Podcast appearances and mentions of Marshall McLuhan

Mi entrevistado en este episodio es Carlos A. Scolari, Catedrático del Departamento de Comunicación de la Universitat Pompeu Fabra – Barcelona. Ha sido Investigador Principal de diversos proyectos de investigación internacionales y estatales, desde el proyecto H2020 TRANSLITERACY (entre 2015 y 2018) hasta el proyecto LITERAC_IA, que comenzó en 2024 y dirige junto a María del Mar Guerrero. Sus últimos libros son Cultura Snack (2020), La guerra de las plataformas (2022) y Sobre la evolución de los medios (2024). Ahora está trabajando en un libro sobre los fósiles mediáticos.Notas del Episodio* Historia de ecologia de los medios* Historia de Carlos* Diferencias entre el anglosfero y el hispanosfero* La coevolucion entre tecnologia y humanos* La democratizacion de los medios* Evolucion de los medios* Alienacion y addiccion* Como usar los medios conscientementeTareaCarlos A. Scolari - Pagina Personal - Facebook - Instagram - Twitter - Escolar GoogleSobre la evolución de los mediosHipermediaciones (Libros)Transcrito en espanol (English Below)Chris: [00:00:00] Bienvenido al podcast el fin de turismo Carlos. Gracias por poder hablar conmigo hoy. Es un gran gusto tener tu presencia aquí conmigo hoy. Carlos: No gracias a ti, Chris, por la invitación. Es un enorme placer honor charlar contigo, gran viajero y bueno, yo nunca investigué directamente el tema del turismo.Pero bueno, entiendo que vamos a hablar de ecología de los medios y temas colaterales que nos pueden servir para entender mejor, darle un sentido a todo esto que está pasando en el mundo del turismo. Bueno, yo trabajo en Barcelona. No vivo exactamente en la ciudad, pero trabajo, en la universidad en Barcelona, en la zona céntrica.Y bueno, cada vez que voy a la ciudad cada día se incrementa la cantidad de turistas y se incrementa el debate sobre el turismo, en todas sus dimensiones. Así que es un tema que está la orden del día, no? Chris: Sí, pues me imagino que aunque si no te gusta pensar o si no quieres pensar en el turismo allá, es inevitable tener como una enseñanza [00:01:00] personal de esa industria.Carlos: Sí, hasta que se está convirtiendo casi en un criterio taxonómico, no? ...de clasificación o ciudades con mucho turista ciudades o lugares sin turistas que son los más buscados hasta que se llenan de turistas. Entonces estamos en un círculo vicioso prácticamente. Chris: Ya pues, que en algún memento se que se cambia, se rompe el ciclo, al menos para dar cuenta de lo que estamos haciendo con el comportamiento.Y, yo entiendo que eso también tiene mucho que ver con la ecología de los medios, la falta de capacidad de entender nuestros comportamientos, actitudes, pensamientos, sentimientos, etcétera. Entonces, antes de seguir por tu trabajo y obras, este me gustaría preguntarte de tu camino y de tu vida.Primero me pregunto si podrías definir para nuestros oyentes qué es la ecología de los medios y cómo te [00:02:00] interesó en este campo? Cómo llegaste a dedicar a tu vida a este estudio?Carlos: Sí. A ver un poco. Hay una, esta la historia oficial. Diríamos de la ecología de los medios o en inglés "media ecology," es una campo de investigación, digamos, eh, que nace en los años 60. Hay que tener en cuenta sobre todos los trabajos de Marshall McLuhan, investigador canadiense muy famoso a nivel mundial. Era quizá el filósofo investigador de los medios más famosos en los años 60 y 70.Y un colega de el, Neil Postman, que estaba en la universidad de New York en New York University un poco, digamos entre la gente que rodeaba estos dos referentes, no, en los años 60, de ahí se fue cocinando, diríamos, lo que después se llamó la media ecology. Se dice que el primero que habló de media ecology que aplicó esta metáfora a los medios, fue el mismo Marshall McLuhan en algunas, conversaciones