When is a tool, not a tool? Apparently when it is a quasi-tool or a proto-tool. A tool provides functionless functionality.
These were a couple of the epigramatics Barry Allen shared during a talk on technology, culture and civilization.¹
I could not possibly do justice to philosophical reflections on the nature of a tool, so I stop there on the philosophical and refer you to my footnote, but as an economist I was particularly drawn into his discussion of the progression from first to second order machines. First order being ‘devices that extend human capacities by exploiting a mechanical advantage’ and second-order featuring ‘an assembly of first-order machines, coupled to produce a multiplying effect.’ This form of organization seemed to dovetail with a similar discussion that Allen raised about our ability to effectively fix prices, but our seeming imability to determine the true cost of a tool. His talk at this point expanded from a focus on individual artifacts to a comment on societal inability to leap the chasm between monetized value and societal impact. Engineers, Allen charged, were driven by efficiency alone in design, where recyclability could in fact be a similarly overriding design decision. My thought was that this itself could be further extended into a form of second order economy, in which we find a means to extend rather than reduce liability for design. This accepts that we are good at fixing the price, but have to find a means to determine real cost and in fact create an incentive at the outset to do so. This is not dissimilar from the overly simple and trendy concept of carbon credits we are starting to practise today. Monetization of the long-term environmental cost is a great start, but we cannot currently come to grips with the fact that progress/innovation whatever we choose to call it leads to our creation of tools with great promise by narrow analysis of immediate effect, but that have far wider consequences that we know or would care to invest in trying to discover. The idea of the unknown in our ‘first-order economy’ is something we label as risk. An economic player is called upon to find their own balance between the level of risk and what they perceive as return. The reality is that if risk is redefined to carry longer term liability for design decisions, this will force more broad exploration of wider impacts of tools at the design stage rather than in when we are trying to develop remediative responses to unintended consequences of the tool design in the future. The immediate challenge to this rethinking is the charge that it will stall innovation. My only response to this, is that we are now forced to innovate in response to unintended consequences and this may in fact demand greater costs environmental, economic or otherwise than if we chose to force earlier design decisions in the creation and application of technology.
In closing, Allen remarked on ethanol/ethane and the fact that this is one of the clearest examples of deliberate human avoidance of true cost. Getting beyond the social costs of redistribution of the harvest from the food chain into a resource for mechanical propulsion, corn is the single-most water intensive crop under cultivation. We are absolutely aware that by using it in a combustive process, the component parts are irrevocably lost to the natural cycle and yet we are clearly destroying our groundwater resources.
Allen challenges that there have never been civilizations in human history that waste tools as we do. Second-order factories are idled and having lost their opportunity are often not recombinant to another second-order machine.

a

1. Quasi-tools as I understand are objects used by beings without conscious or intelligent awareness that the object provides any particular function. Innate use of a pebble by a wasp to block the entrance to a birth chamber for example. In contrast, a proto-tool, is consciously chosen for use, but has not be fashioned to perform that function, lacking deliberate design to enable that function. A ‘tool’ per se shares two descriptive aspects: that its function is manifold and not limited by purpose, instead extended by technique to form cultural technology. Secondly, the tool is an artifact that lacks definition without having a place within an economy — that is, it has been previously linked to others in an economy of socially complimentary action (design, manufacture, sale, license, etc.) when we engage with it.

The consistently thought-provoking Chris Brogan explores how current digital tools provide for greater freedom in employment and life in general. Chris makes some prescient referrals to technologies and ponders why one should focus on being more mobile or consider being more nomadic. His post explores the equation from the perspective of the nomad. I wonder what the perspective is from the other side — from those that would consider the nomad’s services. He raises the critical question about data security and I wonder if this doesn’t extend to a larger question of trust. I have only rarely been on the nomad employing side of the equation, but even by appreciating the nomadic perspective, I am challenged to feel comfortable with the nomad. It’s not really about the results — or about my level of trust. I agree with Chris and with Mark Harrison who affirmed that the nomad should be paid for delivering results. What concerns me is the breadth of digital relationships.
I have always shied away from contractual arrangements personally. I believe (perhaps naively) that if a relationship works for both parties, then it will be perpetuated. Maybe that’s overly Utopian thinking. Nonetheless, it does boil down to a trust issue and in a complex world, trust has to be measurable, demonstrable and to extend outside of the immediate relationship.
Increasingly, digital transactions have attempted to commodify trust. eBay is a good example. The traditional auction, mediated only by the slightly familiar auctioneer has become more information rich based on transparent historical transaction data and more visible reputation. This has theoretically allowed for more informed transactions. The visible social graph beyond eBay has extended this into the employment sphere. The traditional (perhaps mythical) one-on-one employment relationship has become more rare. Employers often must account for their business actions to investors, vcs, outside auditors and the like. Thus, while I may have implicit trust in your ability to deliver results, that trust cannot be tangibly extended/conveyed to third parties. The current inability to commodify this trust gets in the way of digitally nomadic employment schemes. I am not arguing that they are not potentially far more efficient for both parties, only that we don;t have a means to adapt them to employment infrastructures that remain traditional.
I guess this is really starting to range into a discussion of social capital. I wonder whether this is something that OpenSocial has any promise of addressing more immediately. I think it’s quite possible that an informal measure of social capitalization (I use that phrase deliberately) can be garnered through casual observation of wall posts in Facebook or posted application responses.
Wouldn’t it be cool if a digital scoreboard existed that allowed for a more granular demonstration of achievements that provided a measurability of personal trust and professional competence. Wow…that’s way too Orwellian.

