According to Kroker and Weinstein we have two paths:
the amalgomated hierarchy of haves and have nots or anarchic
utopia in which everybody is in their own world, their own
operating system. Perhaps they are right. What do we see as
the future of capitalism that most of the world has embraced?
The net has made wider audiences across
the globe more accessible. Putting this in the paradigm of
business marketing turns the net into a virtual gold mine.
Businesses drool at the sight of their market access expand
exponentially. The net then just becomes a medium for the
proliferation of capitalism. Is this really that bad? It is
just extending the philosophy of capitalism to a larger group.
Kroker and Weinstein argue that the net has indeed
heightened monetary interests, but there are human
possibilities to the net as well.
How does "DNA-coated
data...inserted ghrough spinal taps" sound to you? Wireless
bodies in which the human flesh exists only as an incept to the
wireless world?
Our mind becomes our own operating system -- schizoid,
random, but fully integrated. Sounds very "sci-fi," but it
underscores the future of hypertext communities.
Is the net just another way of gerrymandering the
monied and the not-so monied? Are we sophisticating capitalism
to another larger, uncontrollable level? Kroker and Winsteing
seem to argue "yes", and it must be stopped. Is is a very
utopian future that they see--a future that is anarchic and
random.
However, can history teach us anything about the
sustainability of utopias. Of course to my knowledge we
haven't had any really large utopias of which to speak. Perhaps
that fact is very telling.
More thoughts later....
Theju