Extending Scenario Design – The Ethics of Design

‘The world today is characterised by a high and growing level of connectivity’ [Manzini 2015, p. 33] This dramatic influx in connectivity is largely fuelled by the interaction allowed by significant technological advancements made throughout the past century. However, this networked interaction has its limitations, as it has seen a rise in asynchronous communications (delayed communication such as texting, messaging or any text based chatting) which afford constructed, curated and calculated responses.

As a group, we were fascinated in what effect this continued hyper connected asynchronous communication might have on the future of our social, mental and emotional wellbeing. Thus, we projected a scenario in which human to human contact has all but been replaced by technology completely facilitating any interaction between humans, subsequently, leading to growing rates in depression and loneliness as the human is replaced by the machine.

When visualising this worst case scenario, we had envisioned that only through a radical return to direct human contact could we stem the alarming rises of depression. Interaction designer, Marco Triverio, is involved directly with generating, increasing and enhancing interaction between humans and technology through design. Triverio recognised that ‘Communications with someone special are not about content going back and forth. They are about feeling the presence of the person on the other side.’ [Triverio 2011] And thus responded by developing the ‘Feel Me’ app:

‘Feel Me’ critically analyses existing asynchronous communications, which are devoid of emotional connection and ‘feeling’, and aspires to amplify and reveal the human at the other end of the communicative technology. It achieves this through non-verbal synchronous communication, displaying dots on the screen where the other person is touching their screen. Triverio states, ‘Feel Me does not aim at replacing physical interactions, but it rather aims at enriching the currently sterile digital communications.’ [2011] ultimately bringing the human from the background and placing their movements and presence into the foreground.

As the future we projected was quite bleak and extreme, with unbridled pursuit of technological and economical advancements and exponential erosion in the general wellbeing of society’s mental health, we felt that the response from the design community, and all communities in general, would be shocking and extreme. Thus we proposed an object that, through a direct connection with the brain, may transport synthetic chemicals such as dopamine and oxytocin; ultimately generating an artificial system that ensures positive chemicals can always be circulated throughout the users brain.

This object is controversial; it blurs the distinction between artifice and reality, forcing the audience to consider complex and important issues involving the ethics of design. Would we allow such an object to be created? Do we want such an object to exist? It could potentially enhance the quality of life for millions of people, perhaps even reduce suicide. Yet it also delves into the murky waters of pushing beyond the natural; synthetically altering that which, in essence, is most personal and sacred to human beings: their thoughts.

Dutch designer, Kees Dorst, has written quite extensively on the ethics of design in his book ‘Understanding Design’ [2006]:

‘Thinking about the positive aspect of a design should always be balanced by keeping track of the value you eliminate. As a designer, you are responsible for decisions that will affect this balance. Meaning well is just not good enough – the positive ends you have in mind for your design do not justify all means.’

[2006, p.170]

This provides a helpful and solid framework by which designers may be keeping themselves, and their design, accountable. When challenged by such daunting ethical questions, as a designer, it is easy to become completely consumed by the mire of semantics and philosophical debates, however, we must be prepared. It is important for us to be pushing boundaries, questioning beliefs, challenging preconceptions and innovating, but we must do so by generating ethical, honest and responsible design outcomes and solutions.

References

Dorst, K. 2006, Under-standing design, 2 edn, Bis, Amsterdam.

Manzini, E. 2015, Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation, trans. R. Coad, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Triverio, M. 2011, Feel Me, videorecording, Vimeo, viewed 15 October 2015, < https://vimeo.com/33500689 >

Interview with my mum

For the interview, I was interested in attaining a perspective on the future from someone who has lived in a world pre and post the internet. I was particularly interested in what effects such rapid change in technology has had in the way people interact with each other on social, emotional and professional levels. For such an insight I decided to interview my mum, as she identifies herself as someone who finds difficulty in keeping up with such rapid changes in technology, yet hasn’t “lost hope” and is trying to remain up to date as much as she can.