a

Once more I plunder from the idiosyncratic EnglishRussia blog. There’s always a daily dose of intrigue at the site. What better to feature today — especially after Putin has taken another step towards restoring tradition by suspending one of the last credible opposition parties in the Russian Federation — but some eerie/spooky shadows he cast recently. Check them out…

a

I have spent the last decade naturally evolving towards a work day that largely takes place in coffee shops. Having written my MA largely at the Second Cup in Guelph and turned to the Starbucks before that to do business planning, I currently spend the bulk of my time at the Second Cup in Westdale. During this time, I have evolved from relying on pen and paper to hopelessly attached to my laptop. That same appendage has gone from tethering to an electrical outlet to craving attachment through wireless connectivity. The way in which I work away from the office or home has evolved, technically and socially.

The pen and paper days also involved a good book and allowed for reading during the day. As data connectivity has progressed, direct social connectivity has decreased. Yet, I am increasingly unable to be productive in an environment where I am not at least socially ‘exposed?’. I pay my rent (an expensive latte every morning) and then work within the milieu for the next 4–12 hours. People come and go and sometimes I notice, sometimes I don’t. I experimented with wearing headphones (with and without music) to create a sense of isolation within the environment, but have actually found I usually don’t need them. The tone and pitch of voices dictates…there are some voices that are just more piercing and I am unable to shut them out. If I key on a phrase in ambient conversation sometimes I can’t pry myself away and have to resort to audio distraction. Traffic and the occasional re-arranging of furniture sometimes distract…there is of course certain rules that not all may be aware of. That’s a topic for another time. I talk less with the people around, and am able to usually be quite productive. Environment is crucial to this productivity however and the Westdale Second Cup works quite well as it has huge windows that I focus on and away from the cafe proper. If its sunny I am in full productive mode. If its inclement, I am sometimes depressed by that. Increasingly so. The bottom line is I like to work in private in public.
And I don’t think I am alone in this. How many laptops clicking within a 25 foot radius here…5 (and that’s a low sample). 16 people…just over 25%. Its often considerably higher here. There’s transiency and better time for some than others. I sense I tend to work longer than most. What do I need? An electrical outlet, wireless access (although for writing tasks I find I do better without it), my table and some commotion. I tend to work through the day fairly consistently, but I used to take breaks and engage with someone for an hour or two and then go back to work. So we digital nomads have certain needs, but they differ amongst the group I am sure.
Which brings me to the point at hand…Josh joined the Queen Street Commons in Charlottetown when he was in PEI last summer for an extended spell. To me it was a unique development that offered social networking, stimulation and public private place to work. It is not unique and there are many cooperatives springing up through which individuals are creating specialized environments to support his need. Quite often these are digital nomads. On another area of the spectrum is the Core Club, which Dave pointed me to yesterday. It is also a group of individuals coming together to create an environment to support their social needs. In this case its by invitation only which raises a sense of elitism, yet they are dedicated to embracing diversity.…and providing a wide variety of social and cultural events to stimulate their membership.
Which raises one of the larger questions in my mind: how much of the social can actually be engineered from without? I was just speaking with an acquaintance here who admitted that there are a limited number of places to find to work in this nomadic coffee shop environment in Hamilton. She admitted to knowing of a club downtown that was trying to encourage the social workplace and matching it with stimulating events, but that from experience, it lacked the critical mass of participants to recreate an appropriate milieu. So there are some pereiveable parameters that go along with the factors that ‘we’ are looking for. How much of this can actually be turned into metrics? What are these critical masses? Inquiring minds want to know.…

to be continued.…

a

Big kudos to Sen. Patrick Leahy, chair of the senate judiciary committee for making an impassioned demand to discover what happened to Maher Arar. The text is enlightening. He actually seems to see Canadians as strong and ‘valuable’ allies. Haven’t heard that in awhile. Do we remember the glaring omission of Canada following 9/11. Certainly Canada doesn’t seem to exist as anything other than a northern parian in the Bush mind. The footage at the CBC certainly captures the tenor of the questioning. Does the re-alignment of forces in the US legislature actually mean that a new accountability can be realized? Well, if Alberto Gonzalez actually delivers a report on the Arar case as demanded things certainly bode a positive change for the future.

