W02 Tutorial

My Thought Summary

Virtual

Everyone is connected, the web allows everyone to have a say. Isnt this what democracy should have been since day one? In a world where everyone has a say, and everyone can be heard, do we need infrastructure? do we need a parliament at all? Is our political system working? We we really have to listen to a single leader?


Recent developments [Facebook, iOS, Android, internet forums etc] has shown that once an infrastructure is in place [virtually] people will use them, in most cases a civil manner. That said, if the government was a structural program framework  in which citizens and developers are able to build upon, wouldnt that be an infinately more flexible and to a degree fairer system of parliament?


My idea was that virtual is a layer which is slowly taking over our physical lives, as we progress, I believe we will fall deeper and deeper in to the realms of digital infrastructure. If the parliament was a program, lines of code will replace our politicians creating a system where we could vote, voice our opinions, and the voting system will be merely a 'like' away.

For example, if someone has an idea and they posted it, and enough people 'liked' it, then that would be the law.


Isn't that fun. 

Mobile

Summary One:
What is mobile architecture? Is it about buildings coming to the people? About more efficient infrastructure? I had an idea that mobile architecture is not just about the people, With ever changing adavances in technoloogy, mobile isnt just about physical movement of a being. Technology has allowed mobility of different senses. Ever since the invention of the telephone, our ears have been able to mobilize, while our bodies were stationary. With the invention of Radios, our ears, with the television, we were able to visually represent ourselves over thousands of kilometers.


Whats next? I believe anything is possible, and thats why this task is so difficult, but even as technology advances, can we ever totally disregard the importance of meeting face to face? Can a parliament be active without people physically being there?


Meeting Face to Face:
Advantages:

• Expression of emotion
• When one is attempting to persuade
• Engaging and observing

Disadvantage:

• Meetings are excessivly costly given the benefits derived
• Decisions never get made

Alternative:

• Teleconferencing? email? the possibilities is only restricted by technology

Distributed

Summary 2:

Another Discussion I had was about growing awareness of the environment, the animals and everything living and/or breathing. We are continuously getting more and more aware that we are not the only beings living on earth. To that end I had to ask myself, should the parliament be only for the humans? In 50, 100 years time, when we will have an even greater understanding and appresiation of out surroundings, shouldnt everyone and everything have a say? Hypothetically speaking, as ridiculous as this may sound, in 50 years if we can communicate to the animals, they should have an equal say in what our nation, our planets decisions of the future.