Please post key words and phrases in alphabetical order. Make sure to designate which group has provided the key words and phrases

Age of Invention - The time period from 1750 to present day, where advancements in technology were growing at a steady incline until it suddenly shoots up exponentially, with some examples of advancements being capitalism, telephones, lightbulbs, automobiles, and mechanized newspaper typesetting. People who were born around the late 1800's through the 1960's witnessed the use of all of these inventions we still use to this day. - Jina Ro, Group 4

Behavioral sciences- Behavioral sciences, better known as the study of how humans and animals behave and act, is crucial in the online media field. This field also studies the overall behavior of humans and how they think and interact. Companies, such as Facebook, use this kind of knowledge to track all your clicks and actions on the computer to see what a person likes and dislikes. They look at everyone’s overall preferences and take it into account so that users see thing they like.

In the article, “Invisible Manipulators of Your Mind”, by Tamsin Shaw, this idea is talked about throughout the entire article. Shaw spends the majority of the article talking about how people have figured out human behavior and have made algorithms for computers to showcase things that people enjoy. Everything that we see on the internet is done by algorithms. These algorithms are a small piece of how behavioral sciences work. Governments and corporations are in favor of behavioral techniques because “these techniques change behavior by appealing to our nonrational motivations, our emotional triggers and unconscious biases. If psychologists could possess a systematic understanding of these nonrational motivations they would have the power to influence the smallest aspects of our lives and the largest aspects of our societies” (Shaw, 1). In other words, studying how humans think and feel and fully understanding it helps companies like Facebook know what to display to its users. Behavioral science is the key to helping corporations appeal to people so that it attracts them to use their platform. -Vincent Chen, Group 3

Bohemian - Bohemian means “an individual with informal or unconventional social habits” (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bohemian).

Fred Turner uses this word extensively when discussing the somewhat peculiar nature of both Google and Burning Man. For instance, Google is not run like the average company. Its employees are required to spend company time working on projects of their choosing. Most other companies would call this “wasting company time” and simply fire the employee. However, Google has done remarkably well since its launch. On the artistic side, Burning Man is a cornucopia of the bohemian. People come from all over to spend time in the desert, expressing themselves in any way they see fit. This idea of bohemianism is becoming more and more prominent in today’s society, especially with the introduction of technologies that make such things as human augmentation a reality. It seems as if organizations like Google and Burning Man are paving the way in that regard. Looking back fifty years, we see many social constructs that would seem bohemian in contemporary society. Therefore, it is not a leap to assume that society fifty years from now will bear little resemblance to today. -Brad Lundgren

Brain Systems- This idea was proposed by Daniel Kahneman, who believed the mind worked through two separate systems: System One and System Two. System One controls actions that are fast and automatic such as our instincts, emotions, and learned skills. System Two works slower and makes up for the flaws in System One. Kahneman generally views System One as negative, as it is often wrong and skewers the results of things like personality tests.Other scientists and philosophers have disagreed with this view, such as L. Jonathan Cohen, who believes System Two cannot exist without System One because we cannot make decisions without our intuition. Either way, many tech companies bought Kahneman's view of the mind and used his research (combined with behavioral studies) to market their products and influence consumers by manipulating System One. - Christian Lysek

Cultural Infrastructure - Cultural infrastructure doesn't just mean a physical infrastructure. It can obviously refer to the delibrate burning of the wooden sculpture of man, but it comes with many other meanings. Cultural infrastructure can deliver cultural and artisitc experiences that include technology, people, buildings, and cultural collections. The burning man has become a "key cultural infrastructure for the Bay Area's new media industries" and it has helped shape growth of Google and other related organizations.

In the article it says that 100 years ago, Max Webster's protestant ethic (the theology, sociology, economics and history that says hard work, discipline and frugality are a result of a person's subscription to the values espoused by the protestant faith, particularly Calvinism) turned into a lived experience for industrial workers. Similarly, Burning Man reflects how workers are influenced by the bohemian art worlds and their creativity that include the psychological, social and material resources.

“Focused on what humankind will try to achieve in the twenty-first century—not what it will succeed in achieving” (4^th paragraph under “The Paradox of Knowledge”, Harari).

This phrase plays two key roles for Harari. The first one is that the author wants to clarify something about this book as well as the movement that humanity has towards new technologies and ideals. He wants to make sure that as readers, we understand that even though he is certain that there are people out there reaching for immortality and god like powers, there is no way for anyone to be certain that these goals will ever come to fruition. Hence, before you base any arguments on the fact that immortality and the such, are almost impossible, make sure to look at the underlining reasons behind why we search for these types of things.