a

Allan Bishop and I engaged in a rather interesting short discussion this morning on blogs, public discourse and what it means to share your thoughts in the internet era. He raised the story of the chap that went online and suddenly discovered extensive discussion amongst classmates over his shortcomings. Commentary was written with the assumption that the subject of their discussion would never actually see the content. I made the statement that when I throw stuff online I simply presume that it is public, even if I do not intentionally make it so. Case in point…this blog site. Although it can be accessed and shows up in Google searches, I don’t actually link to it from anywhere. Only a couple people have been pointed to it at different points. I am not deliberately keeping it secret or hidden, I just want to see if and how I actually use it before deciding how I would intentionally share it. So it remains unlinked, but still findable should someone make a deliberate attempt to search for it.
But how much of this is actually in my control. Not as much I would suspect I or most people would think. Therefore I try to exercise some discretion on what an how I write to the blog.
What about anonymous broadsheets of the 17th and 18thCs? Although published under pseudonyms, small circles were often aware of to whom each could be attributed. So, is there any degree of anonymity today. Much less I would argue unless one takes great technical pains to cover ones footsteps. However, sniffing out the breadcrumbs is also tied to how technically ept one is…so there are varying degrees of anonymity and no universal application to a single individual. Not sure what all of this means, but it raised the question of author’s intentions. I perceived that a diary was much more private than a journal and Allan held the opposite. I related a journal to a more businesslike entry of daily transactions and a diary to a more emotionally driven critique of thoughts and feeling. The journal, Allan thought was more of this…and further, a gender issue arises. I had always felt that journals were something that was in the male domain and a diary applying more to the feminine. This too is something of discussion. Thoughts?

a

Yes, it’s Tony Blair when asked whether he prayed with George Bush when he visited the White House. A quick quip. What did he mean by this answer? No he and George W. don’t share religious practise, or is it simply not in his brief to discuss his religious views. In the US for better or worse, religion is suddenly *very* publicly avowed. Whether this religion is one of public appearance or whether it is a deeply held belief, they certainly *do* something professing to be God in the US these days.
I was was intrigued by an article carried in the Toronto Star today claiming that ‘Islamophobia’ makes integration tough for the continent’s 15 million Muslims. Interesting thought. What I find most fascinating is the charge that Europe has become a vast sea of secularism and that the US is in fact a more hospitable host to muslim immigrants. Is racism more endemic in europe than in North America? Is this a phenomenon stemming from the French Revolution? Interesting points to ponder.

a

Another interesting list I came across during the season of listing. This one comes from a bit of a site of paranoia…but maybe we should be afraid :-0. On the upside, this is a list of 13 Easy Ways to Safeguard Your Privacy in 2007 which seem like some very prudent steps. Although I don’t advocate running screaming in the streets, these seem to be some concrete simple things one can be aware of or practise to safeguard one’s identity. Its real and after I had those 15 laptops shipped to my Quebec address a few years back, am certainly more on the watch. Things such as avoiding the use of your middle initial is something that I wouldn’t have thought of but you know…it makes some sense.

a

Is this an up and coming phenom? Zopa and Prosper are two two startups offering to bring together borrowers and lenders and offer . The sense of ‘Simness’ (as in simcity/sim this sim that) is an interesting note. … As the author of this survey on these two services note, they even add fun to the act of borrowing and lending…quite an accomplishment.

a

Ok. The constant CBC warnings that this programme contains coarse language is certainly the hint that the CBC has yet to warm to Brian Mulroney. A rather tepid presentation. The challenge to the film maker was to take the taped conversations and find a way to make them visually compelling. Although a good collection of documentary footage and occasional switched between soundtrack and voice overs, Peter Newman’s self-described role as ‘pet newsman’ causes a real lack of counter voice or even narration that does come across in the book. All in all despite the good footage, the book is a far more compelling product. Nonetheless,listening to a man seeking to constantly justify his actions, remind of his hard knocks, our former prime minister comes across as a sniveling twit, paranoid, and convinced that he was a better man than the country deserved…always convinced that he was doing the right thing…his remark referring to the ‘genuine mediocrity’ of the Canadian media seems to really capture his feelings towards the citizens of Canada in general.

a