Silly Sofa-larity Idea
Technology won’t become a mediocre comfy sofa
6th March 2014
An earlier version of this post was first published via H+ Magazine.
The New Yorker suggested instead of the Singularity there could be a sofalarity, a mindless oblivion where you become buried in a comfy sofa. I will convince you why the sofalarity is wrong. The Singularity, for those people who are unaware, is an technological explosion of intelligence.
Technology can resemble a box of matches in the hands of children. The invention of matches is smart, intelligent, but personal intelligence can take longer to mature. Our cultural intelligence will however catch-up, in-sync with the smartness of technology. The sofa-larity won’t happen.
Reminiscent of toddlers people may stumble and graze their knees, or burn their houses down, but we will become culturally smart. Many fat sofa-people exist in the year 2014, but there are also a growing number of Jen Selter types. People similar to Jen Selter are using technology to share their love of self-improvement. There are also apps available for people to share their running progress.
Jen Selter: “Train insane or remain the same”
Soon technology will allow our cultural intelligence, our personal intelligence, to keep pace with the smartness of our gadgets. The internet already augments our cultural intelligence, assuming you follow positive people or use Jawbone UP, Fitbit. AI and nanotechnology will boost the augmentation of our minds.
It is merely a matter of education. Children need to be informed about the dangers of matches. Thankfully children do learn, thus generally they grow-up to be relatively responsible adults. Technological teething pain exists in 2014, which is understandable because technology is a relatively new thing. We are only just beginning to grasp the power of technology. The Singularity is inevitable despite our pre-Singularity teething troubles.
Let’s consider Tim Wu’s New Yorker article about the sofalarity, titled: “As Technology Gets Better, Will Society Get Worse?” Tim sated technological evolution is different to biological evolution. He suggest biology is about survival of the fittest, whereas technology is about comfort. He thinks we are merely “comfort-seeking missiles” focused on an easy-life of anodyne oblivion. By Tim’s logic we should all be heroin addicts, or screen junkies, but there are many examples of people using technology to blog their fitness.
Tim Wu wrote: “Our will-to-comfort combined with our technological powers create a stark possibility. If we’re not careful, our technological evolution will take us toward not a singularity but a sofalarity. That’s a future defined not by an evolution toward superintelligence but by the absence of discomforts.”
I think Tim Wu is following the wrong people. Consider how Robert Durbin was inspired at age 64 to get fit via a YouTube video. Video technology!
Or consider Lucy Mecklenburgh logging her fitness via Twitter:
Consider also Millie Mackintosh using her Xbox One and other methods to get fit, which she shares via technology:
Technology is being used by Kyle Cary Smith and others to promote and encourage fitness:
People can make stupid decisions but I predict technology will naturally lead us towards intelligent decisions. Already, via technology, some inspirational people are showing us how we can improve our lives. Technology is inherently intelligent thus humans will inevitably become intelligent. Think about it, it makes sense. Our brainpower will prevail.
Finally regarding the fusion of technology and fitness, let's consider Alex Lightman. Alex has made significant contributions to the adoption of IPv6. Alex is passionate about many forms of futuristic technology. Alex is also passionate about fitness. He runs up and down steps, he participates in fun races, and likes to work-out with barbell or dumbbells, or smart belles:
