Category Archives: Futurism

Examining The Apple iPhone Planned Obsolescence Conspiracy

Apple has the money and the know how… are they making your old iPhone suck through planned obsolescence just to force you into the checkout line for a new one?

Planned Obsolescence isn’t just a conspiracy theory. You can read the 1932 pamphlet, widely-considered the origin of the concept, here. The argument in favor of it is it’s effect on the economy; more products being produced and sold means an active, thriving market. Of course there is an obvious ethical problem of selling people a product that won’t continue to work as it should for as long as it should. Several companies openly admit they do it. For Apple, it works like this: Whenever a new iPhone comes out, the previous model gets buggy, slow and unreliable. Apple dumps money into a new, near perfect ad campaign and the entire first world and beyond irrationally feels silly for not already owning one, even before it’s available. Each release marks the more expensive iPhone with capabilities the last one can’t touch. This is already a great marketing plan and I’m not criticizing Apple’s ability to pull it off as described. The problem is planned obsolescence; some iPhone owners notice the older model craps out on them JUST as the newest iPhone hits the retail shops. Apple has the money and the know how… are they making your old iPhone suck just to force you into the checkout line for a new one?

Full disclosure, I’m biased: I owned an iphone for long enough to live through a new product release and mine did, indeed, crap out as described above. Slow, buggy, and unreliable it was. With that anecdote under my belt I might be satisfied to call this e-rumor totally true but in the interest of science I collected further evidence. I combed the messageboards to see who had good points and who is just the regular internet nutjob with a stupid theory. To examine the evidence, I’m gonna start with this fact:

Fact 1: Apple’s product announcements and new product releases come at regular intervals. So, if the old iPhones stop working correctly at that same interval there would be a coinciding pattern. The tricky part is finding the data but the pattern of release dates is a good place to start because it is so clear. Other companies could be doing this type of fuckery but it would be harder to track. Not only does Apple time their releases but they do it at a faster pace than most. The new iPhones tend to come out once a year but studies show people keep their phones for about 2-3 years if they are not prompted or coerced to purchase a newer model.

Fact 2: Yes, it’s possible. There are so many ways the company would be able to slow or disable last year’s iPhone. It could happen by an automatic download that can’t be opted out of, such as an “update” from the company. Apple can have iPhones come with pre-programmed software that can’t be accessed through any usual menu system on the iPhone. There can even be a hardware issue that decays or changes based on the average amount of use. There can be a combination of these methods. The thing is, so many people jailbreak iPhones, it seems like someone might be able to catch malicious software. There are some protocols that force updates, though. hmmm.

Fact 3: They’ve been accused of doing this every new release since iPhone 4 came out. his really doesn’t look like an accident, guys. This 2013 article in the New York Times Magazine by Catherine Rampell describes her personal anecdote, which, incidentally is exactly the same as the way my iPhone failed me. When Catherine contacted Apple tech support they informed her the iOS 7 platform didn’t work as well on the older phones, which lead her to wonder why the phones automatically updated the operating system upgrade in the first place.

Earlier on the timeline, Apple released iOS 4 offering features that were new and hot in 2010: features like tap-to-focus camera, multitasking and faster image loading. The iPhone 4 was the most popular phone in the country at the time but it suddenly didn’t work right, crashing and becoming too slow to be useful.

The iPhone 4 release made the iPhone 4 so horrible it was basically garbage, and Apple appeared to have realized the potential lost loyalty and toned it down. The pattern of buggy and slow products remained, though, When iOS 7 came out in 2013, it was a common complaint online and people started to feel very sure Apple was doing it on purpose.

Fact 4: Google Trends shows telltale spikes in complaints that match up perfectly with the release dates. The New York Times(2014) called this one and published Google queries for “iphone slow” spike in traffic for that topic. Look at Google trends forecasting further spikes because the pattern is just that obvious:

Does Apple Ruin Your iPhone on Purpose? The Conspiracy, Explained

Apple has a very loyal customer base, though. Rene Ritchie wrote for iMore, saying this planned obsolescence argument is “sensational,” and a campaign of “misinformation” by people who don’t actually understand how great an iPhone really is(barf). Even though the motive is crystal clear, the arguement that Apple is innocent isn’t complete nonsense, either: Apple ruining iPhones could damage customer loyalty. People espousing this argument claim an intentional slowdown is less likely than just regular incompatibility due to new software features. The latter point is a good one, considering how almost all software manufacturers have a hard time adjusting new software to old operating systems. Cooler software usually needs faster hardware and for some ridiculous reason no one has ever come out with an appropriately customizable smartphone and Apple woudl likely be the last on the list.

