Question 291 of 365: What is the new Eugenics?

I once had a conversation with a man I didn’t know during which he extolled the virtues of Eugenics and the idea of a master race. Because I was 13 at the time, this line of thinking was absolutely new to me. With my rudimentary understanding of how good and bad genetic traits were passed on, I considered what this man had to say. I continued this conversation for about 45 minutes, probing him to continue his persuasive exposition. I was using a new software program called Freetel back in 1996 and everything seemed to be lining up. I had connected with this man from across the United States based upon similar interests in computers. By the time I was done with the audio and text chat,  my father was home from work. I spoke with him about the encounter and he was shocked (to say the least) about some of the claims that this man was making. He helped me to put a context to some of the ideas I was hearing. He gave me a history lesson, genetics lesson, and sociology less all rolled into one 15 minute speech about what I had gotten myself into. Still the man’s words had hit me in a place that got me questioning what I really believed about the nature of people. He got to me first and then my father had to reframe it. It wasn’t the other way around. I wasn’t already on the lookout for people who were trying to convert young children to the Aryan cause. I was just looking to talk to someone in the very early stages of VOIP.

Eugenics is one of those ideas that, at least on the surface, is perfectly plausible. If we have more and more healthy people mating with one another, better genetics and better people will result. This theory has been redressed in so many different outfits that it seems new to every generation that takes up the cause. From family planning to the creation of new religions, the idea that we can make the future better just by treating humans more like farm animals is so neat and tidy. And it is appealing for those who aren’t interested in telling the whole story. Somehow, it conveniently leaves out any human connection or the need for flaws in genetic pools to create disease resistance. Still it persists, even if under the surface in every discussion of societal class or race. And most people don’t have a father standing right next to them after they experience it for the first time to tell the rest of the story.

The newest version of this Eugenics conversation, though, is much more abrasive than the one I had with the man in 1996. The new Eugenics isn’t the engineering of human beings in test tubes or in the bedroom. It is the manipulation of what it means to be a person online. It is clear to me that the conversation about what should go online to represent us is being engineered to include only the best traits. We are convincing one another, as an entire society, that the only things worthy of our names and identities are the things that speak well of our past. We are supposed to put up successes and artifacts of our lives that show the generation of new people that don’t really exist.

We are supposed to tweet out what makes for a positive viewpoint and we are supposed to post pictures that are sanitized for alcoholic beverages. We are supposed to tell the stories that reveal a certain benevolence that is only possible online. In family blogs and on Facebook walls we are unethically editing who we are into these aspirational beings. We chastise one another for allowing too much information to leak out. We unfriend and unfollow those with unsavory bits to share or when swear words are too prevalent. We aren’t striving for truth in our conversations, we are striving for digital Eugenics. We are striving to let our perfected versions of ourselves reproduce online, having perfect little babies of ideas and projects. We let our offspring be devoid of the humanity that created them and then we stand back and wonder why they don’t hold up to scrutiny.

When a PR facade creates a document rather than a person, there isn’t truth in it. It is just an extension of that facade. When we can only “like” things and never “dislike” them, we are setting ourselves up for a level of dishonesty that can only be created in the pursuit of Nazi-like perfection.

I’m not advocating for the great underbelly of the internet to rise up and consume the good stories going on. I simply wish to question our purpose. Is our purpose to be ourselves in a new space or is it to be better than who we can ever hope to be in our current space. If it is the former, then let’s be honest about that. If it is the latter, then the man who I spoke with over FreeTel was much more honest about  his intentions than we are currently. There is something to be said for that. At least in that case, I had the option of my father talking some sense into me. If we are trying to do Digital Eugenics, no one will be able to give us a greater context because after a while we won’t know anything else.

Question 119 of 365: How can you have everything?

I stood where Bill Gates is standing right now.

I’m not sure why that matters, but knowing that I was previously in the same space as one of the most influential people in the world is downright unnerving. It is as if the universe has now made the comparison between us. Not a connection, but a comparison. Of all of the people that have existed in that space, he is the one that has done the most good for the world health crisis. He is the one who has funded the most schools. He is the one that has made the most money and changed the world with his computing vision.

Today, in the cafeteria of the Science Leadership Academy, Bill Gates took question from high school students that I have met and have had conversations with. He looked through the same windows that I have and walked through the same doors. Now, watching him do these things on a live video feed is nothing compared to the experience of actually being there with him. But, perhaps it is better this way. I don’t have to be embarrassed at my relative lack of accomplishment. I will never have to stand up to him and justify my own work against his.

