Toward the end of the video, the lady sort of avoids the question she's asked.
What is up with Steve Lee's teeth? Yeah, I agree that was a pretty neat side-step at the end there. If augmented reality is just around the corner, I'm sure that the ramifications of this technology will be realized fairly soon as well. I wonder how quickly the "glass-etiquette" as they call it will develop. It certainly seems like opportunity for privacy to take a hit is there, as well as a quagmire of legal disputes. By 2014, will all porn be POV?
We're getting closer and closer to this becoming a reality.
I don't think it'll surprise you that I disagree that it's an avoidance of the question. I find it more that the basic underpinning of the question is a misunderstanding. Technology has been enabling a much greater capacity for human interaction. I mean, we are talking over the Internet right now, right? We'd never have this discussion without the technology. What the Glass project is doing, I think, is a refinement - the technology is an improvement on our last iteration. It isn't "we did something wrong and we need to fix it" - rather, it's "we've done something right, but we are improving it." The home computer and Internet allowed some additional interaction but it was flawed - we couldn't take it with us in our day-to-day lives. Next, the cellphone and then Smartphone has enabled us to communicate with anyone at will, but the downside is having to remove your gaze from the rest of the world. Now we are at the brink of having all the benefits of the smartphone - tools, accessibility, communication, and learning - in a package that doesn't require us to be removed from the rest of the world. Personally, I'm very excited. I won't be a day 1 adopter but I certainly will be following this thing very closely.
But see I don't necessarily agree. I think it is that we've done something wrong, and Glass is only making it worse. While I do understand without technology we wouldn't be discussing, I think that the best human interaction is face-to-face and that the more the technology "brings us together" the further it actually pushes us apart and Glass is no exception.
But why do you see it pushing us further? I mean, I feel I can give a reason why Glass is bringing us closer - it allows all the same kinds of technological communication possible with our technology now, plus with some additional cool things like the possibility of sharing exactly what you see real time with people - literally letting people see the world from your perspective. All of this, and it doesn't take you out of that moment - you're right there, fully present with your little computerized aide. Even if you'd argue that technology has pushed us further apart, why do you think Glass is going even more in that direction?
- why do you think Glass is going even more in that direction?
But there's so much technology that we do rely on and can't live without, not while maintaining the kind of lifestyle where we could safely take a walk by the river or look at the clouds. Indoor plumbing, movable type, fire, houses, the glasses some of us need to even see the clouds or the river... the list goes on. If every user on Hubski was born in the 1600's, half of us would be dead right now, almost surely. Are people who huff and puff when they lose their phone for an hour overly entitled? Sure, but that's not so much to do with the technology as it is with the person - I wouldn't argue that we have a very impatient culture, and perhaps part of the roots are that our technology allows us to live in that instant-results kind of way. There is some technology that is reasonably ingrained to the point that we can't imagine living a fulfilling life without it. Why stop at what we have now? Why not allow ourselves to have even more things ingrained into the fabric of our lives?
I'm setting this in a new paragraph not because it's a separate idea, but because I'm going to go off a little far into futurism. Language was a tool that we found the need to build into every single human. People who aren't able to develop language skills are considered severely disabled, and cannot get by in our world. So why would we not say that we can imbue ourselves with more tools for life, to weave into that tapestry of the tools we don't even think about as tools most of the time? It's another step in our evolution as a species - we've escaped the surly bounds of natural selection and are improving the things that we want about ourselves with our knowledge.
While what your saying does sound pleasant and what not, I do have to disagree. The progression of technology only makes it so that we become less appreciative of the essentials of life. The more and more "technologically advanced" we become I believe sets us ever further behind. While it is nice to have these cool gadgets, how many of us nowadays would survive if - God forbid - there were some catastrophic event that made technology functionless? It's prioritizing the wrong things.
- we've escaped the surly bounds of natural selection
What are the essentials of life though? Other than mere survival, I'd put my vote in for creativity, discovery, socialization, and critical thought. I see these as inseparable from technological progress. Humans are born tool-users and -makers. We will always want to answer the question "how can I make it better?" To that end, technology is the sum of all the things we do to improve on what we see. For the creative life, technology isn't an essential input - it's the inevitable output.
- how many of us nowadays would survive if - God forbid - there were some catastrophic event that made technology functionless?
I think the risks we're diminishing - epidemics, malnutrition, the risks of childbirth, defending against other apex predators, deadly weather patterns - are better to put behind us, at the risk of being at least somewhat dependent on our technology. If the technology enables us to live longer lives more dedicated to the aforementioned creative impulses, it's a net gain.
- we're also on an unhealthy path toward overpopulation (assuming we aren't already there). Natural selection is meant to occur and getting rid of it is us meddling into things that we shouldn't be meddling with.
For the sake of a good argument, I will posit that all problems are solvable through creative engineering. Solving overpopulation, for example, may be something we can figure out within this generation. Terraforming for space; improved farming techniques, or perhaps synthetic nutrition or a biotechnical metabolism that doesn't require as much of, or the same kind of foods to solve hunger; a stronger push towards green technology, or using bioelectromagnetism to exploit the energy of our bodies... if there's a problem, our minds can find the answer. It's up to our society to engineer the solution.
You gave the answer early on in your response. The essential of life is to survive. Everything else is frivolous.
Sadly, hacking from Glass is gonna be impractical because hacking is still sitting at a computer writing code and not diving into cyberspace to do battle with firewall programs. But rest assured, it took people a week to jailbreak their phones - when Glass comes out, it will quickly become a piece of custom soft/hardware. As for how it goes on a large scale, probably like most things - first a quirky toy of the rich or eccentric, then a high-end electronic, and then a day-to-day requirement, and then obsolete. We'll find the next improvement and latch onto that - in terms of what this thing is functionally doing, it's a stone's throw away from optic implants for example.
Also side note: I think these things look cool. I agree with Topolsky's assessment that they are a beautiful design. I don't care if people will think I look like a geek running around with these. I am already a huge geek, I might as well look the part. I want to live like I'm really in Cyberpunk and I want it now.