Christopher Mims pointed out on Quartz: “There is no smoking gun here, no incriminating memo,” of an intentional slowdown on Apple’s part.

There is really no reason to believe Apple would be against this kind of thing, even if planned obsolescence were a happy accident for the mega-corporation. Basically, if this is happening by accident it’s even better for Apple because they don’t have to take responsibility and it likely helps push the new line. Apple is far from deserving the trustworthy reputation they’ve cultivated under Steve Jobs, as the glitzy marketing plan behind the pointless new Apple Watch demonstrates.

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

Simultaneous Observation Might Change Our Understanding of Quantum Mechanics

Vote

New data could shed light on a decades old gap in understanding quantum mechanics – but how?

There is no shame in struggling to conceptualize quantum mechanics, considering some of the best minds on the planet struggle as well. In fact, the field of study has been confusing for even the most forward-thinking, capable scientists. The new piece of data can be gleaned from a complicated but relatively easy to grasp experiment, published March second, 2015, entitled Simultaneous observation of the quantization and the interference pattern of a plasmonic near-field.

This new event was possible through a collaboration of the Laboratory for Ultrafast Microscopy and Electron Scattering of EPFL, the Department of Physics of Trinity College (US) and the Physical and Life Sciences Directorate of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The image was rendered by EPFL’s ultrafast energy-filtered transmission electron microscope. There are currently only 2 such microscopes in the world.

Before now, traditional understanding of quantum mechanics has not been able to explain why some subatomic features can behave as a simultaneous particle or a wave. The often-referenced experiments demonstrating the effect of observation always left me asking why you can’t try both at the same time. No experiment was able to capture both states of light simultaneously. Science has only been able to record evidence of a light as waves or particles; this new photograph captures an image of both from the exact same moment in time. Finally, an novel experiment was devised, developed and executed, simultaneous observation.

Traditional particle/wave observation works like this: ultraviolet light hits a metal surface causing the metal to emit electrons in a predictable, observable time-frame. Until Albert Einstein wrote about what he called the photoelectric effect, light was thought to be a wave. Once the logic is understood this photoelectric effect is hard proof of light behaving as a particle, able to knock into other particles.

Researcher Fabrizio Carbone lead his team at EPFL as they performed a modified version of : using electrons to image light. The researchers have captured, for the first time ever, a single snapshot of light behaving simultaneously as both a wave and a stream of particles particle.

Carbone’s team was able to use nanotechnology to exploit the wave aspect of light to create a standing wave. They used a laser to direct a short pulse of light at a nano-thin metal wire. The light travels along the wire’s surface to create a standing wave on the other side. By running electricity through the wire and measuring the speed of that electron flow they were able to create an image of the wave aspect of the light during the pulse. The same electron-flow that was used to create the image of the wave traveled so close to the standing light-wave it actually had a measurable exchange of energy, as only a particle can do.

Fabrizio Carbone explains the significance: “This experiment demonstrates that, for the first time ever, we can film quantum mechanics – and its paradoxical nature – directly.”

I wonder what this new way of observing the same exact quantity of light in both states will mean in the developing applications which involve quantum theory. Carbone gives a great example, “Being able to image and control quantum phenomena at the nanometer scale like this opens up a new route towards quantum computing.”

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

Leaks, Revenge Porn, Consent and the Future of Privacy in the Information Age

Vote

The tide is turning on revenge pornographers, “purveyors of sexually explicit media that is publicly shared online without the consent of the pictured individual”. In almost any public context on the internet, most Americans are almost unanimous in condemning the nature of the privacy violations behind revenge porn. Liberals who want the concept of consent front and center in any contemporary debate about sex have also lead the conversation about privacy debates and can easily get on board with the support for the overwhelmingly female victims of revenge porn. Conservatives could seize not only a new opportunity to regulate porn in a way that reaches across the aisle but chance to condemn an aspect of pornography. “Revenge porn mogul” might be the least likeable role the internet age has to offer and now it is poised to become one that marks the transition to the second generation raised on the internet. It’s a crime for the ages. Like a lot of what happens online, it’s being punished, legislated, debated, rising and hopefully falling – all within a generation.