privadas, [00:03:00] cartas que se enviaban finales dos años 50, a principios de los 60, se enviaban los investigadores investigadora de estos temas?Digamos la primera aparición pública del concepto de media ecology fue una conferencia en el año 1968 de Neil Postman. Era una intervención pública que la hablaba de un poco como los medios nos transforman y transforman los medios formar un entorno de nosotros crecemos, nos desarrollamos, no. Y nosotros no somos muy conscientes a veces de ese medio que nos rodea y nos modela.El utilizó por primera vez el concepto de media ecology en una conferencia pública. Y ya, si vamos a principio de los años 70, el mismo Postman crea en NYU, en New York University crea el primer programa en media ecology. O sea que ya en el 73, 74 y 75, empieza a salir lo que yo llamo la segunda generación, de gente [00:04:00] formada algunos en estos cursos de New York.Por ejemplo Christine Nystrom fue la primera tesis doctoral sobre mi ecology; gente como, Paul Levinson que en el año 1979 defiende una tesis doctoral dirigida por Postman sobre evolución de los medios, no? Y lo mismo pasaba en Toronto en los años 70. El Marshall McLuhan falleció en el diciembre del 80.Digamos que los años 70 fueron su última década de producción intelectual. Y hay una serie de colaboradores en ese memento, gente muy joven como Robert Logan, Derrick De Kerchove, que después un poco siguieron trabajando un poco todo esta línea, este enfoque. Y ahí hablamos del frente canadiense, eh?Toda esta segunda generación fue desarrollando, fue ampliando aplicando. No nos olvidemos de Eric McLuhan, el hijo de Marshall, que también fue parte de toda esta movida. [00:05:00] Y si no recuerdo mal en el año 2000, se crea la asociación la Media Ecology Association, que es la Asociación de Ecología de los Medios, que es una organización académica, científica, que nuclea a la gente que se ocupa de media ecology. Si pensamos a nivel más científico epistemológico, podemos pensar esta metáfora de la ecología de los medios desde dos o tres perspectivas. Por un lado, esta idea de que los medios crean ambientes. Esta es una idea muy fuerte de Marsha McLuhan, de Postman y de todo este grupo, no? Los medios - "medio" entendido en sentido muy amplio, no, cualquier tecnología podría ser un medio para ellos.Para Marsha McLuhan, la rueda es un medio. Un un telescopio es un medio. Una radio es un medio y la televisión es un medio, no? O sea, cualquier tecnología puede considerarse un medio. Digamos que estos medios, estas tecnologías, generan un [00:06:00] ambiente que a nosotros nos transforma. Transforma nuestra forma, a veces de pensar nuestra forma de percibir el mundo, nuestra concepción del tiempo del espacio.Y nosotros no somos conscientes de ese cambio. Pensemos que, no sé, antes de 1800, si alguien tenía que hacer un viaje de mil kilómetros (y acá nos acercamos al turismo) kilómetros era un viaje que había que programarlo muchos meses antes. Con la llegada del tren, ya estamos en 1800, esos kilómetros se acortaron. Digamos no? Ahí vemos como si a nosotros hoy nos dicen 1000 kilómetros.Bueno, si, tomamos un avión. Es una hora, una hora y cuarto de viaje. Hoy 1000 kilómetro es mucho menos que hace 200 años y incluso a nivel temporal, se a checo el tiempo. No? Todo eso es consecuencia, digamos este cambio, nuestra percepción es consecuencia de una serie de medios y tecnologías.El ferrocarril. Obviamente, hoy tenemos los aviones. Las mismas redes digitales que, un poco nos han llevado esta idea de "tiempo [00:07:00] real," esta ansiedad de querer todo rápido, no? También esa es consecuencia de estos cambios ambientales generados por los medios y las tecnologías, eh? Esto es un idea muy fuerte, cuando McLuhan y Postman hablaban de esto en los años 60, eran fuertes intuiciones que ellos tenían a partir de una observación muy