Jesse Schell @ DICE 2010

It is not about the points or achievements, it is about a big brother society driven by social networking and the internet. Everyone knows what you do, when you do it, how you do it, because you deliberatly give away all your privacy. This evolution already started by Twitter, Facebook, and many similar websites. I do not give a single bit in even the slightest possible sense in any possible way what you ate for dinner or when you go on vacation. Really. Yet the majority of people on sites like Facebook for some reason seems to do use it pretty much only for that... The whole big brother idea will eventually become reality, not because of a police state, not because of terrorists, cold war, or whatever else, but because society thinks the internet is to be used to tell others what they are doing.

And from there on, it is a small step to also throw in some points...

Do you want to have a database somewhere on a server that tracks when you go to bed, when you stand, when you sit, when you eat, what you eat, exactly what you buy, when you buy it, where you buy it, how fast you bought it, how you felt after you ate a product, what you watch on tv, hell perhaps even what your opinions are?

Really?

Oh well, on a much more positive note, I am sure the world will go to hell in 2012

Quote from Skjalg

It would take you about a days work with any programmer tool to make that job take you 5 minutes.

I should've been more clear -- it's a non-digital game design class in the theater department. We play outside.

But anyway, how would you automate stuff like grading a paper? Keeping track of the topics they bring up in discussion? It's really not as easy or intuitive as you'd think. Classroom administration should be the least of any instructor's worries -- though if you're just using canned lesson plans from a textbook, I guess there's no harm. It's like getting a gold star sticker in kindergarten or preschool.

my main concerns:

* big brother society

** in terms of "what does the state know about me"

** in terms of "what does a company know about me"

** in terms of "what does a random stranger know about me"

* inductive/deductive relation between life and games

I may need to elaborate the last point a little further.

Jesse assumpts that it would be some kind of magic if we'd make everything a big point-score-get-achievements-game. The best fitting example being the teacher giving XP instead of Marks for everything you do in a class. So life becomes more LIKE a game. It's like your life becomes LIKE a movie and your situations become LIKE the stills you saw in the catalogue and your friends become LIKE your social-network-contacts.

that's an induction of games on life but infact games are a deduction of life. Our target should not be to make everything a game, and not everything is entertainment and achievement in life. if we went that far in our society that even the simplest task is not done for ourselves but for the few achievement points and for the little speaker in our ears telling us that we are compared to others, we should go back to the time when we made that decision and do the exact opposite ever after.

life is a circle that has evolved for millions of years and will evolve for another millions (hopefully). if our inner spirits need to be activated with a constant ticking counter and we can't get our asses up on our own, maybe it's time to stop and rethink where we want to be in another 20 years.

Watching it now, the man talks like he is out of breath half the time lol.

-EDIT-

It definitely is an intriguing picture he's painting of the future. I don't think it'll ever get to that point though. At some point, we'll probably realize at what point it can be destructive and write it off or just plain tiresome. But I think these kinds of "games" and such will only ever stay restricted to the types of media such as Facebook, gaming itself, etc. Some of his examples of "games" in TV, soda cans and such are just contests that have been here since forever. I mean, brushing your teeth for points? I'll give out a big sigh if we ever make it to that point heh. Kinda reminds me of when people thought by now we'd have flying cars and everything. We have a tendancy to exaggerate things =P.

His analyses are both fun and kind of true, however the foresight he did is massively exaggerated. Honestly, once stuff like REM-sleep-ads (or whatever) and eye sensors is introduced, humanity will hit rock bottom.

Quote from Sindwiller

His analyses are both fun and kind of true, however the foresight he did is massively exaggerated. Honestly, once stuff like REM-sleep-ads (or whatever) and eye sensors is introduced, humanity will hit rock bottom.

we already have the technology for it, it's just a question whether who wants to volunteer for it..

Quote from deceiver

At some point, we'll probably realize at what point it can be destructive and write it off or just plain tiresome.

We will? Really? We just spent 5000 years killing each other and doing all kinds of totally weird things in the name of something called "religion" and you truly believe that humanity is smart enough to realise that a world like is portrayed here would be bad for them?

while your comparsion is failing in a very large scale it is probably true that 90% of mankind is not able to properly reflect on this and use it without further questioning. see how everyone strips they're privacy in today's social networks it seems likely they use this as well.

