This will take a little time to download, but it’s worth the wait. Toon from Stuart McMillen which highlights that Huxley, Orwell, and Postman were all right in some ways.

The tools that connect us are increasingly temporary. With each new technology, the distance between humanity shrinks or, in some cases, disappears. And not just physical distance, but all distances — time, feedback systems, meme spread, tribal and ideological identity … much of what defines us individually is accelerating collectively. Moore’s Law tells us that computers will continue to get more powerful, shrink in size, and converge to near-zero cost. Within generations, the “devices” we use to connect to this emerging network will become a generic and transparent part of life, integrated into clothing, furniture, walls, vehicles, and anything else we encounter throughout our day.

This evolution took another big step with India’s Ministry of Human Resources Development announcement of a $35 tablet in the works.  Of course, this isn’t a full-featured computer, but rather a cloud device. As more and more heavy lifting is done in the cloud, tablets such as this become a common user-interface. Yet in a few generations, the idea of “tablet” will seem quaint, as connective technologies become an invisible part of everyday life, and perhaps even part of human biology.

The cloud, of course, is where virtual tools and all but the most sensitive information will eventually reside, with all people and cultures having equal and immediate access. The cloud includes communication protocols that will eventually offer a seamless language bridge for all data (text, speech, visual, etc.). It really won’t matter what language we write or speak — the intelligence of the cloud will make virtually all human symbolism understandable to everyone, at any time, in real-time. Anyone on the planet will connect with anyone else without the historical barriers of language, time, or border. This assumes, of course, that the Internet(s) remain free from overt government or commercial restrictions (see prior post, China, Iran, etc.).

The distance between us will continue to collapse (cost, size, ubiquity) until we literally become the interface, if we chose to.

Derek Turner has an important op-ed piece up today at cnet. I encourage you to read it and take action with your elected officials. I have.

“There are currently closed-door meetings taking place between phone and cable behemoths, and the biggest Internet companies, to craft a “compromise” deal that could carve up the Internet for them and leave consumers and smaller competitors behind. If the fix is in, it won’t be long before they launch a PR campaign presenting this scheme as some kind of middle ground far from the “radical fringe.” But buyer beware: This could be fake Net neutrality.

This fake Net neutrality will be a huge loss for consumers and online entrepreneurs, who will have to stand by and watch as these industry giants turn the vibrant marketplace that is the open Internet into something that looks more like cable TV, where consumers face high prices and few choices.

If policymakers don’t put in place safeguards to ensure robust development of the open Internet, we would be allowing the few companies that can afford it to buy admission access to a new fast lane, while newcomers to the online marketplace would be stuck within the constraints of the existing platform.

For those who care about preserving the Internet as a level playing field, this means establishing real Net neutrality–clear and unambiguous rules that keep the Internet free and open, not just for large companies with deep pockets able to pay for priority, but for consumers, innovators and entrepreneurs too.”

My friend Seth Raphael shares some wisdom today on the TED Blog. A graphic (below) caught my attention, something he calls “The Chain of Wonder.”

I like the concept of “expectation violation.” So often we get into life routines that don’t violate anything – same old, same old. I’m convinced that a life worth living is a life that is constantly violating the status quo – not for violation’s sake, but to breakthrough into new levels of experience, awe, wonder, and revelation.  And in breaking through, we can legitimately call others to new places of awe, wonder, and breakthrough.

But when expectations are violated, some people are not excited or positively motivated. They instead become fearful and suspicious. I think this describes much of religion – a fear response – a flight response – a call to circle the wagons. And fear coupled with Raphael’s next stage of obsession en masse perhaps describes religion’s darkest legacies.

Conversely, when an expectation violation is embraced with awe and wonder, I think it can make for a much healthier life, both individually and in one’s contribution to the larger global family. Call it spirituality or whatever, how we react to uncertainty defines much of who we are, and how we perceive others. Seth has a great handle on this and I encourage you to learn more about his work. As he says, “wonder never gets old.”

Seth’s Website (click on the rabbit!)

..

“…very nearly the only languages on earth that don’t have a commonly used word for an intangible life force connected to the breath are those spoken nowadays in the industrial nations of the modern West.” J. Greer

The word “infinite” – along with such synonyms as “limitless” and “boundless” – are thought stoppers rather than meaningful concepts, because the human mind can’t actually think about infinity in any meaningful sense. When somebody says “X is infinite,” what they may be saying is “I refuse to think about X.” G. Hardin (paraphrased from Filters Against Folly, How to Survive despite Economists, Ecologists, and the Merely Eloquent)

“I am incapable of conceiving infinity, and yet I do not accept finity.” S. de Beauvoir

“It is good a philosopher should remind himself, now and then, that he is a particle pontificating on infinity.” A. Durant

Been reading about the Forer Effect and observing how this bias works in my life. Somewhat related to an earlier post on cognitive bias, you’ll want to read journalist David McRaney’s description of “subjection validation.”

And here’s a very creative example of cognitive bias subjective validation by particle physicist and cosmologist Simon Singh during his lecture on Big Bang theory.