INTERPRETING BIG DATA, FOR A PREDICTABLE FUTURE

(Image) The approach Google is taking with Google+ is genius. And it’s exactly the reason Google circles are a MAJOR evolution (I still don’t understand how some folks don’t see that) in what the Internet is becoming. I’ll assume Battelle is correct with a point he recently blogged (because I believe he is):

What’s clear is this: All the companies involved in this great data spat are acting in what they believe to be their own self interest, and the greatest potential loser, at least in the short term, is the search consumer, who will not be seeing “all the world’s information” but rather “that information which is readily available to Google on terms Google prefers.”

The key to that last sentence is the phrase “what they believe to be their own self interest.” Because I think there’s an argument that, in fact, their true self interest is to open up and share with each other.

Let’s pretend the data from all parties involved (Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.) was shared, right now. What would we have? The most amazing social network to ever exist. Why?

That’s essentially what exists now - but it’s fragmented to the nth degree. Here’s another point, from the same post (by Battelle).

Thanks to Google’s inclusion of Google+ in its search index, that light has now been shone, and what we’re seeing isn’t all good. I’m of the opinion that a few years from now, each and every one of us will have the expectation and the right to incorporate our own social data into web-wide queries. If the key parties involved in search and social today don’t figure out a way to make that happen, well, they may end up just like The Industry Standard did back in 2001.

But not to worry, someone else will come along, pick up the pieces, and figure out how to play a more cooperative and federated game.

Not only is the assumption that he makes correct (IMHO), it should serve as a “kick to the face, wake up call,” to all of the companies it’s aimed at. We’re never going to get to point we want to be at without cooperation - data cooperation. For some background on Big Data, this link may help. 

IF all of the data we produce (or a significant amount of data, at the very least) is shared within the framework of the Internet - not just the framework of the World Wide Web - we could actually get some shit done (I would assume that was the point for creating the Internet; to make the world a better place, which it has undoubtedly already done…). The Internet and World Wide Web wouldn’t work properly if they was broken (much like that sentence doesn’t work because it's grammatically broken). Why would social or search (well, what search is becoming, not your grandfather’s search) be any different? SOPA is a perfect example of how “censorship” breaks the web. Rather than censorship, what we’re dealing with now is non-cooperation from the involved parties. The same parties that would have a shit storm if SOPA became law are, essentially, doing the exact same thing with data that SOPA would do to the web - breaking it.

To get to a point that’s communicated within the title of this post (“For a Predictable Future”) I’ll use an example: For this example, I’ll use the average eight year old - five years from now - that’s just starting off using social media. Presumably, I (average eight year old) have no idea how to use social networks. (Also, presumably, the major players in this social game are sharing data.)

Rather than promoted tweets, or suggestions for whom to follow (I’m obviously referring to Twitter here), you will automatically follow individuals or brands. While at the same time, you will automatically unfollow people or companies. (This is also the point where Google circles come into play, significantly - we would have a pretty humongous mess without circles.) Your friends are auto programmed into circles, based on how often you interact with them, to what regard you interact with them, in real life, and online. Now, based on location: the data collected from where you go (school, Toy’s R Us, vacation - a signal for your parents income) can be used as a predictor for what you’re going to buy, where you’re going to buy “it”, and where you will vacation, in the future. Based on all of this real-life data, your circles will auto generate who’s in them. And they will constantly make adjustments. Don’t talk to that person much anymore? They’re dissolved to a lower tiered circle.

Fast-forward a few years. Now, you’re looking for a college to go to. Wait, no you’re not. Because there are three schools that have already sent you letters, begging you to attend there. Those schools are the only ones that can send you letters (or emails, bear with me) because any other school sending you letters would be considered spam. And there’d be legal ramifications for sending you spam. The question is, “Why those three schools?” Because they’re the perfect match for you, everything about you; intelligence level (based on what you read online, test scores, etc.), income level (can you afford it? - will you be able to pay back the loans? - the school already has a pretty good idea if you’ll be able to, and how long it’ll take you), your preference for distance from home (need to bounce outta town? home buggy?), etc. 

