just pay for shipping, which comes back to you in the form of others shipping books back to you. Very cool idea.

Only problem so far, though I’ve admittedly not spent much time looking for books (I just spent the last full day packing books and am not wanting to add a lot more right now to just move come summer), the few I have searched for are not available, so I have had to put them on my wishlist. Supposedly, when one becomes available, you get an email — then it’s first come/first serve, since lots of other folks are also often wish-listed for the same book. But I’m hopeful — so we’ll see how it goes.