And I know he doesn’t care, but I don’t need him to. I don’t look up to him as if he were a god among men and I don’t need his approval to make my own small contributions to society. I do, however, want to listen to him. I want to know his story, both of his successes and failures. I want to see that the cosmic comparison continues to weigh everything and come up with an answer at the end of it all, not in terms of who matters more but rather a comparison of two ideas. Because at the end of the day, there is an idea of Bill Gates and there is an idea of Ben Wilkoff. Our ideas intersect and separate at different points. They both have a narrative, an arch, and many plot devices. I don’t think that just sharing the same space is the only part of our “ideas” that cross paths either.

In telling his own story, he said that it you can have everything. He said that all of the world’s knowledge can be found in libraries and online. He said that the basis of getting what you want out of life was a good education. He said these things because they mesh with his story, with the idea of Bill Gates.

They also match my story. I have everything. Everything that I need for information, for connection, and for creation. I had a wonderful education, and I figured out just what it means to learn (although, mostly outside of a formalized setting). I read books and blogs and tweets. I see the world’s information and I incorporate it into the idea of me.

That is why we should listen to people. Whether they are Bill Gates or someone in the supermarket. That is why we have to constantly compare notes on what kinds of stories we are telling to one another. We need to be aware that whenever two people have shared the same space and time, there is a comparison that must be shared. When we see differences, we should recognize them. We should celebrate the fact that our stories aren’t the same. We should also look for those places that our ideas match up. When we find those places, we should feel connected to an understanding that we indeed are experiencing the same reality as one another. We should feel incredibly happy that neither of our ideas are entirely flawed because we have shared something special. When the ideas of ourselves resonate with one another, it doesn’t matter if one knows it and the other doesn’t. So long as someone is making note that there was a singularity of vision for a brief moment, that is enough. It is enough to know that Bill Gates and myself, for the moment that the story was being told and heard, are allowed to let our ideas meld.

I was in Target the other day with my two children and an elderly man stopped me after I paid for our groceries. He told me that he had four children and that for a few years he had to leave them alone with his wife while he was in the War. He said that his entire family had a food budget of $15 per week, and they were able to stretch it and make it work. I had just paid for $150 of groceries that may not even last us the week. That is a factor of 10. He said that the number almost made him fall out of his bench seat as he waited for his wife to get out of the bathroom. In that moment, he noticed that our stories were drastically different from one another. He was both making a note of that fact and allowing me to do the same.

At some point in the future, I may understand exactly what he was talking about. For right now, I can just be thankful for the story. At some point, I may be able to hold the same understanding as he did of leaving his children and wife behind to work toward a cause greater than himself, but for right now I can just listen. Perhaps, that is all that any of us can do.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Author Calls for Action to Stop Bill Gates’ Abduction of US Education (techrights.org)
• Bill Gates Pushes His Foundation’s Health, Education, Energy Agenda at MIT – The Podcast (xconomy.com)
• Bill Gates’s Dad Wants to Tax the Rich (Again) (blogs.wsj.com)
• Bill Gates urges Americans to join ONE on Idol Gives Back (one.org)
• Gates’ college tour in one slide (news.cnet.com)

Response to Paul (on PD must be better)

This post is in response to a comment on my last post which went something like this:

As I read your list I went back and forth agreeing with you.

Do you ever question if it is not how we do PD but the audience that we have hired and put into the “seats?”

Do you think we could stop “doing PD” if we simply hired a different caliber of professionals?

Do you worry that we have to “give(!!!) context, meaning and perspective” to teachers?

Here is my response:

I do think that it has to do with who we are talking to and what messages they will accept. However, I really do believe that if given enough reason to change, everyone will. I believe in the power of people to see something great and to become a part of it.

I also think that we could stop “doing PD” once people start thinking about networks as PD, but I still think we need to give people time away from their classroom responsibilities to actually create that network and to do their learning. We are passionate about learning what is “new”, but not everyone is. Others have to be given the time to do so, even if they are able to be a networked learner. They need to have the space to network.

All learners need to be given a space that has context, meaning and perspective. While I may create a lot of the context for what I do, I live it every day. I cannot expect people who do not blog to understand the context of blogging. I cannot expect people who do not use twitter to understand the context and meaning of a twitter conversation. And, I cannot expect people who do not use wikis and revision history to create a perspective to gain that perspective by doing anything other than actually using wikis and looking at revision histories.

When I say give, I believe that I am giving an experience. The experience is what matters to me. It is what will allow them to start creating context, meaning and perspective. Nothing else will do this and expecting them to create that experience on their own is just a little to harsh for me.

Technorati Tags: learning, pd, response, online, elearning, professional development, paulbogush