And now to something completely different:

Today is Australia Day. If it wasn’t, the following story would have received a greater coverage, perhaps.

Google is now going to have servers in China. The result being a much improved service for Chinese users. The price, to help the Chinese government block or limit access to ‘unhealthy information’. That is, political sites that criticise the Communist party, human rights, religious oppression, or various unsavoury parts of Chinese history.

How does a company that aims to provide the most access to anyone anywhere reconcile themselves to this? It is because it is part of the race to provide services and goods to China’s 1 billion customers… I wonder how far countries will go to accomodate China? China isn’t the only country Google helps to censor the web, but it will have the most developed censorship so far.

My conclusions are neither here nor there – I think, possibly, that Google being readily available in China might actually hasten the collapse of the secresy, censorship and propoganda – the web is afterall a democratisation of information. Alternatively, it might actually prompt the development of the most advanced technological censorship the world will ever see. Who knows?

Oh, and Blogger is owned by Google, by the way.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Life of Pi

Is all you want in life ‘dry yeastless factuality’? The Life of Pi would seem to suggest that anything – even a lie – is worth living to avoid this.

Filed under: Uncategorized

I, Robot, take you, humans…

I’ve been reading Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot again these last couple of days. It was prompted by watching the film – shall we call it a ’suggestion’ (as it doesn’t actually follow a story line of Asimov’s) – starring Will Smith.

I thought the movie did particularly well. It is amazing how the insertion of robots into a narrative can give rise to all sorts of questions about the nature of humans, the ethics of government and ultimately the question of what is ‘good’ – one of life’s fundamental questions.

Therein lies the brilliance of Asimov’s writing. The ‘3 Laws of Robotics’, are so caught up with the history of philosophy and politics, that, despite being very entertaining stories, they are also penetrating and critical accounts of various aspects of philosophy.

The 3 laws are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

There are any number of ways to interpret these – depending on your definitions of ‘harm’, ‘human’, ‘injure’ etc. For example, is hurting someone’s feelings ‘harm’? Is an antidote, (which is technically poison), good? See how it might raise complexities? What about the question of justice, and punishment? See how brilliant these ‘fictitious’ laws are? They function as a problematicisation of the entirety of western thought.

I guess the ultimate question is, what is good for us? It’s a question that has been answered from Socrates and Plato, to Jesus, to Kant and Rawls. What do you think?

Filed under: Isaac Asimov, Philosophy