Categories
happiness

Web 2.0: Toward Happiness and Empowerment through Interactive Technology

Web 2.0: Toward Happiness and Empowerment through Interactive Technology

Soraj Hongladarom

Department of Philosophy and Center for Ethics of Science and Technology

Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University

Introduction: What is Web 2.0?

Web 2.0 is a new development in the World Wide Web. According to the Wikipedia, the term ‘web 2.0’ refers to “a perceived second generation of web-based communities and hosted services — such as social-networking sites, wikis and folksonomies — which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing between users.” Its use first became widespread in 2004, after the first O’Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference. Actually, ‘web 2.0’ does not refer to any advancement in technological details, but it shows more how the internet and the technologies of the World Wide Web is used so as to reflect social interaction and the ability for users to share information which was not actually feasible with the way the Web was used before. According to Tim O’Reilly, “Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2).

Many websites that we are familiar with today employ the web 2.0 concepts. A clear example is www.youtube.com, which could well be regarded as the very embodiment of the idea. Youtube does not contain any information on its own. The millions of video clips on its website do not originate from the people who designed the site and put URL on the internet, but from the millions of users worldwide who share the clip with one another. We might look at youtube.com as a huge free market where people come in from all corners to share their information. In the previous incarnation of the Web, what we might conveniently call ‘web 1.0,’ the idea is that information is created and disseminated to the users by the content providers and the webmasters, and the users are in most cases little more than passive consumers who can only choose which chunk of information they would like to get and which one not, but they do not have the power to share their own information with the outside world without themselves becoming webmasters. Web 1.0 creates a wall between the webmasters and the users. Webmasters create, maintain and disseminate information, and the public consume it. With the web 2.0 concept, on the other hand, the line between webmasters and the users has become significantly blurred. The function of the webmasters in youtube.com function, not as ones to choose which video clips should be shown on the first page, which ones on the second and other inner pages, and so on, but the role of the webmasters has almost become invisible, making sure that things run smoothly and that the overall look of the website is pleasing and functional, etc. In short, the role of the webmasters changed from that of ‘masters’ to being more like ‘servants’ who stay out of the limelight and are always there and ready to help.

In this brief paper, I would like to discuss how the web 2.0 concept could be conducive to happiness. As happiness is notoriously a difficult concept to pin down exactly, what I am focusing is rather empowerment of the local communities. As a technology that supports social networking and sharing of all kinds of information, web 2.0 will be instrumental in promoting happiness that is a result of such social empowerment. However, before that vision can be reality, many obstacles need to be overcome. These obstacles will be identified in the course of this paper and I will provide some attempt at showing how they can be eliminated.

Open Source, Open Society and Web 2.0

The web 2.0 concept aligns itself perfectly with that of open source. In software terms, ‘open source’ means that the source code of a particular program is publicly accessible and is intentionally released to the public so that anyone who has the expertise can have a look in order to study it and make improvements. The only requirement for open source is that once one revises and improves on a code, one is bound to publish one’s own revisions and announce this to the public. This is to ensure that any revisions and improvements will be fed back to the system so the benefits still belong to the public. The open source idea is diametrically opposed to the normal practice of most software businesses, which jealously guard their source codes as trade secrets. This ‘proprietary system’ or ‘closed source’ implies that the source code, the very heart of software, belongs to the company as private property. Nobody except for authorized personnel within the company who owns it has the right to open up a piece of software and to do anything with it. Once a user has bought a piece of proprietary software, he or she in effect has agreed to be bound by its terms of use, which in most cases involve the agreement not to tinker with the source code, if they do have the ability to crack open the software get to the inside.

Another well known website illustrates this viewpoint very well. Wikipedia.org is a very widely used online encyclopedia in the world today, and its startling feature has always been that anybody has the right to share their knowledge and expertise with the world by uploading their own contribution to it, thus adding what they know to the global community, adding a share of knowledge for the benefit of everyone. The basic idea of the open society is that every individual is equal, and that idea is also reflected in the wikipedia conception. Knowledge is shared among everybody in the world, and definitely it is not the prerogative of some privileged few.

