Here's the second big idea I need to get out there on a Sunday<br>afterno...

Pete Bennett - 2011-08-21 17:03:44+0000

I think it will be when augmented reality becomes mainstream.

I mean proper, augmented reality so that my glasses/contact lenses/direct neural interface overlays what I am seeing with useful information. Surely the glasses version is only years off...I'd be prepared to allow a little longer for the direct neural integration.

I don't wear glasses and have always had 20:20 vision but (at nearly 40) it is only a matter of time until that changes. I'm hoping by the time I do need them they will have facial recognition to overlay people's names, when I last met them, train timetables, navigation and traffic, emails, news feeds...

Julian Bond - 2011-08-21 17:13:42+0000

+Pete Bennett Right. Where's my Oakley HUD? But that's just more bright shiny things that are a factor in ubiquitous mobile computing and connectedness. It's background but it's not a zeitgeist change. One thing that's coming out of that though is that people don't lose track of each other. Old school friends and University friends used to drift away as they followed their life track. Turn round 10 years later and you had no idea where they were or what they were doing or how to get in touch with them. Instead there's a whole generation now who don't lose touch.

Stef Kunzer - 2011-08-21 17:28:29+0000

My money's on cultural fragmentation. It's been happening for years now via the internet, and I can't see the acceleration into fragmentation slowing down. By which I mean, the ways in which we filter our input through our opinions. Most on-line worlds let you filter who you interact with by your interest settings. The old way of "just having to get along" with whoever was your neighbour, workmate, etc. are losing traction as it becomes easier to ignore them and instead only receive input and interaction from those whose opinions are (a) like your own, and (b) reinforce you (or your own self-image). This behaviour reinforces the lunatic fringe (and fuels the increase in bizarre and anti-social behaviour, such as mass murdering people), but it also fragments society. In the past you'd simply have had to get along with those around you, now, with almost unlimited mobility and the capability of living increasingly on-line, you simply don't have to. Intolerance increases, and we're already hearing about groups wanting to set up independent states, including special interest floating arcologies.

So, this might be a longer term prediction, and it might be exacerbated by the revolution meme, but I can see a time when people grow up in whichever environment they're raised in, then, when they are able to make a choice, they simply move to the place that they feel fits them. (I'm not picturing emo-world, but I wouldn't rule it out).

Julian Bond - 2011-08-21 17:31:44+0000

+Tim Lake Thank you Tim. The perfect put down. ;)

Pete Bennett - 2011-08-21 17:36:20+0000

True as it goes but I would argue it will be a zeitgeist change when everyone knows everyone and every past transaction they have had "transparently". That is more than mobile connectivity. I keep track of people I meet on my Android phone but I don't have instant access, I have to sneak the phone out and do a keyword search if I forget a name. If it were simply overlaid on my field of vision I really think that would be a game-changer. And, once the additional applications came on line, I genuinely think it would alter the paradigm of mundane sociological interactions (there's a pretentious phrase for you sarcastic boy ;-) ).

Rick Heil - 2011-08-21 18:34:43+0000

I'd like to hope when we enter a true rational age based on sound (read:scientific) theory and reason. We have too many people who believe hope is a plan, or because I 'believe' it to be true, therefor it must be... case in point, headline from today "Pope Tells Pilgrims to Stay True to Their Beliefs"... personally this saddens me greatly since we have far too many 'beliefs', many of which are not only simply false, many misguided and some out-right evil - and I'm not picking on any specific belief system, rather I'm indiscriminately faulting them all. When we can move from being lead by inspiration, belief and other non-rational emotions to reasoned, rational, thoughtful action based on evidence and analysis (aka reason) the world will be a fairer, more productive and I dare suppose happier place. Reduce fear, envy, hatred and the rest stemming from 'us'ism's based on zero-sum belief systems and all can participate and contribute.

Ansel Taft - 2011-08-21 19:00:40+0000

Hail +Rick Heil! Nicely said. I feel you are correct.

Pete Bennett - 2011-08-21 19:04:57+0000

+Rick Heil yes, very well put and apt...not sure I see society "trending" in that direction though.

Kate Bond - 2011-08-22 09:47:13+0000

two points. 1) did any of the dates you mentioned above feel like a 'zeitgeist jump' at the time or were they put into that focus through the catalogues of history and BBC docs? (honestly I want to know) 2) Perhaps the apparent lack of a 'zeitgeist jump' in the last decade is the due to the lack of reporting on one. Actually NO! It's the lack of reporting of one through the usual channels: the revolution will not be televised and (see i-berry) the medium is the message.

Julian Bond - 2011-08-22 10:34:28+0000

1) did any of the dates you mentioned above feel like a 'zeitgeist jump' at the time

Interesting question. 1959, no, just background noise. 1968, definitely yes. I'm sure everyone from Warhol to the Situationist International knew they were having a revolution. 1976. Punk happened in the middle of the mass media and Mclaren and others were deliberately manipulating the media message. 1982, no. It's only in history that we string together riots, monetarism, Thatcher/Reagan. 1989. The break up of the Soviet Union was a BIG THING. The new hedonism happened largely below the radar. 1995. You really had to be paying attention to spot how important the Web was going to be.

So on to the next one. We've talked about fragmentation before and also the shortness of attention spans. A huge amount happened between 1995 and 2010 but each thing only stayed in the news cycle for 48 hours and it was a very large number of localised events. Instead of the one big mass media Tsunami washing over us, it's a swarm of locusts sweeping through. You see a few individual locusts changing things and then look up one day and the whole crop has gone and the landscape has changed forever.

And then on this day, Tripoli falls. Maybe we'll look back on 2011 and see the moment when the Arab world switched to self-governance. If we can just hold our attention in one place for long enough.

Stef Kunzer - 2011-08-22 11:10:50+0000

I'm increasingly of the opinion that there won't be another zeitgeist leap in the way you're suggesting. Two things prevent it: (1) the media controls the message, and (2) information leaks out everywhere.
So if you look at zeitgeist moments of the past, they happened almost out of the blue, because not many people had access to the clues that they were about to happen, even when they did come out in the somewhat restricted level of availability through conventional media. That can't happen any more with the proliferation of sources and availability.
Additionally, the media controls much of the 'respected' analysis of information, and also the volume of information about certain topics. If they want to bury news they can, and if they want to hype it they can. That doesn't stop the proliferation of sources, but it raises or lowers the profile.

Julian Bond - 2011-08-22 11:28:41+0000

+Steve Kunzer Good points. But we should be careful not to confuse the thing that happened with the reporting of the thing that happened.

"There's something happening here. But what it is ain't exactly clear". That was written about the late 60s. It seems pretty undeniable that there was a huge sea change in thinking and attitudes across a wide range of social, cultural and political aspects of western society in the late 60s. That happened despite a much as because of the media coverage.

Stef Kunzer - 2011-08-22 11:39:05+0000

I agree, but would add that the media reporting of the thing that happened often becomes the thing that happened (for the majority). It's often said "history is written by the winners" and that's as true today as ever. "The Truth" is available somewhere but you have to hunt very hard for it - mostly the truth you get is the truth you read, and most people don't read very far.

Classic examples of this are the behaviour of the British (and other European) invaders to the native Americans. The truth is there, and the behaviour was largely excerable. However, it's not being taught clearly in US (or other nations) schools, and it's not being acted on - in fact the 'crimes against humanity' (as much of the behaviour could/should be deemed) are being exacerbated by current US government policy. That's just one example but it's a stark one. Another similar one is the treatment of Australian Aborigines, and the Murdoch regimes media campaign against them. I know they didn't happen in the latter part of the 20th Century but the repercusions continue into this century.