You, Robot

Unexpected item in bagging area. These are the words that any shopper dreads to hear when standing at a self-service checkout machine. What follows is an often embarrassing encounter with whichever dull-eyed robot warden eventually makes their way over to assist us. This involves a performance of beguiling swiping and prodding motions that one can only presume is some form of futuristic sorcery. Magically, this relieves the beleaguered machine from whatever virtual illness our untrained hands had inflicted and we continue scanning our items until it inevitably happens again.

It begs the question – wouldn't you rather just take your shopping over to a human like back in the good old days? In any case, one can’t help but notice the gradual invasion of self-service checkouts upon supermarket tills across the nation. Indeed, jobs throughout the whole service sector seem to be progressively automated – from customer service assistants to Post Office workers – we increasingly interact with machines more than humans. How long will it be before all manned services will be replaced? What consequences will this have for our society? And is there anything we can do to halt the perpetual march of the machines?

The phenomenon of human labour being replaced by machines is broadly known as technological unemployment. This isn’t a new problem for humanity; we’ve been creating tools to help us carry out tasks with less manpower since prehistoric times, the invention of the wheel being the best example. But as time went on, we have gotten better and better at dong this, to the point where human labour today is almost obsolete. The upside is that we can now accomplish things far beyond what our bodies can achieve alone and at a much smaller cost. The downside is that, in a world where we depend upon selling our labour to society in order to survive, this can become a very big problem.

To understand this conundrum, we must look specifically at the development of technology and its effect on the economy so far. 200 years ago, our economy relied on agriculture as its primary driving force. Tools like the scythe and the plough massively decreased the amount of workers needed to tend the fields. But then the industrial revolution created millions of jobs in the manufacturing industry, so employment remained steady. Following this, the invention of the automated service line massively decreased the amount of workers required in industry. But this was also OK, because the digital revolution created millions of jobs in the service industry, working in shops and offices. 

Today, a large amount of service related jobs are being lost, because the augmentation of machines with computer processing chips now enables these jobs to be automated too. But where’s the next revolution to create new employment for those who are replaced? Although it’s true that the technology industry is ever expanding, the hard facts are that this really isn’t enough.

Meanwhile, no current job is truly safe from technological unemployment. Here’s why: in terms of running a competitive business, machines make better employees in almost every way. They are both cheaper to run, and incredibly more efficient: they can work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; without ever needing food, or a fag break; with no risk of turning up late or throwing a wobbly and leaving mid-shift. Also, would anyone truly miss interacting with humans in the workplace? At least in the service scenario, I’d much rather deal with a machine than face the sullen, monotonous demeanour of most wage slave waiters or checkout assistants, for example. At least the machine won’t stare at me with masked irritation as I fumble around attempting to open the plastic bags, or utter an admonished groan when I ask to speak to their supervisor.

Technology isn't a limiting factor either. In theory, machines can carry out any function that a human can. Even the jobs that we class as representing the pinnacle of human skill – for example, brain surgery – could be automated; indeed, modern surgery is already being complemented by machines today. If this sounds at all unfounded to you, think about it this way: machines have been automatically building cars for years. Yes, the human body is far more intricate and complex than a car but, when it comes down to it, we’re not much more than a sack full of parts that can be repaired and replaced, just like fixing anything else.

So, that’s all the jobs that require any manual dexterity out of the way, but what about those that involve the more theoretical regions of the brain? This requires machines to become artificially intelligent. The subject of many a sci-fi story for decades; today, this idea is less science fiction and more science fact. For example, take the emerging utility of voice recognition on mobile phones – for instance, Apple’s ‘Siri’. Although anyone who has actually used Siri will know that the technology is far from perfect, this is still a form of artificial intelligence, i.e. a machine that mimics the human sense of hearing to intelligently respond to basic commands. 

This kind of technology is developing exponentially. Following Moore’s Law – the observation that computer processing power doubles approximately every two years – it is theorised that the creation of a computer with all the power and capabilities of the human mind will be achievable by the year 2020. In theory, this would mean that machines will have the capability to perform 100% of human jobs in just eight years’ time.

Why aren't we talking about this more? Inevitably, the current economic recession has brought to fore plenty of dialogue on the topic of unemployment recently; both in parliament and the mainstream media. Immigration, public sector cuts and higher education have been debated and discussed to the bone as potential problems and causes. It is surprising, then, that technological unemployment has received so little attention, when it is clearly accepted as a powerful contributing factor. Perhaps this is because no one really has an answer to this confusing economic conundrum.