The open source system is much aligned with open society. According to Karl Popper, an open society is one where there is a system of tolerance, accountability and most of all transparency in information management. A government is open when anybody can monitor its functioning and when it can provide justifications and reasons for its action. This is opposed to governments in closed, totalitarian societies where governments are not accountable to the people, nor are they any transparent in its dealings. In this sense, there are a lot of affinities between open source software system and open society. In the open source concept, there is a system of trust and willingness to share the good with everybody in the community. The authority functions more as one who facilitate things so that the good is brought about in the most efficient manner possible so as to ensure that everybody does have a chance to enjoy the good, rather than hoarding the good to a privileged few as is very often the case in closed societies.

What is crucial here is that open source critically depends on open society. This is a point that seems to be much overlooked by software developers. But in a society where there is no freedom to innovate and no freedom to share information without any restrictions, it is very difficult to image how open source software system can even get started. On the other hand, promoting open access and openly sharing systems such as web 2.0 websites could well lead to more open societies, because, as history has shown many times, maintaining a healthy, democratic society requires that information be fully accessible and fully shared. This is precisely the objective of web 2.0

Web 2.0 and Happiness

So we have now come to the central part of the paper. I would like to show that there is a link between web 2.0 and happiness. Let us note, however, that the term ‘happiness’ here is used here not in the usual psychological or economic sense of ‘subjective well being,’ but in a more ancient and more spiritual sense of cosmic order and harmony. Rationale behind this is rather complex, and at least requires a full paper of its own. However, the idea, basically, is that by equating happiness with subjective well being, the moral dimension and the spiritual side of the matter is left out. One can be ‘happy’ when one is only satisfied with the material consumption. But as all religious traditions point out, this is not adequate at all, and there is obviously more to happiness than mere consumption. What web 2.0 can offer in promoting happiness is that, by allowing people to network together and by allowing them to express themselves to their communities, the technology allows for a level of happiness that has hitherto been rather difficult to achieve. Happiness can be achieved here only it is understood as something that arises when one fulfils one’s goal and one’s sense of ‘belonging’ to something that is greater than oneself, something more akin to Aristotle’s ‘good life’ (eudaimonia) rather than mere consumption of material goods. At any rate it is hard to see how material consumption would have anything to do with social networking, so if happiness is equated with the former, then one would indeed by hard pressed to see how web 2.0 can lead to happiness at all.

To put things in more concrete terms, web 2.0 creates a level of happiness by ensuring that information is shared in an open and transparent manner. As happiness is better understood as a harmonious working relationship between the inside (individual preferences, etc.) and the outside (social and physical order of things), web 2.0 does promote it through becoming a lynchpin of open society. Hence there are strong logical connections between open source software (such as web 2.0), open society and happiness.

Web 2.0 in Thailand

There are a number of websites in Thailand employing the web 2.0 concepts. The most successful one seems to be www.pantip.com. This very popular website functions as a forum where members come in and engage with their fellow members of every imaginable topic, ranging from politics (a very heated section) to art and entertainment, to religion (another heated place), and pet care and so on.

Opening page of http://www.pantip.com/

Another interesting website is http://gotoknow.org/, a site that collects a large number of ‘weblogs’ or ‘blogs’ contributed by the members. Both pantip.com and gotoknow.org are ranked among the most popular websites in Thailand:

http://gotoknow.org/

What these two websites share in common is that, firstly they are operated mostly by their members. All the content is provided by the members, and the so-called ‘webmasters’ are in fact facilitators who make things running but impose no heavy hands on the directions where the content is heading. However, there may be some restrictions, especially in the case of pantip.com, as when the exchanges (mostly about politics) tend to get out of hand and when the directions of the discussions might risk offending someone or breaking the law. Otherwise the idea is that any content whatsoever is fair game.

These two websites clearly show that Thailand appears to be heading in the right direction as far as the use of web 2.0 concepts is concerned, but now the problem is how many people in Thailand are actually using it. Considering the statistics prepared by the National Electronics and Computer Engineering Center (NECTEC) showing that the total number of internet users in Thailand hover around 12 percent in the year 2004,1 this is not quite satisfactory. It is indeed true that happiness does not necessarily depend on how many people are getting connected, but without any level of appreciable internet access, it is hard to imagine how happiness is going to be achieved, at least when we consider the kind of happiness that has been the subject of our discussion so far in this paper.