As a 53 year old single mother of three sons, aged 26, 24 and 20, mum, or Suzanne, had a great deal to comment on the pressure she feels to keep up to date with technology. Significantly commenting that in order to remain ‘relevant’ in this society, one must have a grasp on the current technological trends and innovations, or else you will be ‘left behind’. These insights reflect the pervasive nature of technology, demonstrating that it has moved from an external “tool” for a human and is now being used to evaluate the “worth” of a human. However, interestingly, it is not technology that Suzanne fears the most, but in fact the pressures and perceptions of society on her ability to adapt and evolve with the technology.

The pervasive nature of technology became an overarching notion throughout our interview, as Suzanne commented on the differences she has noticed between the ways in which her teenage boys interacted with other teenagers in the 2000’s to what they did when she was a teenager in the 1970’s. Interestingly she commented that without mobile phones and the internet, she had much more time alone to do other activities. Initially, when she made this comment, I was confused as the perception that I had always understood was that technology has caused us to become increasingly insular, taking us away from social activities with others. However, as Suzanne continued, it became apparent that the time alone she was reflecting on was vastly different. She explained that she was actually on her own, she couldn’t send a message to someone from her room, she couldn’t check her emails, subsequently, she was able to rest and be still. However, she believes that as technology has advanced and we have entered into an age of hyper connection, these moments of stillness are so fleeting and rare. She commented on the pressures she has observed that have been placed on teenagers to be connected and communicating at all times, however, this communication isn’t qualitative, but quantitative. She stated, ‘To be connected you almost have to be alone, or when you are with people, you are still pressured be looking at your phone even whilst you are talking with other people.’

In essence, Suzanne’s perceptions of the future are positive, she believes that technology has helped progress and aid the human race in its development so far, and believes that, if balanced, this rapid development of technology can bring about change and innovation for the better. Interestingly, her fears for the future 30 years ago were of genetic experimentation and the possibilities of humans determining what babies will look like and act like, which was brought about by reading the book ‘Brave New World’ by Aldous Huxley. However, although these fears are still present, and are extremely relevant today, her fears have shifted focus on to ecology and the damage we are doing to the planet we live on, as she sees this unbridled pursuit of technological innovation in the present causing us to lose sight of the effects certain actions will have in the future.

Conservational trophy hunting: With death comes new life. But is it ethical?

The Rhino Hunter 2015

‘We offer… a Grant in aid program that contributes millions of dollars each year to programs and projects promoting our mission to conserve wildlife and wilderness lands.’ [Dallas Safari Club 2015]

‘For the third straight year, DSC has granted more than $1 million for wildlife conservation,’ [Dallas Safari Club 2015]

‘We are strategically focusing on conserving critical places and critical species that are particularly important for the conservation of our earth’s rich biodiversity.’ [WWF 2015]

Given the human centricity inherent within the epoch that is ‘The Anthropocene’, it is to little surprise that when Latour remarks, ‘There is a war for the definition and control of the world we collectively inhabit’ [Latour 2013, p. 9] he is referring to a war between two human parties. This war, though not fought by soldiers or nations, is gripping the earth and all that inhabit it, plants, animals, humans, landscapes; this is the war for conservation. However, this war does not manifest itself in the way in which we would assume it to, with a trophy hunter wanting to take an animal’s life and a conservationist desiring to save that life; it is far more complex.

Hunting organisations around the world, such as the Dallas Safari Club, have been using controlled and regulated trophy hunting as a means to conserve critically endangered species across the world. Initially, such a statement seems to contradict itself. How can you conserve life by hunting it? But upon further investigation, quite a compelling case for conservational trophy hunting materialises.

This is perhaps most clearly evidenced in the black rhino, who is listed by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) as critically endangered [WWF 2015]. Between 1970-1992 about 96% of the black rhino population was lost due to ivory poaching, reducing the population from 70,000 to 2,475. [WWF 2015] However, despite being the cause of such endangerment, hunting has also been responsible for one of the most effective, yet controversial, conservational solutions.

As a male black rhino gets older, it becomes aggressive, attacking and killing younger males who are vital for reproduction. In Namibia, who has one of the largest black rhino populations in the world,[WWF 2015] the government auctions to hunting parties hunting tags which allow you to hunt one black rhino, yet it must be one deemed detrimental to the growth of the population. The Namibian government, and other African governments, then use this money to protect other rhinos from poaching, simultaneously generating a great influx of funding for conservation, approximately US$201 million/year Africa wide [Lindsey et al. 2007, p. 1], and removing the post-reproductive ‘problem’ rhinos.

