Skip to main content

Technology vs Evolution, a.k.a. The Battle Against The Machines

I love walking aimlessly around a new neighborhood right after moving, taking in the sights and discovering the ins and outs of the place. I particularly relish those moments when I can distinctly feel two disjoint areas of my mental map connecting. Initially, a new area is just a collection of landmarks - there's the palace, and I think the station is somewhere nearby, and there's a Starbucks around here somewhere, and that big road is maybe 15-20 minutes away from that other big road. But without actually experiencing how the sections connect to each other, the map in your head is necessarily incomplete. Maybe you can start in the center and work your way out radially to each of the landmarks, but what about getting from point A to point C? And then one day, as you're leaving point A and you turn the corner, you spot point C 500m up ahead, and the map will thereafter make perfect sense to you.

Just as this feeling came over me again the other day (that's where the stream ends??), I couldn't avoid thinking about how technology obviates the need to ever build this mental map in the first place. Don't get me wrong - I think that Google Maps combined with GPS is the single best feature of modern smartphones. A feature that was literally a concept in a magical universe a decade ago is now so commonplace that we don't bat an eye at it. But it's impossible to ignore the simple reality: GPS makes us dumb. It fights what our minds were evolutionarily evolved to do - complex spatial reasoning. If you constantly rely on GPS, your mind never has the chance to build the mental map.

I've seen this problem especially acutely in cities where people drive a lot, but insist on always using GPS. I have multiple friends in SF that I could place two blocks from the Embarcadero, ask them how to get to 280, and they'd immediately reach for the GPS (for those who are curious, go towards the Bay, then turn right). They literally do not know their way around a neighborhood they've lived in for months if not years.

Why bring evolution into it? Well, spatial reasoning seems to be an evolutionarily adaptive trait. If you can't make it back to the cave, you might get attacked by the sabre-toothed tiger, or die of starvation, or eventually make your way back to find your companion and offspring dead or missing. If you can't build a lay of the land in your mind, you might forage forever in over-foraged areas, or forget how to get back to the river and die of thirst. Humans are incredibly powerful spatial thinkers, and it's extremely unlikely that it's a coincidental trait.

Fast forward six hundred or so generations after the first civilizations started really getting together to form larger towns, cities, and nation-states, and we find a blinking dot on a phone and a computer-generated incorporeal voice in a car threatening this basic yet intricate example of human mental prowess.

Of course, it's not just GPS that makes us dumber. The whole concept of the "exo-brain" is a double-edged sword. Sure, we have unlimited storage at our fingertips, and can call on our phones to instantaneously do calculations that a few decades ago would have required a room full of NASA engineers with slide rules. Yet I can barely remember my own phone number, let alone the hundreds of others in my contact list, which would be somewhat troubling in the event of an emergency. But this is simply a matter of outsourcing memory to a device - it's not threatening to our humanity, merely to our ability to remember and calculate.

Little by little, apps and technology are trying to replace the very things that make us human. Lately, there has been a rash of services in the "efficiency" market. Want artisanal bread and organic heirloom tomatoes delivered to your doorstep? There's an app for that. Standing outside a restaurant and can't get up the nerve to go inside and check it out? Plenty of local recommendation services to your rescue. And my favorite in this genre, without a doubt, is canned serendipity. The optimists claim that technology is meant to bring us together even more in the real world. Yet the reality of subways full of people staring down at small rectangles speaks otherwise.

The common thread for all of these services is that they aim to replace human interaction. It wasn't that long ago that we would ask people (real human beings!) for directions when we were lost. It wasn't that long ago that we would stroll around markets and talk to shopkeepers to see what's fresh, what looks good, what's in season. We didn't need to post pictures of food to convince our friends we were leading interesting lives - they already knew, because we spoke to each other. Often. We weren't engaged in the Sisyphean task of searching for emotional fulfillment in bits and bytes and follows and likes - we were living, out among other humans in the real world.

Make no mistake - Skynet is not the immediate threat. You're not going to wake up one day and be attacked by your Roomba. No, the immediate threat is the outsourcing of our humanity, the things that make us human, to machines. The things that bring us together to laugh, to cry, to fight, to love, to smile. Slowly but surely, we are giving our humanity away to technology. We're letting it think for us, remember for us, tell us what to do, take us from place to place, and most dangerously, we're outsourcing our emotions. There will be no Judgment Day. No, there is no need for a glorious battle when we are already freely surrendering to the machines.

