Renny Gleeson in a Ted Talks address posed a challenge to the illustrious audience of forward thinkers to focus their efforts on making “technologies that make people more human and not less”. In light of this challenge, where do technologies such as Augmented Reality or more importantly Human Augmentation fall? Does “more” human = super human or was Renny referring to reaching the full measure of a healthy humans unaided potential? Technology has shown us prosthetic legs propelling humans to near record speeds, 20/40 eyesight and spy like hearing, but I would argue that only technologies that help people reach their full natural potential (like Oscar Pistorius) will result in increased levels of happiness whereas technologies that augment humans full natural potential will not.
For example:
Would anyone want more than a “full” head of hair?
If a C cup is good is 38KKK better?
If twins are fun, why not octuplets?
So, if I’m right and extreme human augmentation isn’t going to result in increased levels of happiness what about augmented experiences?
Recently there have been a lot of discussions about Augmented Reality at Sitewire and I think it’s important to discuss the ethics of some of these emerging technologies and start to paint the vision of where we are going. Our goal at Sitewire has always been to take the high road and invest in technologies that enhance the experience for both users and advertisers. For example both UI and Search Marketing help advertiser sell products and services while helping shoppers quickly find what they are looking for- win win. Ratings and Reviews help mitigate challenges associated w/ the paradox of choice thus increasing the likelihood that shoppers will make a decision resulting in a purchase – win win. In similar vein, I believe that well-thought-out AR will result in improved live search, entertainment and enhanced experiences (especially for those that are homebound). As with all new technologies we are going to see a lot of hype and gimmicks, but the experimentation, technology advancements and innovation that happens while coming up with these gimmicks are going to pave the way for a new reality, not a reality that replaces that experience of seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time or summiting the Grand Tetons, but it’s not hard to invision a reality that beats shopping at WalMart on black Friday.
What do you think, is Augmented Reality the most pointless gee whiz you’ve ever seen or are we going to look back 5 years from now and wonder how we ever lived without it?
This article is from Andrew Bagley
Andrew’s the kind of guy who wakes up every morning, grabs his iPhone and starts dictating marketing campaigns that he dreamt up during the night. He is the champion of innovation at Sitewire and prides himself on being a trends spotter.
Andrew has written 14 posts.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
I believe that the human augmentation movement will be similar to our experience with money. Being out of debt increases happiness dramatically, but as your fortunes grow past the point of your needs, joy doesn’t grow in direct proportion.
Not surprisingly, I have a different take on the future of human augmentation. First I’ll answer your three example questions with questions of mine own.
– What’s the point of humans having body hair anywhere? Runner, swimmers, & cyclists would be the first to jump on board with that type of augmentation.
– It wasn’t all that long ago that the opposite was more desirable. Will the overall importance of breasts decline to a point where they simply aren’t necessary, sort of like an appendix?
– Humans do a pretty good job of reproduction right now. But what about extreme cases in the distant future when we need a more efficient way to grow offspring than the human womb can provide?
My point is this: our definitions of “extreme” augmentation and “full natural potential” will mean little in a just a few generations. Heck, maybe even our own. Our ability to predict how technologies will be used — for better or for worse — is hampered by our own imagination and our adherence to cultural norms. Norms that will be quickly outdated, and imaginations that can only be expanded.
Wait, was this supposed to be about advertising?
E.
i believe human augmentation could be a remarkable step forward into our evolution but as with most things the government will most likely militarize its application to create “super-soldiers” i know your thinking BS that’s just science fiction but whats to stop them experimenting with reaction speed or agility or strength. of course there will be many morality issues that will take many many years to overcome (if ever) but it could have many benefits.