[Geowanking] "formal" photo of GeoWankers at Where 2.0
anselm at gmail.com
Fri May 16 20:05:29 PDT 2008
I don't disagree... yet I do have a couple of points that intersect at some
1) I've often felt that many social geo apps cannot even be written at home
in an office. There's a quality of being outside, in a place, or in a new
situation, that makes the idea vital - and when one returns home the idea
loses its luster. It's not because the idea sucked but because ones own
needs and embodiment make one a different person in different situations.
2) Also, there seems to be this emerging idea of "social practice
development". A term I steal (and abuse) from the art community. It seems
like a new practice that is basically changing the way developers (in
Portland at least) work. We're tending to swarm together to work on
projects socially; even without personal dollar gain. I believe this is
because working with other people has a value for its own sake. Working
with others at least makes work a sustainable process because you're feeding
other parts of you... not just that hunger to make things.
Speaking to your comment about how everything sucks and we should do more
useful stuff - I don't really even disagree there - but this stuff is
incredibly incredibly hard... it is entire lives of peoples effort...
But there is a trajectory - I hope it goes like this:
1) To be able to "see". Super rich socially filtered static spatial data
about any area of interest. To know where your friends are, where stuff is,
the history of things. I call this "the old white mans internet". It is an
internet of dry dead things; Wikipedia entries and Encyclopedia Of Life and
WiserEarth and all the other fact repositories...
2) To be able to "say". To be able to issue verbs on the environment; to
say "I want Pizza" and to have people who want to sell me pizza compete for
the privilege - filtered against my trust network... Inverting google so
that the sellers do the work would really be satisfying. And it will be
satisfying to finally have an industrial voice for our industrial
landscape. I see FireEagle as an example here. Folks will hook up
bartering and bidding systems to this kind of thing and we'll be able to
wander around in our little lives taking gigs, helping out, getting stuff
that we need - without the hassle it is now.
3) To be able to "predict". Really we all have to start focusing on the
environment - which is not just the artificial idea we call 'nature', but
the sum of nature, and humans, and human activity and human structures.
Lifemapper is just starting to play around the edges here and that is so so
exciting for me at least; http://www.lifemapper.org/ ...
4) To be able to "change". Where I'd like to optimistically see this all
go is that we're able to kind of rewrite ourselves and our landscape on
large scale. There are a lot of practices we hear about around the world
that seem more sane; from sharing childcare to shared gardens to local
doctoring to protecting salmon runs. But we don't seem to have the power to
affect our landscape. It becomes the life quest to make any one change and
that is un-affordable. It's bizarre how much cities and places we live in
seem set in stone... maybe this will change?
Anyway... see y'all at WhereCamp tomorrow!
> Sure, but it was a springboard into an mostly unrelated rant. :)
> So what's to be done about the real problems? I'm a bit tired of crap like
> Twitter being big things, and would like to see actual significant stuff
> being done.
> Sorry, but GIS is not it. Second Life is not it. Google Earth is not it.
> Maps are not it. Representations of anything are not it. It has to be real
> data to be as flexible as real things.
> How do we move to the point of understanding, as a group, the challenge to
> be tackled? If you're writing something that goes into a web browser, that's
> not it either.
> Steve. :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Geowanking