Secondly, this phrase also marks a new way we can talk about and predict the future. The example used in this book is very interesting, as it marks the ideals that led to who the Russians are today. They strove to eliminate inequality, and while they may have failed, their history, present and future, will in large part be dictated by their attempts to reach such a "ludicrous" (at the time) goal. As a potentially more relatable example, instead of asking things like, “will we be immortal by the year 2100?”, which offers a yes or no type of answer, we can ask and actually explore possibilities by asking “what effects will humanity’s quest for immortality lead to by the year 2100?”. The latter question allows for predictions to be made and analyzed, we could discuss how shifts in medical research will focus on fixing the problems that come with old age, or we could discuss the possibilities that we will develop bionic technology that allows humans to function in mechanical bodies. There are endless ways we could truly look into the future, by following the type of language that this phrase leads us to think in. This type of thinking can be used to look into the potential of almost any subject, just the one thought of immortality will affect our politics, society, economy, and who knows how much more. -Juan

Google - If google has 61,814 full time employees (https://www.quora.com/How-many-employees-does-Google-have) who are all researching their own projects, then wouldn't you think that Google will become the only one network we have in the future. It stated earlier that they already have greatly expanded just from a simple search engine. If they will be able to take over social media as well they could become one big monopoly. After 9/11 it only took Google a few weeks to create Google News, because of all of the searches. If it only took a couple weeks for that, theoretically they should be able to expand. Would this monopoly be a good or a bad thing? Google has the ability to take over, so why have they not done it yet. - Jessica

Homo Deus - Literally meaning "Man God". Harari claims the evolution of man, starting from Homo Erectus – who could produce nothing more impressive than flint knives – to Homo Sapiens - who produced spaceships and computers will culminate in Homo Deus - which have divine powers of creation and destruction. It's based off the idea that we, as Homo Sapiens, want the ability to re-engineer our bodies and minds in order to escape old age, death and misery and instead aiming for immortality, bliss, and divinity. He argues that so far, we have competed with the gods by creating better and better tools. For example, artificial fertilizers, industrial insecticides, and genetically modified crops produce far greater crop yields than ancient farmers ever expected. Or Israel recently building a huge desalination plant on the shores of the Mediterranean so they never have to worry about a drought (brought forth by a God or not) limiting their drinking water supply. However, we will soon be able to gradually upgrade ourselves through biological engineering, cyborg engineering, and the engineering of non-organic beings, into super humans who will outstrip the ancient gods in not only their tools, but also in their bodily and mental faculties. This could include intentionally rewriting our genetic code, rewiring our brain circuits, altering its biochemical balance, and even growing entirely new limbs. -Danny

Moore's Law- An idea that the number of transistors in an intergrated circuit doubles every year. The idea behind this is that computer and technolgoy developers need to keep pace with Moore's law and its ability to double the transistors, then economic demand will be met and Moore's law will keep on suceeding. This has been used in many different industries to suppoert research and development, such as the semiconductor industry. In the first article it talks about "it enables improvement in communications, embedded logic, information storage, planning, and design." -Aden O'Donoghue, group 4.

Progress- the notion of the "natural" progression of technology is brought up in both articles that we read. The first article sides with Moore’s law, stating that as long as software developers keep pace with and exploit Moore’s law, the demand for progress will be met. The second article discusses the plateau that technology has reached in the past decades, which would indicate that the recent discussion regarding the creation of singularity in the near future might be premature. The idea of progress is brought up in both the articles, but their views contradict one another. -Lakshya

Singularity- The idea that artificial superintelligence will trigger exponential growth in technology that will change human civilization. Widely debated upon due to the stagnation of technology in comparison to the late 19th-mid 20th centuries, versus the growth of our dependence and reliablity on technology. Vinge suggests multiple ways to achieve that singularity, citing the following scenarios as possibilities: artificial superintelligence, intelligence-amplification, biomedical, internet, and digital Gaia. -Daniela Gil, group 4

Objectivity- This term is used as one of the more important underlying principles to the procautionary principle. More argues that decisions must be made based off of unbiased, available science, not "emotionally shaped perceptions." The issue he seeks to put an end to is the uproar of politcal activists who seek to denounce new advances before all the facts are known. According to More, this calls for people to "fully disclose the forecasting procedure; ensure that the information and decision procedures are objective; rigorously structure the inputs to the forecasting procedure; reduce biases by selecting disinterested experts, by using the devil’s advocate procedure with judgmental methods, and by using auditing procedures such as review panels." He leaves open the 'who' this task is left up to, and one can only assume he means government and regulatory agencies. It is unclear whether joint efforts on the behalf of innovators and regulators are mandated by this principle, but it appears that whoever does bear the "burden of proof" has a thorough process to follow. _ Patrick St. Pierre

