[-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source

[adrian at cnmat.berkeley.edu]

> On the other hand, there are technologies that seem to be introduced
> with the stated purpose of achieving one objective, yet have the
> larger objective of changing human populations.  Take, for instance,
> the infamous case of Nestle's infant formula strategy in Africa.
> Company reps masquerading as health workers introduce infant formula
> to a population that had not used it previously.  The suggested
> purpose is to provide nutrition and humanitarian aid.  But when women
> stopped lactating and suddenly found themselves forced to pay for the
> product or watch their children starve, a much more radical technical
> innovation becomes apparent--the forced creation of a new social web
> in service of corporate interests.
>
> More current (and relevant) examples might be the sort of biological
> innovations that have been spurred by petrochemical industries as
> ubiquitous products (plastics, agricultural products, drugs, etc)
> saturate ecosystems with chemicals that interfere with hormone
> production across the food chain, resulting in an explosion of
> diseases requiring treatment.  I don't know that I know enough to say
> that there is anything resembling a conspiracy here....  other than
> the sort of conspiracy of opportunistically imposed apathy and
> ignorance.  But the general recklessness of big business seems to
> suggest that there is something intentional about turning quick
> profits, letting major catastrophic accidents happen, and then
> profiting further.  Habituating people to live in a precarious state
> of withered consciousness seems to have been the real "value"
> uncovered by the pervasive barrage of technical innovations....  human
> beings can be turned into quivering beasts who will tolerate any
> injustice simply to hope for another day, and in many cases, who will
> tear at each other's throats in defense of the paymasters responsible
> for this exploitation.
>
> I suppose I should hang it up, here.  I might be drawing a false
> distinction.  And I certainly am off the rails for this month's
> discussion.  There is something moralistic in my argument, resembling
> the months old discussion of "good" and "bad" that we had here.  Yet,
> I wonder that there might be some value in drawing distinctions
> between orders of technological existence.   That the fast-forward
> orientation of prototyping is fascinating and productive....  but it
> is a loaded term...  and it is one that I have a hard time unpacking.
You can sidestep the impression of a moralist, ethical stance by 
elaborating the
value systems that  are in play. In my exploration of anti-ergonomy I ran
into the case of the disposable diaper and the result it has had in
increasing by
an average of several years now how long it takes for children to be potty
trained.
On the surface it is valuable to eliminate children's discomfort by
optimizing the diaper.
In fact current diapers increase general comfort by expanding in a
soothing way and becoming warm. Likewise diaper changers appreciate all
the gadgets to facilitate the change.
The problem here is that the same object (the result of dozens of years of
prototyping
and field testing) is ergonomic at one time scale and not at a larger one
in time or at
the scale of an entire society. One can look at this somewhat hopefully by
saying that
now the diaper has been rationalized from (a la weber) charismatic
authority of its
immediate convenience to legal/rational authority evaluations (that took
decades) it can serve as a prototype for a new cycle of charismatica and
rationalization with the inclusion of (for example)
alarms that make the wearer aware of their bodily functions. There is
already preliminary
research to support that this will get people out of diapers earlier. In
other words "I poop therefor I am".