Conclusion

So to conclude. The major question that will concern policy makers in the country for a foreseeable future is: How could Thailand foster the design principles for web 2.0 technologies that actually promote happiness and human development? This question is important because design is indeed crucial if any policy attempt to broaden the people’s participation in the internet world is to bear fruit. I think a first priority for the design should be that the users should be kept in mind from the beginning. Technologies are meant to answer the people’s wants and needs, and anti-technology rhetoric notwithstanding, we in the twentieth century simply cannot leave without it. And I am firmly convinced that the path toward happiness would not be feasible without some kind of ingenious technological design that is accessible to everybody and that allows for the full flowering of everyone’s potential. Web 2.0 seems to be doing its job in this regard, as we have seen. However, many obstacles still remain, as in Thailand only less than fifteen percept of the population are connected to the Internet. And even if we carefully consider the prime examples of Thai web 2.0

Another thing that deserves no less serious attention is the potential clash between local values and the global web 2.0 websites such as youtube. The recent incident between the Thai government and the website concerning the portrayal of the Thai king illustrated that the clash could get downright serious, resulting in the whole youtube.com website being shut down and inaccessible throughout the country for a consideration period of time. This clash in value needs to be fully addressed and deliberated. What global websites such as youtube need to consider is that they cannot take their own system of values for granted. However, this is a very delicate and complicated matter. We have to be well aware of the possibility that local values might trump over global ones, resulting in parochialism and the syndrome that occurs when one country is always arguing against ‘interference’ by outsides (which in many cases are only justifications of brutality inside the country). On the other hand, we also need to be careful that the so-called global system does not fully dominate everything and every local corners, which could result in the same thing.

1 Thailand ICT Indicators 2005: Thailand in the Information Age (Pathumthani: NECTEC, 2005), p. 27.

Categories
happiness information technology public policy

Report of the Colloquium on Happiness, Public Policy and Technology

Can Thailand emerge as a global hub for the design and deployment of new class of technologies that generate happiness? This question was at the heart of a series of colloquia, organized by the Center for Ethics of Science and Technology, Chulalongkorn University, in collaboration with the Human-Computer Interface Laboratory, University of Washington, USA. The first colloquium in the series, which took place on July 23rd, 2007 at Chulalongkorn University, explored this question and a whole host of related questions and issues that serve to integrate a variety of academic disciplines and policy deliberations for the purpose of finding the optimal way in which Thailand could emerge as a hub for innovative and efficacious technology design and research in related areas that incorporate the principle enshrined in the “Gross National Happiness” as well as His Majesty the King’s “Sufficiency Economy” principles. This initial colloquium was supported in part by a grant from the Intel Corporation.

A group of around 25 distinguished scholars and public figures, chaired by Prof. Charas Suwanwela, Chairperson of the Chulalongkorn University Council, gathered at the Sasa International House, Chulalongkorn University to ponder together on these questions. It is well known that new technologies can diminish quality of life—causing “information overload,” addiction, and out-of-control consumerism. Less well known, however, is that the world’s leading technology laboratories—including those at Intel, IBM, Nokia, Microsoft, and some others—are spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually in an effort to reverse these impacts. Researchers and those in leading universities such as MIT, Stanford, and Carnegie Mellon are designing computer games, wellness methods, and learning systems with human well-being and even spiritual development as goals. In a parallel development, neuroscience labs now can now draw upon brain scans of Buddhist monks in meditation to measure the differences between technologies that enlighten users from those that cause harmful stress. These exciting new developments were explored and discussed during the colloquium, with a specific focus on how specific public policies could be formulated for Thailand in such a way as information technology in particular could be integrated seamlessly with ethical principles and imbued with traditional and spiritual values.

It is clear that such infusion of technology with humanistic values is fervently needed in today’s world. Technology, and information technology in particular, is making its presence felt in all aspects of contemporary life. It would not be far fetched at all to claim that information technology has become the medium, the lifeblood, of today’s globalized and intensively interconnected world. Indeed the globalization and the interconnection is made possible by information technology. However, much that has been connected with information technology seems to be rather negative; hence there is a need to find a solution that makes use of the best of both worlds. On the one hand, we in today’s world need the technology, but on the other, we need the technology to function, not in the pure vacuum of non-social and non-cultural space which is clearly impossible, but within the real world where cultural traditions and values are deeply felt. As the principles of Gross National Happiness and Sufficient Economy indicate, the world today needs no excess of unbridled technological materialism, but in fact spiritual, cultural and ethical values, those ‘soft’ aspects of human intellectual endeavor, are having increasingly important roles to play in technology design. The two worlds are collapsing toward each other.