Hunter Moore recently plead guilty to hacking charges and ultimately will be punished for a felony conspiracy to hack email accounts to access nude or pornographic pictures. Is there anyone supporting these revenge porn sites without acknowledging it as a vice? Any open supporters? How did revenge porn, something so universally frowned on, become a profitable business for multiple sites and their administrators? First of all, there is an audience for it. Pornography in general is a successful and diverse media industry but that industry is home to several active arguments. These arguments have fluctuating dynamics as the cultural contexts and tastes morph over time. When nudes are leaked or revenge porn is uploaded crucial aspects of other porn-related debates are accented. Aspects like: how consent is portrayed, how publishing rights are managed and protected, and how regular pornography use affects the human psyche. The number of porn watchers is so high the revenge sites were able to stay in business despite public outcry and condemnation.

Is revenge pornography going to persist despite the first steps toward a coming prohibition? Is there a coming prohibition? Will prohibition work?

What is the nature of the post-modern privacy debate? How much privacy can we guarantee ourselves under the current system, and how can we protect it? How is our right to privacy defined the evolving light of interactive media, smart devices, ubiquitous cameras and social media? How can one most effectively respond to privacy violations in the contemporary context?

A changing political landscape ahead for the privacy debate. Will the call for information transparency eventually prove to be a strong counter argument against individual privacy? If corporations, government workers, military entities and criminals outside the reach of current law enforcement are to be held accountable their privacy must be violated. The vocabulary changes and people begin to talk about security and the individual is actually tasked with protecting not only his or her own personal secrets but to sacrifice informational privacy for the sake of the group or entity’s security. People can feel threatened and become intimidated into complacency or even become complicit in information-related crimes. The material is vast and the precedent has yet to be set leaving employees subject to situations where the law has yet to be written, and a social doctrine isn’t yet forged.

Read more about the current state of the internet at:

World Cyberwar: Six Internet News Stories in 2015 Blur the Line Between Sci Fi and Reality

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

Climate Change Could Increase Economic Opportunity Alongside Hostile Conditions at Sea

Vote

The future of Earth’s oceans is getting more mysterious and interesting as climate change instigates new and sometimes unforeseen conditions. These changes have already created new opportunities for scientific study, technological advancement, and economic exploitation. Seafaring humans have long been at the forefront of scientific innovation because the sea is such a volatile, ever-changing aspect of the planet to explore. In the coming decades, Earth’s climate will morph into new modes faster than it has in the past, challenging humanity’s most formidable ability: the ability to adapt to new environments. Here’s a look at some nautical situations affected, and how tech is allowing us to adapt to living on the cutting edge between science fiction and often-times bleak meteorological fact.

Dead Water

Dead Water is a sailor’s slang for ocean surface conditions that cause a seemingly-mysterious lag in speed and steering disruption. Melting glaciers release a layer of near-freezing, fresh water into the warmer, salty ocean. Gradually, the freshwater will mix in with the seawater but the temperature and salinity differences cause pools of often times calm, freshwater to float on the surface of the more dense saltwater.

While the effect isn’t always visibly noticeable, a boat can become trapped or experience the sensation of being pulled and pushed around by waves created by disturbing the subsurface saltwater layer. The surface of the water remains calm, yet a boat can lose all control and become unable to resist ocean wave fluctuations taht can’t be seen on the surface at all. If the boat stops in dead water, there is no wake to pull it backward, and there is nothing churning up the deeper saltwater layer – it often seems like there is no current. When the boat tries to move again, the wave pulls it backwards, counter-intuitive to a sailor’s understanding of how wind or engine power should normally propel the boat. This video really explains it better than words can. Check it out:

Storm Activity Will Affect Shipping and Trade Activity, World Economy

International shipping companies have a lot to lose if they don’t adapt. The adaptation process if often behind where it could be because trade corporations are unwilling to share proprietary technology regarding safety and ETA projections when planning and choosing optimum shipping routes. Many of these trade secrets seem to be of dubious cost effectiveness. but are increasing in effectiveness as demand increases. For example: Climatological Ship Resistance (CSR) analyzes the historical wind and wave data in an attempt to predict conditions, an energy hog of a computer problem that requires additional personnel and training to use but are being used more and more as shipping companies struggle to remain competetive. Predicting maritime weather is a huge tech industry that is relatively unknown outside the industry. Historically, isolated tech communities aren’t able to grow as fast or efficiently.

The shipping industry is enormous and it’s difficult to interpret the available data but delays, spoiled and lost cargo are all on the rise. Weather conditions can cause crowding at ports, as boats unexpectedly change destinations or show up ahead or behind schedule. A boat ahead of schedule is rare but can actually cause further delays. A currently unfolding drama at the the twin CA ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach where about 40 percent of all imports in the USA show up. Beginning in October of 2014, ships commonly languish offshore for days and weeks while other boats are unloading.