That’s where shared data could bring us, to start. And we can always change our minds. You know what? I don’t like those three schools. Send me three more choices that differentiate the collective intelligence of the current student body a little better. 

I imagine, at that point, we won’t have to concern ourselves with such trivial matters, as often as we do now. Matters like, “Should we really share data? I don’t know, what if Twitter leveraged it better than us? Then we’d have to come up with something new." 

THE INTERNET MEETS THE INTERNET

I’ve been so excited about this that I couldn’t figure out how to explain it. Craigslist.org is the Internet’s operating system equivalent. Craigslist is the missing link in the battle to becoming the first website to successfully implement a full fledged Web 3.0 experience. It’s easy to use, it’s simple, it’s genius. When Craigslist came out everyone rolled over and “couldn’t” compete; because Craigslist was free.

Straight from the Craigslist Wiki: “Craigslist is a centralized network of online communities, featuring online classified advertisements - with sections devoted to jobs, housing, personals, for sale, services, community, gigs, resumes, and discussion forums.”

I think Craig Newmark may have invented Web 3.0 when he brought free classifieds online, sixteen years ago, and nobody knew it. In fact, most websites are striving to include much of what Craigslist.org has had the entire time: everything.

Here is Wikipedia’s definition (by the way, isn’t Wikipedia getting pretty?) of a social network: “A social network is a social structure made up of individuals (or organizations) called "nodes,” which are tied (connected) by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as friendship, kinship, common interest, financial exchange, dislike, sexual relationships, or relationships or relationships of beliefs, knowledge or prestige.“

The social network that’s going to win everyone over will look a lot like Craigslist. Now, you may think I’m crazy by saying that. But think about it. You’re saying "no” because Craigslist doesn’t have the visual appeal/feel of a social network like Google+ or Facebook. As far as it’s technical design, it’s a better version of both of them. And it was established before them. Let’s say Google wanted to buy Craigslist right now, assuming it could be bought. Integrating what Craigslist offers, into what Google+ is, would put Google in the drivers seat of the social network battle. It fell off people’s radar because the founder of Craigslist, philanthropist Craig Newmark, does a straightforward job of honestly running the site.

Staying on Google, for this example, Google Coupons would be immediately wedged into every local community in the United States. And that’s one product from the book Google offers. I mention money only to prove the immediate ROI a Google owned Craigslist-Google+ combination would offer.

This could improve local governments, national governments, and the world as a whole if implemented properly. It may even reboot our economy. And yes, I may be entirely over thinking this, but am I? Real community discussions in one centralized arena.  Why is our nations education system failing? Because we are not politically involved in our communities. This is the chance to do just that. Craigslist integration into Google+ offers that. A real platform for communication. 

Getting local business tied into such an advanced network, could bring the “main street” inventor to the world. With Google Coupon’s integrated, local businesses would COMPETE for their daily deal to appear on search pages. Rather than Google having to ask them if they’d like to advertise a deal. Social media and advertising are scary to a lot of people. Simplify it, “craigslist it”.

Maybe the reason Google+ is having so much early success is because everyone sees its potential but can’t quite figure out what to do with it right now. Taking it a step further, rather than thinking of a Google+/Craigslist combination website as a social network, think of it as a world profile.  

When someone searches for you on Google you want to control what they see, with this all-in-one profile you can control what they see. You own your data, don’t let it own you. Instead of searching Google for “Brett Favre” and getting 13,500,000 results you would be brought to one page. If you’re looking for the former NFL quarterback, the profile you’re looking for should be obvious. You click Brett Favre’s profile and everything associated with that Brett Favre is brought up in an organized page, like Craigslist’s design. But, if Brett Favre himself was logged in, it would act as a dashboard to him. If you’re not looking for the former Packer great, the page will act like a filter.