The colloquium on July 23rd focused on these issues in a number of ways. After an opening address by Craig Smith and an introduction by the participants, Soraj Hongladarom, a philosopher and Director of the Center for Ethics of Science and Technology, Chulalongkorn University, presented the first talk on the emergence of what is called ‘Web 2.0’ and its role in reflecting the underlying principles of open society and their implications for technology design and IT policy. What distinguishes web 2.0 for its earlier incarnation is that the former makes possible in a radical way interaction among the users, enabling them to become ‘publishers’ of information in much more facilitated way than was possible before. Web 2.0 sites such as youtube.com or myspace.com, have become social space which make it possible for members of get together to know one another and to accomplish common tasks. The potential for this kind of technology for social well being is enormous. Soraj pointed out that the happiness principle could be served by allowing the aging members of society, for example, to interact with one another through such activities as blog writing. The content entirely belongs to the users, and news and information can be shared in order to create and maintain vibrant communities that could foster more happiness among the members.

In the next talk, Charas Suwanwela, who is an emeritus professor of surgery at the Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University discussed the increasingly commercialized nature of medical practice in Thailand, and he pointed out the important way of how information technology could be harnessed to help solve the problem. Relying on His Majesty the King of Thailand’s principle of Sufficiency Economy, which stresses mindful consumption and the need for moderation supported by ethical values, Charas mentioned the crisis being faced by Thai health care, which stemmed from the pressure of globalization, increasing litigation, explosive progress in science and technology, and most worrying for him increasing commodification and commercialization of health care. Among the questions he asked was whether it was desirable for medical doctors to advertise their services by asking would-be parents if they would like to see the faces of their children before they are actually born. This example shows that medicine is about to change and become more like other types of services instead of the honorable position of doctors being healers. An aspect of the new capitalism is the level of sophistication with which the service providers create an artificial need for the types of services which in the past were not conceived to be possible or necessary, such as the costly early detection of cancer through PET scans. For Charas the Sufficiency Economy Principle goes hand in hand with the ethical values in medicine and health care, and a way needs to be found such as these values and principles are infused with the practice of medicine and the use and design of technology.

In the subsequent talk, John Sherry from Intel, talked about his team’s ongoing research activities in designing new technologies that help to sustain and promote these softer values. Intel Corporation is known for its leadership in microprocessor manufacturing. However, recently the company has begun to focus on developing “platforms,” i.e., constellations of technology ingredients more focused on particular uses. With the formation of the Digital Health group in 2005, Intel has brought together social scientists, designers and engineers to focus on better understanding ordinary people, and designing technologies more directly targeted at human health and happiness. In the talk, Sherry described three projects being pursued by members of this team. The goal was to use these projects to outline a more general process, and key principles, which will help other product development organizations, policy makers, or others both create and engage technologies for human health and well being. These projects, likewise, describe an arc or trajectory from initial ethnographic research through idea creation, conceptual development and ultimately technology design.

The first project entails large scale ethnographic research on the topic of aging. Population demographics are shifting dramatically in many countries, and the consequences are as yet poorly understood. While policy makers, health care organizations and corporations are paying increasing attention to issues of aging, not many have taken the time to understand how aging is experienced by people themselves. This project set out to learn about aging from elderly people themselves. The second project was focused more on the latter stages of research and development. It builds on a trajectory of research known as “embedded assessment,” in which technology is designed to help people track variability in their health or behavior constantly and unobtrusively. This strategy was employed to help people who are at risk for future health complications as a result of difficulties managing negative emotion associated with stress (often manifest in the United States as anger). By sensing negative emotional arousal, and providing well designed prompts and strategies for avoiding major “blow ups,” the goal of this technology is to help people deal with stress in a more healthy way, to feel better in the present and maintain health for the future.

The third project describes work that has progressed beyond basic research towards pilot implementation. Beginning in 2006, members of Sherry’s team began research in Africa, India and a select few other sites to better understand how technology might enhance the delivery of health care in poorer, rural regions. As many have pointed out, technology holds promise for enhancing skills of local care providers, or increasing access of rural villagers. The goal with this project was to gather both a broader understanding of what worked, and why, and to begin honing a useful, standardized, technological platform by pursuing an actual deployment, in rural Uganda. Working with a number of both local and non-local NGOs, universities, and government agencies, it was hoped that a solution that can scale beyond this single implementation could be developed.

