Statistical information can legitimize decisions and promote comparability between distant geographies, despite a persistent instability to that which was being measured or described (ie, census data that inherently refutes its own stability). The precision warfare advocated by military officials gains political momentum through its "least of possible evils" ethos but leaves unaccounted the residual effects that operate at a much slower speed within and around the targeted area. For example, landmines were not designed to kill their targets but to maim them. A wounded soldier costs more for a nation to rehabilitate.
Statistics, mapping, and computation-based evaluation should be taken more as approximation than whole-truth. Indeed, it is quite difficult to know entirely the constituents of the mapped object and those affected most directly by transformations in the system. Distance between mapped object and object itself increases as the microcomputer contributes to cooperation and bifurcation within social and political regimes.
What are humans and nonhumans when viewed without expertise? As our view shifts to one “completely absent from the scene” how do we maintain an ethical approach to design? I am interested in a sort of un-seeing of the world. The conditions that shape our vision are becoming increasingly hidden in a world dominated by a need for cause-and-effect. How do we engage other humans and nonhumans appropriately in the age of intelligent machines?
No comments:
Post a Comment