Here’s the problem. On the one hand, the world economy is driven by big businesses, who must replace human labour with machines to achieve peak efficiency and profit. On the other hand, this system relies equally on consumption, the capacity for which is greatly reduced by unemployment. Put another way, if people don’t have jobs, then they don’t have as much money to buy things, ultimately resulting in a loss for business. Is this the only thing stopping corporations from pushing forward with automation? It’s hard to answer this question without having inside knowledge from a big corporate company, but suffice it to say that as jobs become more and more automated we can expect to see this becoming a huge problem - one that someone is going to have to answer.

If we continue as we are, we will be forced to choose between the certainty of growing unemployment through automaton, or the fundamental counter-intuition of repressing technological progress. Could this be the ultimate ‘catch 22’ in our economy? Some might interpret this phenomenon as evidence that our development as a species has outgrown the system. For me, at least, it seems clear that this choice is one that we shouldn't have to make. Having discussed just how rapidly progress is being made, if we embrace technology and maximise the potential to reduce costs, then we could potentially provide ourselves with the ability to feed, clothe and house the majority of the world’s population for little or no price. Critics will say that this would not work in our current free market economy. I think that we will have no choice but to make it work.

Fuel For Thought

Depletion of natural resources. Climate change. Species extinction. Overpriced energy. Pollution. These problems, among others, are all evidence that our current way of living is severely unsustainable. We rely so heavily on exhaustible resources to support our world economy that we are inflicting grave damage upon our planet. Something serious has to be done.

So what’s causing the problem? A significant and rarely discussed factor lies in the way we operate our world economy; specifically, the existence of a phenomenon known as forced scarcity. An explanation: simple free market principles denote that the greater the supply of a given product or service, the lower the price. Take supermarket goods as an example: a product like flour is relatively cheap, because it can be grown in vast quantities and at little cost. However, a product like avocados costs more, because the crop is far less abundant and much more labour-intensive to farm. In short: where profit is the motive, abundance is not desirable, so scarcity is forced wherever possible.

We can see this happening in the energy industry today.  If you think about it, energy is all around us: from the wind that rustles through the trees, to the sun shining overhead and the waves lapping at our shores. Indeed, it’s actually the most abundant resource this planet has to offer. So why do we still use fossil fuels – a distinctly finite resource that requires millions of years to replenish – when there seem to be so many alternatives? The answer is profit; and seeing as the industry is driven by profit, the environment is treated as a mere externality.

An example of these market forces in play can be seen with the electric car. The recent surge in popularity of hybrid and fully electric cars might have you thinking that this is a developing technology. In reality, electric cars were built and used as far back as the nineteenth century and were actually extremely popular. Alas, these early vehicles were slow and could not travel far, so they were soon replaced by petrol powered vehicles. This being said, the idea was not forgotten, and in the late 1990s General Motors (GM) launched the EV1 – a fully electric car with practically the same range and speed as models being released today.

What with rising fuel prices, this car started to become quite popular in the USA… but then the manufacturers unexpectedly recalled and crushed every single one. Why? Well, GM’s publically stated reason was ‘lack of demand’, but the 10 yearlong embargo that the whole automobile industry subsequently put on the production of electric vehicles seem so severe a measure to suggest that some other forces might have been at play. Suffice it to say that a car that doesn’t require petrol is not particularly profitable.

The problem goes deeper. It goes without saying that electric cars are far more energy efficient than their petrol powered cousins; however, they still require charging at a mains supply – a source of energy supplied in most countries predominantly by expensive, polluting and exhaustible fossil fuels. Indeed - from planes and ships to lorries and trains - our entire infrastructure is powered in the same way. Add to this the fact that more and more manufactured products are built with plastic, which is also derived from oil, and it doesn’t take a push to see just how addicted we are to these substances. Sadly, like with any other addiction, the consequences will be debilitating and potentially fatal.

The main barrier to progress in the fields of energy and infrastructure is investment. Incredible technology exists today to vastly improve our energy efficiency, quality of life and success as a species altogether.  Like with the electric car, the ideas have either been around for years, or simply require the time and capital to be properly developed. There’s just one problem – where’s all the money going to come from?

That’s a good question. As discussed above, we can’t look to multinational corporations, because profit is their overarching motive and an abundance of energy would create astonishingly low prices.  We can’t look to governments, because most of the world’s countries are in billions of dollars of debt, so there simply isn’t enough readily available capital.