Although this controlled and regulated form of trophy hunting appears to have succeeded in increasing the black rhinoceros population in Namibia (estimated 30% rise [Adler 2015]), there is an evident ethical compromise involved in funding animal conservation directly through the suffering and death of another animal. Leading anthropologist, Richard Leakey, avidly opposes the implementation of such a conservation scheme, believing it sends the wrong message. ‘If a father cannot afford to pay school fees for his children, does he say to somebody, “You can rape my daughter so I can get the money to pay for her school fees”?’ [Leakey 2015] This confronting imagery exemplifies the ethical hypocrisy involved in killing rhinos to keep rhinos alive and the detriment such an act has on our perception and value of wildlife, forcing us to consider whether or not the ends justify the means.

Corey Knowlton, who paid $350,000 for a hunting trip to Namibia to shoot and kill a black rhinoceros, has an equally challenging question for us to consider,

‘How do we on an individual basis value this animal’s survival on earth? Do you really value it? Do you value it past making 75 characters on your iPhone and tweeting about it?… To me I know and I care, and I placed a extreme value financially, physically, emotionally on the survival of the black rhino.’ [Knowlton 2015]

Whether you agree with Corey Knowlton or with Richard Leakey, there is a war being waged and it is important to know this because ‘The real advantage of making the state of war explicit instead of undeclared is that it might be the only way to begin to envisage peace.’ [Latour 2013, p.10] And as my fellow class mate, Megan Wong, reminds us in her blog [Wong 2015], ‘it is clear that humans are inextricably linked to the planet and it’s organisms, and it will be our choice of action that determines what future we will arrive at.’ So let us imagine, design and act upon schemes that will cultivate peace for our world, our planet, our home.

References

Adler, S. 2015, ‘The Rhino Hunter’, audio podcast, Radio Lab, WNYC Radio, New York, 7 September 2015, viewed 8 September 2015, < http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/ >

Dallas Safari Club 2015, ‘Who we are’, DSC, Dallas, TX, viewed 6 October 2015, < https://www.biggame.org/who-we-are/ >

Dallas Safari Club 2015, ‘Grants’, DSC, Dallas, TX, viewed 6 October 2015, < https://www.biggame.org/who-we-are/grants/ >

Knowlton, C. 2015, ‘The Rhino Hunter’, audio podcast, Radio Lab, WNYC Radio, New York, 7 September 2015, viewed 8 September 2015, < http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/ >

Latour, B. 2013, ‘Telling friends from foes in the time of the Anthropocene’, in C. Hamilton, C. Bonneuil & F. Gemenne [eds], The Anthropocene and the global environment crisis – rethinking modernity in a new epoch, Routledge, London, p.145-155.

Leakey, R. 2015, ‘The Rhino Hunter’, audio podcast, Radio Lab, WNYC Radio, New York, 7 September 2015, viewed 8 September 2015, < http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/ >

LINDSEY, P.A., FRANK, L.G., ALEXANDER, R., MATHIESON, A. & ROMAÑACH, S.S. 2007, ‘Trophy Hunting and Conservation in Africa: Problems and One Potential Solution‘, Conservation Biology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 880-3.

Wong, M. 2015, ‘Sustainability and the human population’, From Here On, weblog, Sydney, viewed 24 August 2015, < https://ksmbs.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/sustainability-and-the-human-population/ >

World Wildlife Fund 2015, ‘What we do’, WWF, Gland, Switzerland, viewed 7 October 2015, < http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/ >

World Wildlife Fund 2015, ‘Black Rhino’, WWF, Gland, Switzerland, viewed 7 October 2015, < http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/rhinoceros/african_rhinos/black_rhinoceros/ >

World Wildlife Fund 2015, ‘Rhino conservation in Namibia’, WWF, Gland, Switzerland, viewed 7 October 2015, < http://wwf.panda.org/?uProjectID=NA0016 >

Image

Mongia, A. 2015, ‘The Rhino Hunter’, Radio Lab, viewed 8 September 2015, < http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/ >

When the special handwritten letter is no longer handwritten, is it still special?

