Date: Wed, 18 May 94 11:11:51 EDT
From: ma-AT-dsd.camb.inmet.com (Malgosia Askanas)
To: technology-AT-world.std.com
Subject: Re: Virilio


TorTorsen-AT-aol.com writes:

> Virilio's essay is subject to criticism for being overly nostalgic.  It is
> not difficult at all to be fearful of the human costs associated with
> innovations.  And this sentiment is familiar.  

I have the same difficulty with this as with Steve Meinking's "doom
and gloom".  What do you mean by "nostalgic"?  And why is the fact
that "the sentiment is familiar" somehow a criticism?  The sentiment
of being enthusiastic about technological developments is also
familiar.  It seems to me tbat what is important is not the overall
sentiment but the exact points being made.  

Both you and Steve seem to imply that considerations of "the cost
associated with innovations" are somehow pointless, that they are just
nostalgic complaints.  This position puzzles me.  Should humanity
_not_ assess what the effects of a particular innovation might be,
and see if these effects are desirable or not?  Are innovations
something towards which we must take a "grin and bear" attitude?
Do they descend from Heaven?  Should we not steer our innovative
potential in directions that suit us?  Does this not require a
thorough critical analysis? 

> A second criticism is that Virilio is simply overreacting.  He fears that the
> time when people actually leave their homes, go somewhere and do something to
> something is to end.  In his "teletopia", we will become the "fabled" couch
> potatos interacting all day while our bodies atrophy.  We won't interact face
> to face or body to body, preferring the virtual substitutes.  We will come to
> resemble a race of sensory-impaired quadrapelgics equipped with prosthetic
> devices to resplace our once well-exercised muscles and sensory organs (if
> we're lucky).

I think the main focus of Virilio's investigation is not so much
whether or not we will get up and go somewhere, but the way in which
the shift of emphasis to "instantenous action at a distance" will disrupt
and mutate our perception of our being-in-the-world.  But what I want
to ask you is this.  You say Virilio is overreacting.  On what basis
do you say that?  It is certainly true that our bodies play a less
and less essential role in our meaningful engagements with the world,
and a specialized exercise industry is required to provide people 
with ingenious strategies for keeping their bodies from atrophying.  
How do you think Virilio errs?


- malgosia