So what can we do? Well, as long as we allow fossil fuels to dominate the energy industry, there really isn’t much. Small inroads are being made both in the UK and abroad to promote clean energy – but it simply isn’t enough. The only option is for the governments of the world to agree together to implement a programme that will phase out the use of non-renewable energy forever. This might be entirely counter-intuitive to our global system of a profit-driven economy, but it’s fast becoming our only hope for truly positive progress.

Below are some examples of what we could achieve, were we not so stunted by this exhausting dependence on fossil fuels and careless strife for profit.

Solar Roadways

This multi-faceted renewable energy solution is the brainchild of partners Julie and Scott Brusaw. The idea is simple, but ingenious: replace the entire road system with computer controlled solar panels. The main benefit of this would be the huge exposure created for collecting solar energy, but many other positives come in to play as well; for example, inbuilt Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) powered by the panels would eliminate the need for street lights, road markings and most road signs. These would be controlled by prefabricated micro-processing chips, allowing for further benefits, such as pinpoint tracking, inbuilt intelligent motion sensors that alter the road’s LED display when an upcoming obstacle is detected and thermo sensors that turn on prefabricated heating elements to melt away surface snow and ice.

All this technology would be encased in a material specifically designed to withstand the huge loads. It would also be possible to house other infrastructure in this casing, such as communication and electrical lines, removing the need for overhead pylons. The project has been taken very seriously: thus far, the US Federal government has awarded the company $850,000 for research. Unfortunately, this is but a tiny dent into the investment required for true progress.

Maglev Trains

Instead of wheels and tracks, these trains use magnetic levitation to propel the vehicle forwards, achieving super-fast speeds unrivalled by conventional methods. This is not science fiction: the Japanese ‘Bullet Train’ uses maglev technology today, and the science behind it is actually very simple. Ever played around with a couple of fridge magnets, sticking them together and pushing them apart, as if by magic? Well, that’s basically it. Firstly, the undercarriage of the train and the guidelines of the track are electromagnetically charged to the same pole, resulting in repulsion. This means that the two do not actually touch - instead, the carriage levitates a couple of inches above the rails. Secondly, propulsion is then achieved by charging a secondary rail just ahead of the carriage to the opposite pole, hence attracting the train forwards.

Because this system is frictionless and requires no moving parts, reliability and energy efficiency are high; indeed, the only factor that increases energy consumption is air resistance as the train moves forward. This hurdle can also be overcome: patents exist today for a system of running maglev trains through an evacuated tube, hence eliminating the slow-down factor of air resistance, enabling phenomenal energy efficiency, and speeds of over 1000mph. This kind of transport would reduce the journey time between London and Tokyo to under four hours.

Geothermal Energy

Using a process known as ‘heat mining’, this form of energy is derived from the natural heat present in the earth’s outer core. Beneath the crust, natural water deposits are heated by the planet’s molten core to temperatures in excess of 200^oC. A shaft is drilled down hundreds of meters to where these deposits exist, and the water is pumped to the surface, where it converts into steam and is used to power turbines to produce energy. Finally, the steam is condensed again into water, and returned to the earth’s core to be heated once more and eventually reused. Utilising the right technology, this process emits but a fraction of the emissions created by burning fossil fuels, and it’s also practically inexhaustible.

A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2006 concluded that around 2000 zettajoules (two trillion quadrillion joules) of energy is easily available using this process of heat mining. To put this into perspective, the whole world uses just one half of a zeta joule per year, meaning that geothermal energy alone could satisfy the world’s current requirements for approximately 4000 years. Regrettably, a meagre 20 countries around the world currently utilise geothermal energy, of which Iceland is the current champion, deriving 30% of their national energy production from this source. 

The Recruitment Paradox (and other unfortunate aspects of modern life)

Unless anyone hasn’t noticed, there’s a slight issue with money at the moment; some kind of recession, or something. What with so many of the countries around us in Europe either getting bailed out, or threatening that at some point soon they may require to be bailed out, I’m finding it hard to understand how Britain is staying afloat. After all, it’s widely known that thanks to Thatcher our manufacturing industry is about as active as an overweight Californian stoner with an addiction to donuts who has just noticed that there’s a TV programme about donuts on TV and that he has a number of donuts and a joint saved up to enjoy as an accompaniment to the donut show. Furthermore, anyone who’s had to call any sort of customer helpline is well familiar with being put through to “Roy” who sounds suspiciously more like a “Raj” and who, when posed with a question that requires a tighter grasp on the English language than is ordained to him by the autocue hat he is sitting in front of in Mumbai, starts repeating the same stock phrase over and over again like a robot built by Apple that someone has just commanded to run a Flash video.