Precautionary principle- The risk assessment approach that acts to prevent any potential harm in situations where it is uncertain whether or not there is threat at hand. This process follows the saying “better safe than sorry”. In a broad sense, the decision where the worst possible outcome is the least bad should be the action chosen. There are four dimensions of the precautionary principle are the threat, uncertainty, action, and prescription dimension, all playing a vital role in the decision making process. - Michael Velle

Procautionary Principle- This principle has been formulated as a response to the precuationary principle noted above. It is based off of the notion that people's freedom to create new technologies and deploy them in the society and the world at large should be valued in proportion to the both potential benefits and detriments of said technology. It gives "high priority to people's freedom to learn, innovate, and advance," and offers 9 subsequent principles that further expand its definition. The author Max More explains that this principle was created to form " an alternative, more sophisticated principle that incorporates more extensive and accurate assessment of options while protecting our fundamental responsibility and liberty to experiment and innovate." He goes onto describe how the precautionary principle "threatens human well-being" by placing too much emphasis on the potential negative outcomes we face when deciding whether to implement a new technology or not. More offers that several important distinctions are lacking in the current use of the precautionary principle where threats to human health are concerned. In doing so, he takes a decidely human-centric viewpoint, stating that the Pre. P. essentially hinders progress, especially in regard to dealing with existing problems faced by humankind such as plagues and famines. He argues that the burden of proof rests unfairly upon the innovator, making it all the more difficult to help humanity. "Activists get away with the burden of proof trick by managing perceptions of risk instead of examining the real risks." More relates the use of the precautionary principle by environmental and health activists to fear-mongering by uninformed poltical groups, and uses this statement to justify his formulation of the procautionary principle. _ Patrick St. Pierre

(Within reasonable limits) - This phrase can be found in Max More's article on the precuationary principle under his 9th supporting principle: Prioritize (Prioritization). In it he outlines "decision criteria as follows:

(a) Give priority to risks to human and other intelligent life over risks to other species;

(b) give nonlethal threats to human health priority over threats limited to the environment (within reasonable limits);

(c) give priority to immediate threats over distant threats;

(d)prefer the measure with the highest expectation value by giving priority to more certain over less certain threats, and to irreversible or persistent impacts over transient impacts. "

Here, More shows his true colors by expressing his viewpoint on how progress should be treated by regulators of any kind. It is apparent in these value judgements that he seeks the greatest possible benefit to humankind at the potential cost of all other life on the planet... "within reasonable limits." Unfortunately, this small clause offers no real inclination on how to handle present conundrums faced by humanity which very much pit our success as a civilization against the survival of the rest of our ecosystem. This morsel of a phrase contains possibly the greatest issue faced by anyone who attempts to create any principles dealing with the outcomes of technological progress: Who decides what's within reason? Who gets to make the value judgement on whether to continue pushing the limit of human capability, livelihood, and lifespan at the cost of our environment?

Any biologist worth his salt can tell you that we depend on the biosphere for innumerable aspects of our life, and when human activity threatens the existence of said biosphere, we threaten the existence our our very lives. If we are to prioritize our longevity as a species, we must consider the impact we are having on the environment in which we must survive as all other lifeforms do: Together. We live in a symbiotic ecosystem; therefore, we necessarily depend on all manners of other lifeforms to preserve our own lives. Discovering what activities fall within our ability to limit the negative outcome on our ecosystem should be the utmost priority of our species if we intend to survive to 2100 and beyond.

In conclusion, I'd like to note that while the possibilty of our extinction may not pose an immediate threat, it is a distant yet steadily approaching horizon should we continue in our present direction. If you require any evidence, take a look at the past 5 major extinctions of life on this planet, and compare it to the recent die-off we've been observing since the beginning of Anthropocene era. We are rapidly approaching Earth's carrying capacity for humanity. We already have total dominion over the planet and nearly all its resources. The problems we are facing with the climate and with the extinction of other species will only become more insurmountable with the more people we have contributing to their deterioration. It is of supreme interest to our species that we reappraise how we prioritize our interactions with each other in conjuction with how we interact with the rest of our world if we are to continue to call Earth our home. _ Patrick St. Pierre