I’ve read that the future Internet will be similar to how the Twitter app works on the iPad. If that is the case (it is a nice design) you can find the less popular Brett Favre (you’re presumably looking for) by filtering down what information you know about the Brett Favre you are searching for. The point is, you wouldn’t have to worry about not finding the right Brett Favre or missing out on any information about the person named Brett Favre you want to find. Everyone in the world would be tied into this network and all of the information related to that specific Brett Favre would be integrated in his world profile; control what information is displayed about yourself, on the web, in a simple manner. They don’t have to actively update the profile. They do not have to use it.

This is why subdivisions of your profile would still remain a necessity. By subdivisions I mean plugins, other integrated accounts. Choosing what information you interact with others on is why all of the other internet services, besides Google, will not die. Twitter would remain an integration of your account, if you so choose to use Twitter. You can update your Twitter and forgo an update to your “world profile”. Separate networks would act like circles.

You can stay local with your information or you can go global. You have control over all of it. That’s slightly off topic and just came to me, so I don’t know about the world profile part. Am I wrong? Am I saying anything new here?

Here’s a quick mock-up I made; maybe it’ll relay the message a little better. I’m not sure I did.  It uses Facebook as the login example, I know. Actually, it’s a poor/earlier example. If you can understand why this would be awesome, combine Craigslist with Google+, and your brain might explode. Literally. Probably not though. This is as simple as it can be narrowed down, visually speaking. I didn’t feel like doing a Google+ example, yet.

IGNORANCE & CONSUMPTION: THE BIOPHYSICS OF SUSTAINABILITY

In Consuming the Earth: The Biophysics of Sustainability William Rees declares, “that much of economics is, or should be, human ecology” (382). Rees outlines where ecologists and economists differ and where they agree. He mentions the hidden dimensions of consumption, which are; (1) growing the economy destroys nature and (2) the invisible foot of the economy (carbon emissions). The paper ends with his comparison of the economy to a parasite. I enjoy being humored by this example and tend to agree with it.

Rees states, “The economy is that set of activities and relationships by which human beings acquire, process, and distribute material necessities and wants of life” (382). Economists and their analysis determine how well we are doing managing these interactions. The problem herein is that “most economic analyses are money-based and totally ignore both physical reality and the behavioral dynamics of ecosystems” (382). Why is this a problem? Consider ecology to be a subset of the study of human interaction, much like economics, but encompassing the ecosystem.

When you leave out huge portions of an equation, gross miscalculations are the final result. Economists disregard the role that the environment plays in the economy. In No Middle Way on the Environment: A Response to Sagoff Ehrlich, Daily, Daily, Myers, and Salzman point out, “Ecosystem services are worth trillions of dollars annually, but since they are not traded in economic markets, they do not carry prices” (374). Arguing that the ecosystem is worth trillions of dollars is not an exaggeration, by any means. After a failed two-hundred million dollar environmental experiment, Biosphere 2, it was clearly visible to scientists that we need the “Natural ecosystems [to] perform critical life-support services…” (374).

For the Western economic paradigm, centrally driven by monetary means (i.e. consumption), to evolve it’s vital we help people in positions of power (an induced presumption from reading Rees’ article) to understand how we relate to the world; because their decisions affect all of us. Marti Kheel explains in the article, From Heroic to Holistic Ethics: The Ecofeminist Challenge, why it is important for us to contemplate our relationship with the natural world. She writes, “Before we can change the current destructive relation to nature, we must, therefore, understand the world view upon which this relation rests” (200).