What the above needlessly long-winded metaphor was subtly trying to highlight is that Britain seems to be losing jobs, and fast. Indeed, the unemployment rate in the UK is currently 7.8% of the labour force; and this, coupled with the £960 billion (and counting) of debt makes you wonder whether the boy wonder George Osbourne’s posh Casio scientific calculator is really up to the job of working out a solution for our country’s spiralling economic turmoil. We don’t grow anything, we don’t make anything and, increasingly, we’re not providing many services either. I’m sure everyone reading this has noticed how customer helplines are increasingly being outsourced and how cashiers, bank tellers, post office workers etc are slowly but surely being replaced by machines. So what jobs are actually available in this country at the moment?

I am currently living a distressingly cliché existence. Having completed a degree in a horribly over-subscribed job field, I panicked and clung desperately onto another year in the city where I went to university, and now I’m living at home with my parents and looking for a job. Job seeking at the moment can be best compared to preparing to defend yourself against a murder charge in court: there’s a lot of sitting on your arse on your own, thinking about what you’re going to say, making stuff up and occasionally banging your head against a wall wishing you’d done things a little differently. I have at least come across one phenomenon that, indeed, is the inspiration for writing this blog. Ladies and gentleman, I think that I have discovered how the British economy is keeping afloat: recruitment.

Any graduate job seeker at the moment cannot have failed to notice how pretty much every 3 out of 5 jobs going at the moment are in recruitment, or one of the other fancy euphemisms that mean recruitment such as “head hunter” or “research executive” or “You dun find the job persons job”. Now, I understand that recruiters are necessary in specialist fields, as they need to be trained to identify certain skills and have a decent knowledge of the specific field; however, when the said specialist field is, in fact, recruitment... things start to get a little bit silly. What you have – and I know this is happening because it’s already happened to me twice in the month that I have been looking for a job – is recruiters recruiting recruiters to recruit recruiters who, in turn, recruit recruiters to recruit recruiters. It is nothing short of a baffling ouroboros of recruitment that is so ripe for parody I have absolutely no idea how anyone in the business of recruitment can take themselves even remotely seriously. The thing is, these recruiter recruiters can earn an absolute mint from the get go if they’re good enough at luring people into their retarded web. Could it be that this industry is actually supporting our beloved Britain?

If you think about it, it’s not too difficult to rationalise, considering that our whole society is based on trading meaningless numbers with each other anyway. The problem is that, even if this paradoxical farce of an industry is providing a boost to our economy, there’s no way that it can hope to prop the nation up against the increasing prevalence of the beast that has been plaguing modern economies since their foundation: a phenomenon known as technological unemployment. Put simply, this is where human labour can be replaced by mechanical labour to an economic advantage. It happened to our primary industry way back at the dawn of the 20^th century with the growing use of farm machinery; it happened to our secondary industry with the advent of the production line and now it’s happening to our tertiary industry with the ever-growing power of computers. Don’t think the quaternary (knowledge based) industry is invulnerable to this threat either: we’re already seeing a plethora of teaching aids appearing online and the idea of artificial intelligence is not so much science fiction any longer than science fact. Indeed, it is hypothesised that around 70% of jobs today could be carried out better and cheaper by machines. For example, there are already restaurants and bars that are fully automated, right down from the cooking and drinks prep to the service (http://tinyurl.com/ynqd4j). Just think how many thousands of people in this country are employed in the catering business and could so readily be replaced.