Seafood

Climate change causes highly elevated levels of CO2 in the ocean which leads to ocean acidification and indirectly or directly threatens every type of edible ocean creature. A great example is the depressingly undeniable case of the shells of young oysters and other calcifying organisms getting thinner and weaker over time as the acidic ocean thins calcium in the shells. UK scientist-in-chief, Sir Mark Walport has warned that the acidity of the oceans is up by about 25% since the the industrial revolution began.

In a recent study, we’ve found most fish not fast enough at adapting to acidification, and humanity should expect to see massive species collapse int he coming decades. Tropical fish and lobstersT are changing locations as they take advantage of warmer sea climates popping up unexpectedly. Tropical fish might be susceptible to more parasites in hotter water while lobsters overeat, endangering other habitats and species.

Read more about Climate Change on Cosmoso: http://cosmoso.net/a-melting-arctic-and-weird-weather-the-plot-thickens/

Harvesting electricity from wave and riptide activity

Riptides are amazingly powerful underwater currents. Devices that can withstand deep ocean conditions yet also remain accessible for repairs and upgrades are currently under development and market experimentation. Riptides are particularly appropriate for energy harvesting because they are predictable and consistent. Check out this video to gain a sense of how powerful ocean currents can be.

Wave energy is a renewable resource that is gaining attention as fledgling efforts have had some success. Here’s a great description of the proposed and attempted wave harvesting operations.

Changes to transcontinental, submerged communication fiber-optic lines.

Harsher undersea conditions might make repairing existing internet and phone fiber-optics more complicated but confusing surface conditions can sometimes allow the security to be compromised, as industrial and international espionage operations attempt to hack or sabotage communication lines. On the positive side, thawing polar ocean regions are allowing a previously impossible transoceanic cable to be built. More details about underwater communication cables here.

New examples of climate change are likely to pop up. There are going to be unexpected aspects to Earth’s oceans in the coming years. Preparation and adaptability are crucial in order to properly take advantage of these conditions or protect ourselves from the effects. The smart move for the future economy and world health would be to increase science education and increase funding toward scientific research.

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

Mess with your Mind: The Frontier Science of Electric Brain Interfaces

Vote

Neuroscience is an exciting young field where the emerging applications are going through a unique experimental phase that show commercial promise but also render it susceptible to pseudoscientific claims. Cosmoso attempts to sort the facts from wishful thinking by examining a few aspects of BCI(Brain Computer Interface), including prototypes and outrageous claims.

EEG

Billions of polarized neurons maintain waves of electrical charges inside your head, stimulating each other with electrical impulses. Over a hundred years ago began a storied history of the EEG machine, able to monitor and prove the existence of electric brain waves. EEG machines were used to further many aspects of brain science from the significance of REM sleep to screening WWII pilots for dangerous brain seizures. Honda has been working on using the brains recordable brainwave output to control robotics and eventually vehicles.

EEG machines have been around in their present form for a few decades. EEG measures the oscillation of electrical activity in the brain and those measurements can be controlled by the owner of that brain & thus used to operate machinery.

The general idea: residual electrical activity caused by your brain can be measured on the surface of your scalp, neck and face. That data can change based on what the brain is consciously thinking. By controlling your thoughts in a certain way you can change the way the brainwaves show up in an EEG reading, and that info can be used as an input method to control various machines. A variety of commercial enterprises attempt to exploit the concept, to varying degrees of success or usefulness.

tDCS: Transcranial direct current stimulation.

Neuroscientist Jared Horvath, at the University of Melbourne, in Australia, recently debunked pseudoscience that has spawned a popular youtube trend: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Proponents of tDCS claim cognitive and behavioral benefits that enhance the brain’s ability to problem solve, learn, do arithmetic, utilize visual ability, and complete memory-based tasks. Much of the research he found was not able to be replicated by other researchers, or not attempted to be fact checked or peer reviewed. He also discovered a lot of experiments did not run a “sham condition” control group — wherein test subjects were attached to the device that had no live current. In fact, despite the legions of DIY supporters hoping they found a new way to manipulate their own brains, Horvath said, “When I pulled out the 20 studies looking at tDCS and working memory, for example, they all found something, but they all found something different.” http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/ethics/brain-hackers-beware-scientist-says-tdcs-has-no-effect

Roi Cohen Kadosh, a neuroscientist at the University of Oxford, is quick to point out that tDCS might not be nonsense, because: “This is still a young field of research so we still need to be really careful when we interpret the results from tDCS. The real results will come when we have enough data to make meaningful conclusions.”

