> We now live in an over connected world. Everywhere we are, we think that we can be connected to our friends, our work, and being learning everything.
That’s what shows this painting for me. The prophet was done by Emil Nolde, a German painter, in 1912. To my mind, it represents the danger of prophecy. I don’t really see a kind of sadness in this face, but in the whole picture I see the strength of ideas. The lack of colours shows the despair, next step after too much hope.
I’m very serious here, and this post may be one of the most important of my blog. I’ll talk about Internet myths, and which kind of danger it creates.
But don’t misunderstand me : I’m not going to ban a culture that I’m a part of. I use Internet, and I’m proud of it. Here, the point is to remember limits to this huge, huge network. More precisely, I’m gonna explain in what extent e-culture can lead to poor culture and misunderstanding.
1/ Knowledge.
True, Internet represents an immeasurable amount of datas, about nearly everything. True, you can learn more about wild ponies in Mongolia than before. Or, okay, do your homework easier. Easier, and without opening no book.
>That’s the first problem : where do we check our information ? Who checks what we see on the Net ? The problem of a university research is that it takes time, and it takes time for you to read it. Internet is mainly, to my mind, a tool for quick activities, even if we (I) spend a lot of time on it. We do a a lot of quick things, sure, but we don’t read a blog as deeper as if it where a book. Internet is not the tool with which you are going to try to understand, reading 10 times the same sentence.
Be careful : I don’t say that you can’t learn things on the Net. I do learn everyday on the Net, thanks to news, thanks to write this blog, etc… But I won’t read and understand well William Blake’s poetry or Spinoza’s books on the Net. That’s not a shame, that’s just an inappropriate use.
> You might say, that’s the way I read and practice my Internet. You may be true. But let’s see the way one finds information through the Web.
First, you go on Google. 90 % of the Internet population goes on Google. And about the same percent never goes further than the 10th result. And many of us are used to choose the Wikipedia entry, because you know that in general you find clear information here. It’s easy. I do the same.
But once again, who check those information ? Is it the same thing if 90% of a population were consulting the same dictionary ? I don’t think so.
=> Conclusion ? Even if Internet is made of billiards of datas (at least), we mainly use a very small part of it, without wondering us if this information is true or not. Is that knowledge ?
Well, I know that Internet users are actually more intelligent than what I explain, but it’s a possible danger. And this video shows us the worst of it…
II/ Accessibility.
Now, the question appears to be : “Where is the next wireless point access ?”. We are hyperconnected. We can read our mails, nearly everywhere we want.
“We” ? “Nearly everywhere” ?
Yes, this is another danger of e-culture : believe that Internet is a web that goes all over the world, finding everyone. That’s not true.
Africa, for example, is the worst place to be if you want connect yourself to the Internet. But Africa is a continent. Africa is a million a cultures. Africa is 944 000 000 persons (found on wikipedia…).
=> Due to this, we can’t say that Internet covers the hole world. And we can’t believe that, since Internet spread in the West, the entire humanity is connected, related.
I know that this is not always told that way. But the idea of an hyperconnection easy for everybody exists, and believe it is forget about an important part of humanity.
III/ Mutual understanding.
Look at this picture. I won’t go one the pros and the cons, just to illustrate a fat : now, it’s hard to well understand a foreign culture.
Even if we have better technologies, even if we can effectively call someone in Japan while being in France, even if satellites can locate a car anywhere in the world, we don’t understand Muslims enough, and they don’t understand us enough to stop war.
This is not something idealistic, on the contrary. I do know that behind wars there are economic interests. But wars are made with peoples. Peoples are soldiers who go to the front. But, even if we can listen to Arabian televisions, even if CNN is received in Afghanistan, we still battle in Middle East.
=> Conclusion ? There is no real better international understanding with Internet. We are not able to stop fighting and start working together to save the planet. These are two main issues that we can’t resolve without union. I think that Internet can help. I don’t believe that Internet is the solution.
But, still, we can hope for a better understanding.
So, e-culture ?
> Believing that e-culture can save the world, we forget weaknesses of this Network. We believe that this technology can save us.
Actually, it is a problem of belief. Trust technology, whereas it’s just a possible means that we have to handle.
> Once we’ve explained all that things, we can start imaging how can Internet and e-culture can be the place where new social inventions can appear.
Examples ? A place where free systems of creation and organisation can be created. There are resistance movement on the Web, and they have sometime international form. With there weaknesses, they don’t change the world, but they can act inside it. That is the way I see Internet : a way to act in this world.
[This painting, from Matisse, is one of my favourite one. A kind of dance in a ring all over the world, but where you see passion, weakness, brotherhood. Indissociable from each other. It shows my dream, for humanity, better than I can write it. Bob, this is probably my last post. Hope that you will understand the meaning of it !]