The only reason why this hasn’t been done yet is because employers know that the market just wouldn’t be able to handle the unemployment rates; hence why in supermarkets, for example, you have the current hybrid system of self-service checkouts and the old fashioned human setup. Nevertheless, I’m sure you’ve all noticed how those self-service machines seem to be slowly taking over, especially in smaller stores, leading me to believe that the amount of mechanisation is just going to be pushed further and further. For some reason though, this concept is not on the agenda for the Tories, nor the Democrats, nor any mainstream political party, it seems. I suppose the ‘powers that be’ are treating this, as they did pre 2008 with the problems evident in our financial system, as an issue that us mucky plebs are just not clever enough to understand. We shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about it.... until that redundancy meeting gets called and you’re booted into line with the rest of the job seeking masses. (Hey, at least you could always go into recruitment!). The simple fact is that machines are cheaper and easier to run than a human workforce and, moreover, are undoubtedly more efficient at completing objective tasks than we are – precision and objectivity, after all, are what machines are designed for.  Whereas it takes almost a decade for someone to qualify as a surgeon it would take probably maybe only a year or so perhaps *massive guesstimate alert* to design a machine that can perform surgery better and cheaper than any human could. Joking aside, if you’re thinking about dismissing that statement as pure fantasy then here’s some perspective: machines have been automatically building cars for years; however sacred or intricate you think the human body is, think again, at the end of the day we’re just a sack full of parts. Modern surgery is already being complemented by machines.

It is unfortunate that it is inbuilt into our culture is to be scared of machines, specifically AI. The reality is that our technology is the only thing that we have to secure our survival and proliferation on this planet. We should be accepting these changes, not shunning them. I have touched on aspects like this before in this blog and, unfortunately, the current situation, as explained above, is just another example of how our current economic model - that being the monetary and market system - is a total hindrance on our progress as a species. The things that we can achieve with technology are staggering and go beyond most peoples’ imaginations. It is testament to the uselessness and antiquity of our current system that technological advances are actually suppressed rather than embraced. See this website for further details: http://www.thevenusproject.com

iPad 2 - The Best Thing Since Sliced Faeces

People of the world, stop what you’re doing immediately and heed these words, for there has come a new, revolutionary product from the geniuses at Apple Incorporated. Yes. the iPad 2 has been announced and, as predictable as it is that a cat will get pissed off if you apply selotape to its bum crack, morons and drones from across the western world have joined forces to waste their hard earned currency on pre-ordering this tablet-shaped scam. The iPad 2 boasts a “brand new design” – in the same way that one could create their very own “new design” by rubbing a brand new dress in a turd on the side of the street. Basically, by “brand new design”, Apple mean that they’ve made it about 2mm thinner (didn’t see that one coming) and added a basically useless HDMI output capability – and not even a hardware output at that, of course not, you’ll have to spend about £30 extra to buy the adapter. Doesn’t sound very impressive does it? That’s because it really isn’t. Heck, at the unveiling even Steve Jobs himself appeared nervous that this particular hustle was going to go tits up. But no, as rehearsed, his planted audience members started an appreciative, if tentative, round of applause when he announced these incredibly underwhelming additions to an already ineffectual appliance.

A few days ago I posted a blog which, I’ll be honest, was basically a rant about why I don’t like Apple. A lot of people agreed; some, however, definitely did not. Some pointed out that Apple products are not just bought by “starry eyed idiots drooling over anything that gets put in front of them that's in white or brushed chrome”. Others explained Apple’s popularity by saying “People pay more for nicely designed (and well marketed) products.” Both of these statements at least hold some truth; neither, however, could even possibly sway my position on Apple. The news about the iPad 2 provides a useful example as to why.

For a great many years now, big companies have been using a technique called “planned obsolescence” to ensure that they can squeeze as much cash out of their consumer puppets as possible. No company in the world exploit this technique to anywhere near as great an extent as Apple. A quick explanation: when you buy a high quality, highly priced product you would expect that the build quality would be of such great a standard so that you get your money’s worth. Wrong. Nowadays, things are designed to break; after all, why would a company just want to sell you something once that you’ll have for life? There’s no money in that – our economy relies on cyclical consumption. Apple couples this technique by releasing a very slightly altered version of their products approximately once every year. Just think about it. Why couldn’t the original iPad be 2mm thinner and have HDMI output? Do Apple seriously think we’d believe that one year ago there wasn’t the technology available to achieve that? The problem is that hardly anyone nowadays stops to think about this sort of thing because they’ve grown up in a world where it just happens and seems natural. And they fall for it.

So, you’ve had your iPhone for a year, it suddenly breaks, why spend all that money repairing it when you can just get the new one? And so the cycle continues. You may ask yourselves now: “Why is this bad? I’ve got the money. I don’t mind forking a bit extra out now and then to make sure I’ve got the latest gadgets.” Yes, that’s all well and good, but think about what happens to your old phone - it will very rapidly become obsolete and then be discarded. When you think about how many resources go into making phones and how many phones across the world are sold and then thrown away... that’s a lot of wastage, and unless you haven’t noticed, the world does not have an infinite amount of resources. This is all we’ve got.

