Assignment #2 Collective Intelligence – The Impact and Benefits of Nature

By: Jonathan Krywulak

Green Fix

In this article, Naomi Lubick suggests that although past research has made a compelling case for the healing affects of nature, the direct causes related to “nature’s curative powers” (2013, p. 42) has been difficult to determine due to the medial field largely overlooking it. Lubick references E.O. Wilson who suggested nature’s restorative benefits to human beings is the result of an evolutionary process between the natural world and the human mind.  This helps to explain our “innate preference for such scenery and provide(s) clues as to why such scenes might trigger restorative brain responses” (p. 42), even if those scenes are artificially constructed.  This can possibly explain why simulated natural environments help people recover faster (deceases in heart rate and stress) in hospitals or feel better in office settings.  Artificial images of nature have the ability to generate a response from the human brain that can result in a variety of psychological and physical health benefits. According to Lubick,  “faking nature will help us hone in on exactly how the real things might be promoting healing, but more importantly, it might help bring nature’s benefits to those of us trapped in places where nature cannot follow”  (p. 44).  As technology advances, it will be interesting to see how nature continues to be simulated in the not so natural world.

Biophilia: Does Visual Contact with Nature Impact on Health and Well-Being?

Bjorn Grinde and Grete Grindal Patil examine the influence plants and other aspects of the natural world have on the human mind.  They suggest that like all other species, humans “have been shaped by forces of evolution” (2009, p. 2333) and it was particularly early in history that humans and the natural world were closely united in order to survive.  It was during this time, according to Grinde and Patil, that plants became an integral part of the human environment, thus evolving alongside the human mind.  Based on this theoretical perspective it is thought that humans “have adapted to live in a green environment” (p. 2333), and any deviation away from the environment may result in unsettling affects such as disease or reduced life quality.  I found this part of the article most interesting as provides a possible reason as to why humans seem to be more calm, comfortable, and balanced (in mind, body, & spirit) when they see or are around nature.  By being close to plants, people are experiencing what they always been accustomed to since early history.  I think in many ways this serves to explain why people have an urge to be around nature and why often times their health and well-being benefit as a result of being around it.  As noted by Grinde and Patil’s, “nature appears to have qualities useful for stress relief, mental restoration, and improved mood simply by being consciously or unconsciously “pleasing to the eye” (p. 2336).  Interaction with plants both indoors and outdoors are encouraged as it serves to benefit the human body and mind.

The Human Relation with Nature and Technological Nature

In this article, Peter Kahn questions whether or not it matters for the physical and psychological wellbeing of humans that actual nature is being replaced by technological nature. He argues that it does matter and his analysis of the question raises the concern that as we move away from actual nature “the baseline across generations for what counts as a full measure of the human experience and of human flourishing” will be lowered.  This may substantially affect the human connection to the natural world and have a negative impact on the physical and psychological well-being of humans.  In his study using plasma HDTV’s to simulate nature, Kahn came to the conclusion that real nature is better than technological nature however technological nature is in many ways better than no nature at all. The general trend provided by research suggested that “interacting with technological nature provides some but not all the enjoyments and benefits of interacting with actual nature” (2009, p. 41).   I agree with this statement as I think technology can afford humans a lot of different opportunities to connect and experience the natural world. Various technological tools have the ability to create mood and provide imagery that people can resonate with, however, I feel that interacting with real nature can generate greater benefits as it relates to physical and psychological well-being.

References

My Delicious link:
 https://delicious.com/jkreek

Lubick, N. (2013). Green fix. New Scientist, 218(2921), 42-44. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407913615018

Grinde, B., & Patil, GG. (2009). Biophilia: Does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 6(9), p. 2332-2343. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/file/d/0B21EMxFJbDZ6bnVuVldDQ28xbWs/edit?pli=1

Kahn, P., Severson, R., & Ruckert, J. (2009). The human relation with nature and technological nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, p. 37–42. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/hints/publications/Human_Relation_Technological_Nature.pdf

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