Is it possible for consumer technology to engineer a sense of mystery again?

Sure Google glass has gotten all the press, but a multidisciplinary approach to wearable technology might just revive the fashion industry, take the maker movement in an entirely new direction and give us back some privacy in the bargain.

This is one technology that doesn't require too much personal disclosure in exchange for convenience.

"Why wearable tech needs fashion to survive and to thrive," Wired UK:

Simon Thorogood, senior research fellow of the Fashion Digital Studio, believes there's already a trend of consumers favouring subtlety and secrecy over extraversion. We have been programmed to give so much of ourselves away -- every time we sign up to a new app we duly type in our social media details -- and though it can be to our benefit sometimes, it's always to the brand's. The public's unease at oversharing -- at giving bits of ourselves away so brands can quantify our worth and profit from that formula -- is mounting, and perhaps evident in the fact that Facebook has reportedly been losing millions of users a month, and Instagram half its customerbase after attempting to profit from photos.

'I'm sure this [retractive trend] will translate to how people use and engage with fashion and technology, as a means of exploring that notion of the experience and what that can do for us.' If there's more of an impetus on the self, rather than the self as dictated to us by a stream of alerts categorised according to Facebook's relevance algorithm, then the way is opened up for us to engage with how our technology looks and feels, and how we want to use it.

Sure, there will be plenty of opportunities when the clothing is the technology to participate in one brand's narrative or extend the story as it were, but this very personal technology is a walking embodiment of the consumer-as-agent, not product.

The piece was also reminiscent of a presentation by Creative Capital artist and 2011 IdeaFestival speaker Mark Shepard, whose "under(a)ware" clothing will alert its wearer when he or she is being surveilled by a city or merchant. For the makers out there, Shepard makes his schematics available on his Sentient City Survival web site so that you can engage with his ideas. Happily, Creative Capital is once again bringing several of its visionaries to this year's IdeaFestival.

You have purchased your Festival Pass, haven't you?

Stay curious!

Wayne

Image: Some rights reserved by body_pixel

First, the "Wisdom of Psychopaths" and now, "The Case Against Empathy." What in the name of identifying with fellow human beings is going on here?

Paul Bloom on the limits of empathy:

Rifkin and others have argued, plausibly, that moral progress involves expanding our concern from the family and the tribe to humanity as a whole. Yet it is impossible to empathize with seven billion strangers, or to feel toward someone you’ve never met the degree of concern you feel for a child, a friend, or a lover. Our best hope for the future is not to get people to think of all humanity as family—that’s impossible. It lies, instead, in an appreciation of the fact that, even if we don’t empathize with distant strangers, their lives have the same value as the lives of those we love.

That’s not a call for a world without empathy. A race of psychopaths might well be smart enough to invent the principles of solidarity and fairness. (Research suggests that criminal psychopaths are adept at making moral judgments.) The problem with those who are devoid of empathy is that, although they may recognize what’s right, they have no motivation to act upon it. Some spark of fellow-feeling is needed to convert intelligence into action.

Bloom notes the identification of the sources of empathy in our respective biologies, how, for example, the neurology for personal pain and empathizing with the pain of others are one in the same. Nonetheless, empathy can be "parochial, narrow-minded, and innumerate." Because we can under the right circumstances have our desire manipulated, we can be fooled, our empathy misplaced.

Over time, various institutions, from the civic to the religious, have reinforced the message that we ought to care for others. They, after all, have "the same value as the lives of the people we love." Perhaps it's true as Steven Pinker's contends that we've become less violent over time, less prone to war and its consequent heartache. But it's small comfort to far too many who will live today on the most meager of resources.

If identifying with billions of others just like we would with our own family and acquaintances is impossible - and it is -  perhaps the best we can do is to put our trust in the passage of time and robust institutions of liberal order - legislative assemblies to implement policies that a majority find acceptable and a judiciary to ensure that the rights and dignity of the minority are respected. Bloom says as much, concluding that "empathy will have to yield to reason if humanity is to have a future."

It's not sexy, but I think that's his point.

Wayne

Image: Some rights reserved by visualpun.ch