This is why I hate Apple. It’s not about petty things like minor differences in operating systems or wanting to be the guy who bucks the trend and says “I don’t do Apple, man. Like, that’s so mainstream”. It’s because this consumer culture, of which they are the flagship company, is dangerously exploitative – not just of the public, but of the Earth. We simply cannot afford to support this economy of cyclical consumption otherwise, a few decades down the road, we will be living to regret it.

iTechnolemmings

First, a quick role play. Imagine you're a hard-working farmer who owns a small plot of land in Victorian England. Some bright spark, let's call him Mr. Clark, has recently managed to invent one of the first  labour saving devices that would go on to revolutionise the way in which human-kind exists; that's right, I'm talking about the tractor. It's a few years down the line and a couple of industrial types have cottoned on to his idea and are making their own tractors which mainly perform the same functions as Mr. Clark's original design but with a few differences. Most notably, Mr. Jobs has built one that looks slightly nicer and is apparently more reliable. So, as an up-and-coming upper-working class member of society you have decided to invest in one of these new-fangled contraptions for your own farm.


Mr. Clark's tractor does everything you want: it has big, sturdy wheels which are terrific for traversing tricky terrain and are easily replaceable if they get punctured; it has perfectly easy to use controls and a hook on the back for attaching trailers and it has a good sized fuel tank and takes regular diesel which you can buy from any petrol station (or maybe fuel merchant - to be honest I'm not sure how Victorians sold their fuel - forgive me).


Mr Jobs' tractor looks fairly similar, but it has rounded edges, which makes it look slightly nicer. It also has nice big wheels, but if they break you can't replace them, you just have to buy a whole new tractor. The wheels are designed to break after about a year, which, as it happens, is how long the warranty is. Coincidentally, Mr. Jobs plans to bring out another model of the tractor around about then in a slightly different colour and with slightly better steering.  The controls looks lovely; he's managed to fit them all onto the steering wheel, unfortunately sacrificing the gear stick, meaning the tractor can't reverse. Additionally, there isn't a hook on the back as standard - to get one of those you have to pay an extra 20 shillings - and he's insisted that the tractor will only run on fuel bought from particular petrol stations/fuel merchants, (addressed above), the profits from which he will take a 30% cut, meaning that it costs 30% more to fill up your tank.


Which tractor would you buy? I'm thinking the first one, funnily enough. Unless, of course, you werte in some way mentally challenged or, dare I say it, brainwashed. If you hadn't grasped the analogy just yet, Mr. Jobs' tractor is an Apple tractor and Mr. Clarks' is one made by any other manufacturer. This is exactly what millions and millions of people are falling for, hook, line and sinker, across the globe. Why? Are human beings really so incredibly shallow and fickle that they would sacrifice objective utility and common sense for the sake of something that looks a bit pretty? Or are there more sinister forces at work?


I'm not saying Apple are the only company that do this - I'm just saying that they're the worst at it. In a world where corporatism squeezes every last drop of capital out of the consumer public's succulent money melons Apple have bought and industrial juicer and are feeding millions of us in one by one. I say feeding... most people are just jumping willingly straight in - like iTechnolemmings. Seriously, it's like a cult. I know perfectly normal, intelligent, decent members of society who blindly buy whatever crap Apple release as soon as it's available and immediately pre-order its replacement. They are slaves to Apple. You ask them, "Why do you only buy Apple? You realise that there are other options which are cheaper and better designed? With more functions. And more apps and more games and better cameras and better screens?" And they blindly reply like helpless drones "I don't care. I like Apple. It's pretty."


SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY!? I mean, I bare no naivety to the tricks of the trade that marketing teams across the world have been brewing to influence us to buy their products for decades now, but this is something else. I also understand that humans are social creatures and when something becomes popular it's easy to just jump on the band wagon. What I will not tolerate is when someone asks me "what kind of music do you have on your iPod" - I do not have an iPod, actually, I have an MP3 Player, which is what an iPod is, unless you were for a moment confused that it might be some sort of ubiquitous mechanical deity.


So please. Everyone. I urge you. We've already sold our souls to the banks and the politicians but at least get them to leave you alone in your living rooms! Please at least reserve one scrap of your dignity before the rest of you is consumed by the commercial hordes and you end up buying an iCoffin for the funeral of your self-identity. 


THINK BEFORE YOU BUY.