Each of these projects started out not with a technology, nor with a “market,” but rather with a well attested human value, based in careful research. That would be where some of the most interesting innovations of the future come from, namely those that are most aligned with enduring human values.

After the lunch break, Craig Smith talked a little about his project on empowerment and spiritual computing. He mentioned his experience with the theorizing for the well known alternative economic framework developed by E. F. Schumacher, which he saw to be a precursor to both the GNH and the Sufficiency Economy Principles. The idea was that traditional economics appeared to get things wrong. Consumption cannot take place until infinity, and sooner or later one has to face with the inevitable decline in resources. Thus Schumacher called for ‘sustainable development’ where developmental effort was constrained by the need for the planet earth to replenish itself so that human beings were able to continue living on it. Schumacher termed his idea ‘Buddhist economics’ as it stressed the idea of sufficiency modeled upon village-based economies and not today]s globalized one.

Talking about Buddhist economics led Smith to discuss the important role that empowerment plays in Buddhism and also on the use of the term in various advertisements he saw around the world. A computer manufacturer, for example, advertised their products as ‘empowering.’ But what exactly is being empowered, asked Smith. Certainly it is not pure, unadulterated consumer choice, since that is not sustainable and clearly not in line of the sufficiency principle. And according to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, to follow one’s own desire wherever it leads is not empowering at all, but in fact one is being enslaved by one’s own desire. This view of Kant’s echoed what Gautama Buddha taught more than two thousand five hundred years ago. Thus, real and meaningful empowerment can only take place when one takes into one’s hands one’s own destiny; that is to say, one controls the direction of one’s life according to the values and goals that one deliberate and rationally consider to be those worth pursuing for. The Buddhist conception of empowerment, then, becomes relevant in this attempt, as it is the conception that emphasizes the role of transformation. One is empowered in Buddhism when one realizes that things according to what they are and when one becomes the master of one’s own mind such that instead of the world transforming the mind through arousal and creation of worldly desires, one controls one’s mind and thereby transform the world itself. To put this in a less abstract term, empowerment for Smith means that technology users maintain the power to create and manipulate the technology according to their own ethical values and choices.

The colloquium ended with a talk by Deputy Prime Minster Paiboon Wattanasiritham. He reiterated the importance of sustainable development and Buddhist economics by emphasizing that happiness, and not mere consumerist satisfaction, should be the goal of public policy. Whatever public policy that is developed should have as the final goal a happy society. This includes happiness, wellness, and physical and mental health of the population.

Another thing he mentioned was that the Sufficiency Economy philosophy should be adopted as a general guideline. Thus, in terms of public policy we have the final goal of a happy society in a collective sense, which of course included the individual. The guiding principle consists of three components, namely moderation, reasonableness and humility. Then the two preconditions which were the basis for sufficiency economy were knowledge and morality.

Then Deputy Prime Minister Paiboon mentioned three main areas in which public policy based on the Sufficiency Economy Principle should be formulated. The first one focused on what he called “integrated community development plans.” These were plans developed by the villagers themselves according to their local belief systems, and systems of goals and values. Information technology was actually included in one of the goals developed by one village that he visited. The technology functioned prominently in the developmental plans of the village and was inserted as one of the key indicators. The second area concerned human mapping or goodness mapping. This is an attempt to locate and map persons with good qualities in each locality. ‘Good people’ here obviously included those that were skillful in a variety of ways, so these people become invaluable resources for the villagers and communities.

Finally the third area mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister was spiritual computing, that is, a mixture and integration between computing technology and spirituality. This is an idea first developed by Craig Smith. It is a way to develop and design information technology in such a way that promotes and relies upon insights gained by Buddhist meditators and practitioners. For example, information technology could be harnessed to help train the mind, which has been a goal of Buddhist practice for millennia. For the Deputy Prime Minister this was a way toward formulating a workable public policy on technology design and use that emphasizes, and as Craig Smith is saying, transform both the technology itself and the world at large into a more meaningful entity.

So the colloquium ended with these three recommendations by Deputy Prime Minister Paiboon. It was up to the members of the colloquium to think further on how to elaborate on these recommendations, and the members of the colloquia are looking forward to the second colloquium, which will take place in early February 2008 also at Chulalongkorn University.