inteligente de la realidad. Hoy, las ciencias cognitivas, mejor las neurociencia han confirmado estas hipótesis. O sea, hoy existen una serie de eh metodología para estudiar el cerebro y ya se ve como las tecnologías.Los medios afectan incluso la estructura física del cerebro. No? Otro tema que esto es histórico, que los medios afectan nuestra memoria. Esto viene de Platón de hace 2500 años, que él decía que la escritura iba a matar la memoria de los hombres. Bueno, podemos pensar nosotros mismos, no, eh?O por lo menos esta generación, que [00:08:00] vivimos el mundo antes y después de las aplicaciones móviles. Yo hace 30 años, 25 años, tenía mi memoria 30-40 números telefónicos. Hoy no tengo ninguno. Y en esa pensemos también el GPS, no? En una época, los taxistas de Londres, que es una ciudad latica se conocían a memoria la ciudad. Y hoy eso, ya no hace falta porque tienen GPS.Y cuando han ido a estudiar el cerebro de los taxistas de Londres, han visto que ciertas áreas del cerebro se han reducido, digamos, así, que son las áreas que gestionaban la parte espacial. Esto ya McLuhan, lo hablaba en los años 60. Decía como que los cambios narcotizan ciertas áreas de la mente decía él.Pero bueno, vemos que mucha investigación empírica, bien de vanguardia científica de neurociencia está confirmando todas estos pensamientos, todas estas cosas que se decían a los años 60 en adelante, por la media ecology. Otra posibilidad es entender [00:09:00] esto como un ecosistema de medios, Marshall McLuhan siempre decía no le podemos dar significado,no podemos entender un medio aislado de los otros medios. Como que los medios adquieren sentido sólo en relación con otros medios. También Neil Postman y mucha otra gente de la escuela de la media ecology, defiende esta posición, de que, bueno, los medios no podemos entender la historia del cine si no la vinculamos a los videojuegos, si no lo vinculamos a la aparición de la televisión.Y así con todos los medios, no? Eh? Hay trabajos muy interesantes. Por ejemplo, de como en el siglo 19, diferentes medios, podríamos decir, que coevolucionaron entre sí. La prensa, el telégrafo. El tren, que transportaba los diarios también, aparecen las agencias de noticias. O sea, vemos cómo es muy difícil entender el desarrollo de la prensa en el siglo XIX y no lo vinculamos al teléfono, si no lo vinculamos a la fotografía, si no lo vinculamos a la radio fotografía, [00:10:00] también más adelante.O sea, esta idea es muy fuerte. No también es otro de los principios para mí fundamentales de esta visión, que sería que los medios no están solos, forman parte de un ecosistema y si nosotros queremos entender lo que está pasando y cómo funciona todo esto, no podemos, eh, analizar los medios aislados del resto.Hay una tercera interpretación. Ya no sé si es muy metafórica. No? Sobre todo, gente en Italia como el investigador Fausto Colombo de Milán o Michele Cometa, es un investigador de Sicilia, Michele Cometa que él habla de l giro, el giro ecomedial. Estos investigadores están moviéndose en toda una concepción según la cual, estamos en único ecosistema mediático que está contaminado.Está contaminado de "fake news" está contaminado de noticias falsas, está contaminado de discursos de odio, etcétera, etc. Entonces ellos, digamos, retoman esta metáfora ecológica para decir [00:11:00] precisamente tenemos que limpiar este ecosistema así como el ecosistema natural está contaminado, necesita una intervención de limpieza, digamos así de purificación, eh? También el ecosistema mediático corre el mismo peligro, no? Y esta gente también llama la atención, y yo estoy muy cerca de esta línea de trabajo sobre la dimensión material de la comunicación. Y esto también tiene que ver con el turismo, queriendo, no? El impacto ambiental que tiene la comunicación hoy.Entrenar una inteligencia artificial implica