If there turns out to be legit, predictable aspects of tDCS, it opens the possibility of a brain-computer interface being a 2-way street. The current tech allows EEG to measure brainwaves as user output but the input back into the user still has to be audio or visual. If there is really something to find in tDCS studies, we might eventually be able to have our brains communicate directly with a computer via electric impulses.

Youtube DIY brain hackers and commercially available snake oil:

The science behind brain manipulation is not developed enough for these products and experiments to work as claimed. Youtube has provided a ton of anecdotal evidence, though, and you can have fun going down that rabbit hole if you want. It’s basically not possible at the time I’m writing this, in early 2015, to know where to place electrodes or how much current to use. http://www.foc.us/ provides a device that claims all types of unscientific benefits.

Commercially available products exploiting EEG readings are mostly toys and games.

From game controllers to helicopters you can control a variety of toys and games with your thoughts. It’s a fast-growing field but when the interface becomes 2-way, there will likely be a major leap forward.

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

Can Information be Weaponized? Memetic Warfare and the Sixth Domain: Part Two

Vote

What role would optical illusions, graffiti and QR code technology play in weaponizing an image, sound, video or string of words to influence or control the human mind? Jonathan Howard takes a look at technology and the theoretical future of psychological warfare with the second part of an ongoing series. This installment of Can Information be Weaponized? is Memetic Warfare and the Sixth Domain: Part Two in which Jonathan Howard continues the train of thought about a possible delivery system for harmful memes by exploiting common mental weaknesses, including optical illusions, graffiti, and QR Code Technology. If you haven’t read it yet, you should start with Can Information be Weaponized? is Memetic Warfare and the Sixth Domain: Part One.

It’s an aspect of human psychology most readers will already be aware of: optical illusions. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson once pointed out, “an optical illusion is just brain failure”.

People like to trust their perception of what is happening in the world around them but there are circumstances where our perception of an image or set of images can’t be relied on as accurate. An illusion doesn’t have to be optical; we’ve all experienced an earworm, a piece of music, a movie quote or other form of recorded audio, which, once heard, seems to play with vivid realism. An earworm can make a sound seem to play on infinite repeat, often leaving the victim feel plagued by a sound that is not truly there.

Being fooled is a novelty and it can be fun but the video clip below demonstrates how illusions don’t just mess with your eyes(or ears). In certain, often common, circumstances illusory effects can actually modify the way your brain works. In January, 2014, vlogger Tom Scott created a recent video to explain the nature of the McCullough Effect, an optical illusion that can change the way your brain interprets colors in relation to striped patterns.

The video mentions the McCullough Effect can have lasting effects – potentially 3 months. In the interest of remaining unbiased I have not yet experimented but some Reddit users went ahead and tried it with believable results. Try it at your own risk~!

“You couldn’t rub out even half the ‘Fuck You’ signs in the world” ~ Holden Caulfield in J.D. Salinger’s A Catcher in the Rye

It would be difficult to weaponize the principle behind The McCullough Effect because the worm takes several minutes of intentional concentration to take effect. It’s a far cry from Medusa’s statue-creating gaze. Aspects of media can work much faster though. An offensive or upsetting image encountered via social media is often dubbed “cannot be unseen”. In J.D. Salinger’s A Catcher in the Rye, main character Holden Caulfield laments the human tendency to exploit written language with malice whenever he sees school kids exposed to vulgarity whenever a, “fuck you”, scrawled on a public wall. The illustration below illustrates this point by putting a gratuitous swearword in your head but has another possible harmful-meme delivery system: QR Code

Much in the way you can’t unsee a curse word written in a public space, a day may come when a more complicated curse-like state might be induced via QR code.

In February, 2014, Dr. Nik Thompson of Murdoch University pointed out QR codes can easily be exploited by cybercriminals because they can’t readily be interpreted by humans without the aid of a machine adding, “There have already been cases of QR codes used maliciously to install malware on devices, or direct them to questionable websites.”

Technically, by exploring the idea of exploited QR code, I’m making the same mistake as Diggins and Arizmendi, regarding compromised computer-assisted operating systems as a form of sixth domain warfare, when that would actually count as the fifth domain, cyber warfare. A compromised operating system on a phone or other smart device might seem like your brain is being attacked but the device is the only thing you’d be losing control of.