Luckily, it's early in the war, and there has been some resistance. People are starting to realize the danger of over-reliance on technology. They're remembering the joy of going somewhere or doing something without knowing how it's going to turn out. They're putting their devices down and getting back together as friends, couples, and families, and doing what humans were designed to do - sharing emotions and feelings with one another, face-to-face. I'm a long-term optimist - I think humans will win this battle against technology, because the more that the interactions that we literally need to survive are wrested away, the more innate defense mechanisms will kick in to protect us. Yet we can consciously decide to win this war before it goes any further. We can make a decision to prioritize humans over technology. We can seek balance rather than overstimulation. We can remember the best moments in our lives, and realize that none of these were spent with our eyes occluded by a tiny slab of aluminum and glass.

We can remember what it's like to be human, and the rest will take care of itself.

Comments

  1. Now I know why you created the emoticon feature in Gmail!

    Dude, emotions are inefficient that's why they're going away.

    ReplyDelete
  2. =). Emoticons make people smile. That makes me happy.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Korean Is Hard For Native English Speakers

A couple of days ago, as an experiment, I wrote my first blog post ever in a non-English language. It was an attempt to explain some of the reasons that Korean is hard to learn for native English speakers, so I figured I might as well try to write it in Korean. Those of you who actually read Korean can see how awkward the attempt was =).

In any case, the post came from an email conversation I had with The Korean from Ask a Korean, a fantastically well-written blog about all things Korea from the perspective of a Korean who moved to the United States during high school. Since I tend to geek out on language things, I figured I might as well post part of that conversation. An edited version follows.

---------

Out of the languages that I've attempted to learn so far, Korean has been the hardest. I've done a lot of meta thinking about learning Korean, and I think there are a number of reasons it's difficult for non-Koreans (and especially Westerners) to learn:

1) Obviously, the…

영어가 모국어인 사람들은 왜 한국어를 배우기가 어려운 이유

이 포스트는 내 처음 한국어로 블로그 포스트인데, 한국어에 대하니까 잘 어울린다. =) 자, 시작합시다! 왜 외국사람에게 한국어를 배우기가 어렵다? 난 한국어를 배우고 있는 사람이라서 이 문제에 대해 많이 생각하고 있었다. 여러가지 이유가 있는데 오늘 몇 이유만 논할 것이다.

1. 분명히 한국어 문법은 영어에 비해 너무 많이 다른다. 영어는 “오른쪽으로 분지(分枝)의 언어"라고 하는데 한국어는 “왼쪽으로 분지의 언어"이다. 뜻이 무엇이나요? 예를 보면 이해할 수 있을 것이다. 간단한 문장만 말하면 (외국어를 말하는 남들은 간단한 문장의 수준을 지낼 수가 약간 드물다), 간단한 걸 기억해야 돼: 영어는 “SVO”인데 한국어는 “SOV”이다. “I’m going to school”라고 한국어로는 “저는 학교에 가요"라고 말한다. 영어로 똑바로 번역하면 “I’m school to go”이다. 두 언어 다르는 게 목적어와 동사의 곳을 교환해야 한다. 별로 어렵지 않다. 하지만, 조금 더 어렵게 만들자. “I went to the restaurant that we ate at last week.” 한국어로는 “전 우리 지난 주에 갔던 식당에 또 갔어요"라고 말한다. 영어로 똑바로 번역하면 “I we last week went to restaurant to again went”말이다. 한국어가 왼쪽으로 분지 언어라서 문장 중에 왼쪽으로 확대한다! 이렇게 좀 더 쉽게 볼 수 있다: “전 (우리 지난 주에 갔던 식당)에 또 갔어요”. 주제가 “전"이고 동사가 “갔다"이고 목적어가 “우리 지난 주에 갔던 식당"이다. 영어 문장은 오른쪽으로 확대한다: I (S) went (V) to (the restaurant (that we went to (last week))) (O). 그래서 두 숙어 문장 만들고 싶으면 생각속에서도 순서를 변해야 된다.

2. 첫 째 점이니까 다른 사람을 자기 말을 아라들게 하고 싶으면, 충분히 …

Don't Take Korean Language Advice From Kyopos

I'm not sure why it took me so long to figure this out, but the last people you should take Korean language advice from are kyopos (foreign-born or raised Koreans). That being said, if you do follow their advice, you will get many laughs from Koreans. Some of my personal favorites, all of which actually happened to me:

- When I first got to Korea, I was at some open-air event, and during a break I started talking to one of the hosts. He said he was only a part-time host, so I asked him what his full-time job was, and he said "백수" (which is slang for "unemployed guy"). I asked him what that was, and he replied, "Comedian". So then the next few people I met, I proudly told I was a baeksu. (Edit: Actually, this guy was Korean Korean, not kyopo.)

- Next, a kyopo who lived in the apartment I moved into back in 2010 asked me what I was doing in Korea, and I told him I was starting a company, and asked how to say that in Korean in case people ask. He told me…