Human-technology relationships have been growing steadily closer in many facets of life, physically augmenting our bodies, through technologies such as the hearing aid, intellectually stimulating our thoughts, by giving us access to great wealths of information through the internet, and socially enhancing our experiences with other people, as we can be connected, even when in different hemispheres, through mobile phone technology. Technologies are becoming increasingly seamless in their presence, to such an extent that there are predictions that the ‘internet will act like electricity in people’s lives by the year 2025. It will fade into the background,’ [Future Tense].

However, in this unbridled pursuit of increased knowledge and greater efficiency have we, in fact, developed technologies that impede on the very function they exist to amplify? For example, the printer has created a vastly more efficient way to communicate the same message to multitudes of people in a letter. Consequently, handwritten letters have become a rarity and are thus highly prized, as we can recognise that in order for this letter to have been written, a human had to value you, the recipient, so highly that they would take the time to personally write you a letter. However, what happens when this special handwritten letter is no longer handwritten, is it still special?

Bond is a new company that receives text that you wish to be handwritten and utilises robots to generate ‘handwritten’ letters to be sent under the guise that you took the time to pen them yourself. As is outlined in their website, ‘Bond can take your personalisation to the next level by training our robots to write in your handwriting.’ [Bond 2015] Bond also states that they are ‘driven to create technology that strengthen the bonds between people.’ But what is it that strengthens the bond between people? Is it the aesthetics of the scrawl that gives personality to the text? Or is it the knowledge that there is a human that has held the pen and personally written those words themselves? Although, as humans, we perceive cyborg qualities as technology planted within a human, what happens when the human is planted within the technology? Is this a cyborg? Or perhaps a new hybrid form of cyborg? Peter-Paul Verbeek’s definition of a cyborg as a ‘border-blurring entity, uniting both human and non-human elements.’ [2008] Is quite a fitting description for this technology, as we see that which is unique to the human, their personal handwriting, passed on and integrated into that which is not human.

But as Lulu Miller and Alix Spiegel ask on their behavioural psychology podcast ‘Invisibilia’, ‘Is that good or is that creepy?’ [2015] Don Ihde recognises that, ‘it can be seen that humans + lo-technologies can after a long enough time effect large environmental territories…’ [1993, p.53] These physical impacts are obvious, deforestation and even restoring hearing through a hearing aid are examples of physical technologies impacting the environment or the human body physically, but as technology is no longer limited by a physical or tangible body, what then is the effect of ‘invisible’ technologies on that which cannot be seen, such as emotions and human-human relationships?

Ask yourself, when you are alerted by Facebook that it is your friends birthday today, is it you remembering or is it the computer? And when you wish them happy birthday through Facebook, is it you who is saying that, or is it the technology? When a robot mimics your handwriting and posts a letter to a loved one, is it you who wrote that, or is it the technology? Are we really taking on Bond’s mantra of being ‘driven to create technology that strengthen the bonds between people.’? Or are we, in fact, developing technologies that impede upon the very function they are designed to amplify? Are we enhancing human-human relationships? Or are we unknowingly fostering and nurturing new human-technology relationships? ‘Is that good or is that creepy?’ [Invisibilia 2015]

It is imperative that we ask these questions.

References

Bond 2015, ‘About’, viewed 24 August 2015, < https://hellobond.com/about >

‘Future Tense’, 2014, Radio Program, ‘Surveying the future of the internet’, ABC Radio RN, 6 April, viewed 20 August 2015, <http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/surveying-the-future-of-the-internet/5359664#transcript >

Ihde, D. 1993, ‘Technology,’ Philosophy of Technology: An introduction , New York: Paragon House

‘Invisibilia’ 2015, ‘Our Computers, Ourselves’, audio podcast, NPR, 13 February 2015, viewed 20 August 2015, < http://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/385792677/our-computers-ourselves >

Verbeek, P.P. 2008  ‘Cyborg intentionality: Rethinking the phenomenology of human–technology relations’, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences Volume 7, Issue 3, p. 387