Quote from e-freak

that's an induction of games on life but infact games are a deduction of life. Our target should not be to make everything a game, and not everything is entertainment and achievement in life. if we went that far in our society that even the simplest task is not done for ourselves but for the few achievement points and for the little speaker in our ears telling us that we are compared to others, we should go back to the time when we made that decision and do the exact opposite ever after.life is a circle that has evolved for millions of years and will evolve for another millions (hopefully). if our inner spirits need to be activated with a constant ticking counter and we can't get our asses up on our own, maybe it's time to stop and rethink where we want to be in another 20 years.

actually we threw away evolution when we started using the amount of technology we use today; the way we use medicine and computerization as aides present day makes us less susceptible to evolve further. why? because our bodies have determined that we don't need to. evolution only happens when there's a need for it, and even then, only over a period of thousands of years. without a direction or need, we effectively abolish any and all forms of evolution; and given that all our needs are more and more satisfied by machines, well, go figure.

from the above can then be said: we have 2 different poles, evolution (natural progress) and progress. the more we vest into progress, the less effect evolution will have. if at some point we come to a technological standstill, evolution will take over. having these two poles certifies that as long as there is a need, progress will manifest. there won't ever be a time where progress stops; because it, like entropy, can only expand over time.

my point here is: no matter what happens to us, no matter what we do, progress will continue. there's no reason to dwell on these issues, because the balance will always restore itself in the end. it is only up to us whether we want to be part of that balance, or not.

Comparison is completely correct. We follow the group without giving stuff further thought or thinking about the long term impact. If people would just think about why they would really need or want to do X or Y, the world would be a better place.

And right now that leads us to people throwing their privacy away in an effort to be like everyone else. X thousand years ago that was the case with religion, or the witch hunt, or whatever you want really.

no comparsion fails because:

technological knowledge wasn't availble during the medieval ages and before to the average man. to question if something is correct and right you need to have at least a basic understanding of the system it applies to. the misleadership founded on religious belief in that time would have failed, or at least there would have been chance of failing, if a) people would have been able to read the bible by them selves (see lutheran reformation and guttenberg's print-machine being the end of the medieval ages) and b) people would have knowledge of physical and natural laws (which they learned in the episode after the reformation in the age of enlightment, coming after the lutheran reformation).

Today's people have all the knowledge they need to question such a system, both empirical (political systems of every kind, which were spying on the individual have come and gone) and theoretical (platon's state, adam smith's theories on free and social markets in societies, marx' communist manifest, Hobbes' leviathan). The thing is they don't put it to use.

Mankind in medieval times suffered from fear of the relgious oppresion, today's people welcome technological oppresion.

in medieval times used the technology devised as standard for that age. it may not have been computers, but it was still technology...

can i ask how we suffer from a technological oppression?

Quote from Sentura

actually we threw away evolution when we started using the amount of technology we use today; the way we use medicine and computerization as aides present day makes us less susceptible to evolve further. why? because our bodies have determined that we don't need to. evolution only happens when there's a need for it, and even then, only over a period of thousands of years. without a direction or need, we effectively abolish any and all forms of evolution; and given that all our needs are more and more satisfied by machines, well, go figure.

from the above can then be said: we have 2 different poles, evolution (natural progress) and progress. the more we vest into progress, the less effect evolution will have. if at some point we come to a technological standstill, evolution will take over. having these two poles certifies that as long as there is a need, progress will manifest. there won't ever be a time where progress stops; because it, like entropy, can only expand over time.

my point here is: no matter what happens to us, no matter what we do, progress will continue. there's no reason to dwell on these issues, because the balance will always restore itself in the end. it is only up to us whether we want to be part of that balance, or not.

Evolution isn't something that is triggered, it's a natural development over a long time. Those who are better suited genetically to thrive and reproduce do so. Those who are not die off and are removed from the gene pool. While it doesn't invalid the claim that evolution can stagnate due to technology, I think it has more to do with society.

We prop up the lazy, the stupid, the weak, the sickly, and extend that to their children as well. So we have genetic strands that should have died off that continue to propagate because most governments believe in equality for all. Don't mistake me as saying this is a bad thing to do, but it's not good for evolutionary direction. I just hope it doesn't end up like the movie Idiocracy. It's scary how out of all the visions of the future presented in entertainment, that one seems the most likely to come true.

you're right in that those better suited are the surviving species, but those better suited are those who have their needs better satisfied. if a species decides to move to a new home where environmental conditions are different, future generations of those species will adapt better to said conditions. it is similar to muscular supercompensation, only on a much larger scale, and with extra dimensions added. that genetic defects occur during the process is because of the lacking or mislead input data from a particular union of the species involved. it's like a natural lock-picking mechanism.

so yes, evolution is triggered, but the triggering effect may go down onto such a level of detail that we may never gain knowledge of.

Quote

Mankind in medieval times suffered from fear of the relgious oppresion, today's people welcome technological oppresion.

Opression by the Catholic church, please.