A truly weaponized piece of media might combine various elements of what I’ve described. Weaponized information would have to be:

immediately absorbed like graffiti
difficult or impossible to unsee like an offensive or disgusting image on the web
able to induce or catalyze lasting changes in the mind like the McCullough Effect
able to exploit the theoretical, bicameral firmware of the human mind as described in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind(nonfiction) possibly in the manner of Snow Crash(fiction)
possibly able to exploit the Fifth Domain of Warfare(Cyberspace) to reach the Sixth(The Mind) examples include human reliance on Brain-Computer Interface(BCI) is a major weakness in the modern human psyche, as described by Chloe Diggins and Clint Arizmendi or QR code Malware.

Thanks for reading Can Information be Weaponized? Memetic Warfare and the Sixth Domain: Part Two~! You can go back and read Part One here. Any suggestions, contradictions, likes, shares or comments are welcome.

Jonathan Howard posted this on Monday, February 9th, 2015

[email protected]

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY

Can Information be Weaponized? Memetic Warfare and the Sixth Domain: Part One

Vote

Can an image, sound, video or string of words influence the human mind so strongly the mind is actually harmed or controlled? Cosmoso takes a look at technology and the theoretical future of psychological warfare with Part One of an ongoing series. This installment of Can Information be Weaponized? Memetic Warfare and the Sixth Domain: Part One is about a possible delivery system for harmful memes. You can click here to jump to Part Two.

Chloe Diggins and Clint Arizmendi wrote an article for Wired Magazine back in Dec., 2012 entitled, Hacking the Human Brain: The Next Domain of Warfare. The piece began:

It’s been fashionable in military circles to talk about cyberspace as a “fifth domain” for warfare, along with land, space, air and sea. But there’s a sixth and arguably more important warfighting domain emerging: the human brain. ~Hacking the Human Brain by Chloe Diggins and Clint Arizmendi, 2012, Wired Magazine

Hacking the Human Brain concentrated on the vulnerabilities of Brain-Computer Interface or BCI, giving some examples about how ever-increasing human reliance of computer-aided decision making in modern warfare opens users to security risks from weaponized hacking attempts. It’s a great article but the article is not actually discussing that sixth domain it claimed to in that opening paragraph I quoted above. The attacks described by Diggins and Arizmendi are in the nature of exosuits and mind-controlled drones being overridden by hackers, exhibiting the fifth domain of warfare of the given paradigm. What kind of attack would truly compromise, subjugate the sixth domain, the domain of the mind?

“Wait a minute, Juanita. Make up your mind. This Snow Crash thing—is it a virus, a drug, or a religion?”
Juanita shrugs. “What’s the difference?” ~ From Neil Stephenson’s Snow Crash, 1992

In Neil Stephenson‘s 1992 novel, Snow Crash, the hero unravels a complicated conspiracy to control minds using a complicated image file which taps into the innate, hardwired firmware language the human brain uses as an operating system. By simply viewing an image, any human could be susceptible to a contagious, self-replicating idea. The novel was ahead of its time in describing the power of media and the potential dangers posed by creating immersive, interactive virtual worlds and memes with harmful messages or ideas that can spread virally via social media. In the world of Snow Crash, a simple 2d image was the only technology needed to infect the human mind, forcing the victim to comply. The word and much of the concept of a meme had yet to be developed in 1992 but as the above quote points out, there are several, well tested mind control systems in existence already, including viruses, drugs and religions(Check out Snow Crash by Neil Stephenson at Amazon.com).

Stephenson waxed academic about language, history and the idea that ancient Sumerians had already uncovered this ability to hack the human mind. He later credited a 1976 book by Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind as an influence and inspiration for Snow Crash. In Origin of Consciousness, Jaynes coined the term bicameralism, hypothetical psychological supposition that the human mind used to be divided into 2 main language functions. One part of the human mind was for speaking and the other was for listening, aka bicameralism. Jaynes claimed this state was normal in primates until a relatively recent change in language and cognition happened to humanity, supposedly about 3000 years ago. Stephenson’s fictional technology attacks modern man’s anthropologically latent compulsion to automatically accept orders when the orders are presented in the correct language.

Is a mind-control meme only the stuff of science fiction? In real life, how susceptible are humans to this kind of attack? Check out Can Information be Weaponized? Memetic Warfare and the Sixth Domain Part Two.

Thanks for reading Can Information be Weaponized? Memetic Warfare and the Sixth Domain: Part One~! Any suggestions, contradictions, likes, shares or comments are welcome.

Jonathan Howard posted this on Monday, February 9th, 2015

[email protected]

Jonathan Howard
Jonathan is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY