Collective Intelligence: Assignment 2 - Is biophilia present in media technology and in our use of social media?

By: Andrea Soler

It has been 30 years since E. O. Wilson coined the term biophilia to talk about our “innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes” (quoted by Thomas, 2013, p. 10). Today, we can see examples of this love for life, as Wilson liked to describe it, everywhere in our architecture, interior design and arts.

More than a tendency, Kellert and Wilson believe that biophilia was “biologically encoded deep in our past at a time when sensitivity to sensory signals was crucial to our survival” (p. 123).  As the environment in which we need to survive has changed, so have our manifestations of biophilia. Based on this, Susan Thomas has developed the concept of technobiophilia applying biophilia to technology (p. 12). From interfaces, game designs and technological lingo, to our phenomenological experiences when we interact online, Thomas says that there are many expressions of biophilia in our modern technological life.

Elaborating on Thomas’s concept, I wonder if there is a resemblance between lifelike processes and our use of media technology and social media. To find some guidance to this question, I looked at three research sources: Jussi Parikka’s theories about insect media, Christakis’s TED talk about how epidemics move through social networks, and a video animation of how the flu virus enters and spreads through the human body.

In his book “Insect media: An archeology of animals and technology” (2010) Jussi Parikka looks at how insects and animals have been source of inspiration for military technology and strategies, media technology, software design and even mass communication. As an example, Parikka points out how in the 19^th century the telegraph system was compared to a spider web, not only because of the threads of its cables but because of how the system functioned by sensing the movement of information. 

Photo by: Gradders52 CC License

For Parikka (2010) insect media is not about creating metaphors such as parasite computing or bug/virus attack that aim to naturalize a cybernetic construction (p. xxi), for him it is about animals and insects having media qualities themselves. If “media is a contraction of forces of the world into specific resonating milieus” (p. xiv) and animals and insects have the faculty to transmit, record and connect, then media is not limited to human communication.

Parikka observes that insects “live in media,” as their world requires them to be always sensing, interacting and transmitting, similarly to how humans are always communicating through media technology (p. xxvii).  For Parikka the concept of media is much broader than to be a human extension, for him animals and insects are also media.

Moving from insects to epidemics, Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler have been applying network theory to figure out “How social networks predict epidemics” as presented by Christakis during his 2010 TED talk. By looking at how humans connect through social networks, the researchers have been able to observe and map how people influence each other depending on their position in the network and their relationship. The study of social networks can help visualize how social contagions, which can take the form of germs, viruses, patriotism, altruism, religion, obesity, purchasing trends, etc., works and spreads.  

Christakis 2010 TED Talk - CC License

Although the presentation focuses on how epidemics spread, what is most interesting for the purpose of my question is to be able to visualize how information moves within social networks. This presentation makes me wonder if, in the same way that viruses survive by moving from one host to the next by using social networks, have humans also learned to spread information (news, gossip, opinions, trends, etc.) by mimicking this contagion behaviour in their use of social media? 

To see if there is indeed a resemblance in how viruses spread and how we communicate through social media, I looked at Robert Krulwich and medical animator David Bolinsky’s video “Flu attack! How a virus invades your body” (2009).  This animation illustrates how the virus enters the body and tricks the cells into making millions more viruses to spread the viral information, while in the mean time the defense system reacts and restores order.

To say that the way humans move information through social media is similar to how a virus spreads based only on superficial associations from a video is not possible. However, there are a few observations and similarities that are worth mentioning. For example, the process of acceptance of the virus into the cell by having the proper “key” seems similar to the process of introductions into social networks. The way the virus spreads – by making contact with other cells that create millions of copies of the same virus – resembles how ideas or opinions are shared and spread in social media. Finally, the way the body’s immune system reacts to restore order reminded me of how often wrong information gets corrected within the network, usually by better-informed individuals. Although these observations might be far-fetched, they could also be food for thought.

Polio Virus - Photo by: Sanofi Pasteur - CC license

In conclusion, the three sources indicate that there is potential for further research in this area. Jussi Parikka’s theories show that there are non-human biophilic elements in media (although he does not use that term) and expands my narrow view of media as a human tool.

Researchers study how epidemics spread using the same network theories and mapping as they do for the diffusion of opinions, innovations and behaviours. This suggests that there might be an association between how different lifelike forms (such as viruses) and humans connect that is worth exploring. This possibility is further reinforced when we compare and see the similarities of how viruses move inside and outside the human body to spread.

In particular, Parikka’s comment “could we not (only) ask how nature is evident in our media cultures but what in media technology is already present in nature” (Parikka, 2010, p. xxi) leads me to believe that there are indeed technobiophilic elements in our design of media technology and use of social media systems.

Reference list:

Christakis N. (2010). How social networks predict epidemics. TED talk. Retrieved from:

http://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_christakis_how_social_networks_predict_epidemics

Krulwich R. & Bolinsky’s D. (2009). Flu attack! How a virus invades your body  [Video file]. Retrieved from:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/06/01/114075029/flu-attack-how-a-virus-invades-your-body

Parikka, J. (2010). Insect media: An archaeology of animals and technology. Introduction: Insects in the age of technology (pp. ix -xxxiv). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Thomas, S. (2013). Technobiophilia: Nature and cyberspace. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Delicious account:

https://delicious.com/andreasolerpava