Kheel advocates for the promotion of an ethics of care. She shares a self-constructed view of the future, believing we will call this time period (our eradication of nature) the “Age of Treason.“  Kheel remarks, “During this time, men came to fear nature and revolted against the earlier matriarchal societies which had lived in harmony with the natural world as we do now” (211). I believe the view she contrived will prove to be accurate. As climate change creates more environmental obstacles for the human race we will be more reflective upon our previous decisions. We’ll look back on the generations that preceded us in sheer disappointment, anger, and helplessness. What will we be able to do by that point? What can we do now? Chris Cuomo examines Kheel’s crusade for an ethics of care in Considering the Problems in Ecofeminism.

Cuomo contends that the ecofeminist ideology has been “ used too simplistically by a number of ecological feminist writers…” (140). In her analysis, she notes, “[Although] Careful argumentation is important,” “Much of the work that I criticize… evidences clear political and personal commitment to uncovering at least some of the connections between women’s oppression and the devastation of the planet…” (140). Evidence is the key to any argument. A lawyer would not enter into a courtroom proclaiming his client’s innocence based upon him being a good man, or saying, “God spoke to me of his innocence!” Cuomo is trying to convey that much of what has been written for ecofeminism, is based in spirituality. This is why Rees is so adamant in explaining his carbon data; he wants to back his claims with evidence.

William Rees believes a major factor for our destruction of nature is related to “All our toys and tools, factories and infrastructure…” (383). This touches on pollution and Mark Sagoff’s claims that we are not running out of raw materials. Even if technology does continue to advance exponentially and solves our problems (as Sagoff claims), we still must account for all of the “goodies” we’ve made along the way. The pollution we’ve put into the biosphere during the manufacturing of our products, combined with the pollutants we will continue to excrete with their upkeep and use, must be dealt with; if we have any hope of shifting toward a sustainable path of interaction with Mother Earth.

Sagoff’s critics and Rees acknowledge that economic growth dissipates the natural environment. Rees’ study of the biosphere, in the Lower Fraser Basin of Canada, confirms the detrimental impact we have on the environment, from our release of carbon emissions. The Lower Fraser economy grew to be one of the most profitable economies in the world but the carbon “data highlight the physical dimensions of (industrial) economic reality that are completely hidden from conventional monetary analysis” (384). The area became economically profitable through industrialization. The pollution and massive population increase opened the gateway for an invisible carbon footprint. The carbon devastated local ecosystems and the biosphere of the world as a whole. Sagoff’s critics point out, “The winds carry no passports” (377).

Rees’ solutions to our environmentally destructive practices include “[the goal] of ecological economics is to reconstruct economics on a firm foundation of theory governing physical relationships and material transformation in nature” (382). The problem is that he does not offer real solutions as to how we would go about making these changes. He affirms the problems we have, realizes our future prognosis for sustainability as bleak, and suggests we clearly understand the consumption patterns that we are transfixed in (as consumers) now. Our consumption habits are not sustainable. Moving forward necessitates properly diagnosing what has led to our current environmental conundrum. We must aim to look at the questions that deal with how to properly measure our relationship with Mother Earth and keep our way of life in balance with her.

It’s natural to have vulnerability in one’s arguments, as Rees does. When determining the carbon release for his study of the Lower Fraser Basin, he notes that, “A new tool I have developed, with my students, ecological footprint analysis, shows the average…” (385). He does not provide specific evidence as to how this formula (aka “tool”) works. It must therefore be considered highly questionable data. However, I am satisfied with the explanation he gives comparing the economy to a parasite; it’s brilliant.

I view economics in precisely the same manner as Rees. The environment takes a backseat whenever (a majority of the time) moneymaking opportunities for corporations or individuals become involved. The most depressing part of Rees’ argument seems to be holding true with my personal research and opinions. Rees writes (speaking of entropic degradation of the environment), “eventually [the degradation] affecting everyone more or less simultaneously (as is happening with ozone depletion)” (386). According to recent studies published on Wired and CNN’s websites, the ozone layer over the Arctic, has depleted forty percent over the previous three-month time span. I’ll repeat that for arguments sake, forty percent!! I would hope (and on this matter, pray) that number would persuade those opposed to the idea of climate change that we are indeed choking our biosphere to death.

The more likely scenario is that we’ll continue polluting our environment and incrementally make worthless, in the grand scheme of things, policy changes. By the time anything NEEDS to be done it will most certainly be too late. If by the grace of God, we succeed in saving the biosphere from ourselves, it would only suit that we would have an asteroid plummet into the ocean; flooding the world soon after our environmental efforts were satisfactorily realized. Sagoff’s critic’s comment, “The earth could not avoid the path of an asteroid,” we may be in store for round two (as we have poorly designed asteroid detection technology) (375).

Rees concludes his paper with the stressing that, “This presumed economy-environment decoupling is pure illusion sustained by abstract monetary models of economic process” (385). To think that our actions have no serious impact on the environment or to surely entrust advances in technology to eradicate our past, destructive decisions is irresponsible. We cannot count on something that is predicted to occur (i.e. advances in technology). If that were the case, I’d be partying like it was December 21, 2012, which is when Mayan calendar ends. We should only be focused on the facts. Climate change is real. It’s happening now. Will we save ourselves?

THE INFORMATION'S EFFECT ON THE ECOLOGY OF ORDER AND CHAOS

In The Ecology of Order and Chaos Donald Worster details the chronological history of the view for environmental science and ethics. He states ecology has an underlying meaning premised in simplicity and conservation. Aldo Leopold, Bill Devall, and George Sessions views of ecosystems as stable and harmonious are beginning to dissolve. The “old” viewpoint contends we should maintain ecosystems or return them to their natural state. Worster believes the emergence of this “new” view for ecology will change the perspective of the environmentalist’s concern for nature.

From the beginning Worster talks about the conclusions he made years ago in a publication of his about ecology and its ideas about nature; “…[ecology] itself needs to be morally examined and critiqued from time to time” (159). This statement foreshadows the conclusion he reaches in The Ecology of Order and Chaos; an all-wise guide view of ecology is inaccurate and dangerous. We must be willing to accept challenges to our preconceived notions of science and nature. I believe it would be safe to say that Worster is, generally speaking, content with the way ecology has been willing to evolve as a science/philosophy.

The early workings of ecology, from the likes of Paul Sears and other ecologists of that time, has the viewpoint that ecology is “… a study of equilibrium, harmony, and order…” (159). Frederic L. Clements moved to dynamic ecology, which is, “concerned with change an evolution in the landscape” (160). This notion of nature suggests that nature itself will reach a climax stage and essentially become a single animal or plant. The view articulates that nature is maturing, and after it is given enough time to organize, will “…exercise some control over the nonliving world around it…” (160). Essentially, it will develop a consciousness and “use its brains.”

This ideal integrates nicely into the perspective of ecology most influenced by Eugene P. Odum for which the main concern was the flow of energy and nutrients through the natural system. One can see the similarities between Clements and Odum’s ideals, that nature will reach a point of maturity that conditions harmony and interrelatedness. These men argued because nature is both our home and provides our every essential need, ecology ought to be made the foundation of education, economics, and politics. 

Nowadays, as Worster mentions, ecology “… has become a study of disturbance, disharmony, and chaos, and coincidentally or not, conservation is often not even a remote concern” (159). Drury and Nisbet’s individualist notion of ecology does not accept the argument that nature will reach maturity nor the belief that early species pave the path in making this maturity possible. Whether it is natural disasters (tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires), or animals in nature (badgers, mound-building ants), there is always a disturbance in nature to keep it from reaching equilibrium. Worster’s evidence for this individualist approach comes from Paul Colinvaux (popularized contemporary philosophy). Colinvaux states, “What look like community properties are in fact the summed results of all these bits of private enterprise” (165). In other words, he argues, the nature of succession is purely based on survival of the fittest.

Worster writes that the new views of ecology are due to the discovery of chaos and are “…fundamentally erratic, discontinuous, and unpredictable” (166). He evidences the randomness of weather and how, despite our methodical predictions, rain falls or it doesn’t. The evidence is in “each little snowflake falling out of the sky turns out to be completely unlike any other,” and “cars suddenly bunching up on the freeway” (166). Ecologists were some of the last individuals to accept the current notion of chaos. In the mid 1970’s they conceded that the mathematical models their data inferred were not fully explainable and they could not explain “the periodic outbreaks of gypsy moths in eastern hardwood forests…” (166).

Chaos Theory is best explained in Worster’s words, “tiny differences in input can quickly become substantial differences in output” (167). I accept Chaos Theory and many of the claims associated with it because of the mountains of evidence for it; there is more evidence for the randomness of nature than for the harmony of it. Reality is a pretty complex, insane concept to fathom. We don’t have a proper enough understanding of reality to try and fit it into neatly stacked subcultures of science; but we can try our best.

Although Worster does his best to give evidence for his points, there are some points of argument against his beliefs. As noted by Professor David Cartwright, the fact that Chaos Theory tries to explain randomness in a nicely laid out perspective is quite ironic. Though I see no other way for which it could conceivably be done; which brings me to my next point. Worster contends, “The world is more complex than we ever imagined, they say, and indeed, some would add, ever can imagine” (166). What about advances in technology?

When artificial intelligence (A.I.) is advanced to an exponential factor, will we as some claim, be able look to A.I. for a solution to our every problem? Earlier this week we interviewed the co-founder of Wired magazine, Kevin Kelly, for TechZombie. When Google was just getting started, Kelly asked the current CEO of Google, Larry Page, what his end game for creating Google was. Page told him it was to “create the largest artificial intelligence database in the world.” If every human on earth that has access to the Internet is contributing to an A.I. database, does that not leave open the possibility that we will some day know everything? That much knowledge could theoretically calculate an inconceivable amount of data. However, to play devil’s advocate, if the data that makes up this A.I. database is not correct, that could lead to a “Butterfly Effect” of poor decision making; reinforcing Worster’s belief that ecology should not be taken as an all-knowing science.

The ideas Worster offers are compelling because they unravel preconceived notions of nature. Chaos Theory can be compared with Ludwig Von Wittgenstein’s theory of the ladder in “Tractatus,” though in slightly different context. We can leverage what history has presented to us, about environmental ecology as a ladder, to help ourselves better comprehend the process of human thought and understanding. It is important for us to recognize these ideals and then dispel of them by redefining what we know.

Worster seems to convey the point that the more we know, or try to understand, the more we realize we don’t understand. Because of this realization, we must respect nature more than ever. He states, “It may be that we moderns, after absorbing the lessons of today’s science, find we cannot love nature quite as easily as Muir did; but it may also be that we have discovered more reason than ever to respect it…” (168). The solution is that we “flap our own wings in it a little more gently” (168). The emergence of this new “understanding” of not really understanding is so incomprehensible to many that they entirely disregard it. That is why many scientists were slow to adopt Chaos Theory; it was too demoralizing to their lives work to want to accept the concept. Regarding scientific knowledge, Worster says, “They have been announcing laws, designing models, predicting what an individual atom or person is supposed to do; and now, increasingly, they are beginning to confess that the world never quite behaves the way it is supposed to do” (166).

I believe Worster would have a firm appreciation for what James Gleick conveys in his newest book The Information. Gleick believes that nature is chaotic and the information that flows throughout reality and space and time works like a computer (to be fair, I’ve only read halfway through the book). The computer, as a whole, will not function properly without every component interacting with one another. At this point in human history, we don’t know what we would need to know, to determine if Chaos Theory is correct. I agree with Donald Worster because he acknowledges that we don’t know what we thought we knew. Nature is chaotic and you can’t predict chaos. This being so, we better be extremely careful about what we do to the environment because we really don’t know what the hell we’re talking about.