un consumo eléctrico brutal; mantener funcionando las redes sociales, eh, tiktok, youtube, lo que sea, implica millones de servidores funcionando que chupan energía eléctrica y hay que enfriarlos además, consumiendo aún más energía eléctrica. Y eso tiene un impacto climático no indiferente.Así que, bueno, digamos, vemos que está metáfora de lo ecológico, aplicado los medios da para dos o tres interpretaciones. Chris: Mmm. [00:12:00] Wow. Siento que cuando yo empecé tomando ese curso de de Andrew McLuhan, el nieto de Marshall, como te mencioné, cambio mi perspectiva totalmente - en el mundo, en la manera como entiendo y como no entiendo también las nuestras tecnologías, mis movimientos, etcétera, pero ya, por una persona que tiene décadas de estudiando eso, me gustaría saber de de como empezaste. O sea, Andrew, por ejemplo tiene la excusa de su linaje, no de su papá y su abuelo.Pero entonces, como un argentino joven empezó aprendiendo de ecología de medios. Carlos: Bueno, yo te comento. Yo estudié comunicación en argentina en Rosario. Terminé la facultad. El último examen el 24 de junio del 86, que fue el día que nacía el Lionel Messi en Rosario, en Argentina el mismo día. Y [00:13:00] yo trabajaba, colaboraba en una asignatura en una materia que era teorías de la comunicación.E incluso llegué a enseñar hasta el año 90, fueron tres años, porque ya después me fui vivir Italia. En esa época, nosotros leíamos a Marshall McLuhan, pero era una lectura muy sesgada ideológicamente. En América latina, tú lo habrás visto en México. Hay toda una historia, una tradición de críticas de los medios, sobre todo, a todo lo que viene de estados unidos y Canadá está muy cerca de Estados Unidos. Entonces, digamos que en los años 70 y 80 y y hasta hoy te diría muchas veces a Marshall McLuhan se lo criticó mucho porque no criticaba los medios. O sea el te tenía una visión. Él decía, Neil Postman, si tenía una visión muy crítica. Pero en ese caso, este era una de las grandes diferencias entre Postman y McLuhan, que Marshall McLuhan, al menos en [00:14:00] público, él no criticaba los medios. Decía bueno, yo soy un investigador, yo envío sondas. Estoy explorando lo que pasa. Y él nunca se sumó... Y yo creo que eso fue muy inteligente por parte de él... nunca se sumó a este coro mundial de crítica a los medios de comunicación. En esa época, la televisión para mucha gente era un monstruo.Los niños no tenían que ver televisión. Un poco lo que pasa hoy con los móviles y lo que pasa hoy con tiktok. En esa época en la televisión, el monstruo. Entonces, había mucha investigación en Estados Unidos, que ya partía de la base que la televisión y los medios son malos para la gente. Vemos que es una historia que se repite. Yo creo que en ese sentido, Marshall McLuhan, de manera muy inteligente, no se sumó ese coro crítico y él se dedico realmente a pensar los medios desde una perspectiva mucho más libre, no anclada por esta visión yo creo demasiado ideologizada, que en América Latina es muy fuerte. Es muy fuerte. Esto no implica [00:15:00] bajar la guardia, no ser crítico. Al contrario.Pero yo creo que el el verdadero pensamiento crítico parte de no decir tanto ideológica, decimos "esto ya es malo. Vamos a ver esto." Habrá cosas buenas. Habrá cosas mala. Habrá cosa, lo que es innegable, que los medios mas ya que digamos son buenos son va, nos transforman. Y yo creo que eso fue lo importante de la idea McLuhaniana. Entonces mi primer acercamiento a McLuhan fue una perspectiva de los autores críticos que, bueno, sí, viene de Estados Unidos, no critica los medios. Vamos a criticarlo a nosotros a él, no? Y ese fue mi primer acercamiento a Marshall McLuhan. Yo me fui a Italia en la decada de 90. Estuve casi ocho años fuera de la universidad, trabajando en medios digitales, desarrollo de páginas, webs, productos multimédia y pretexto. Y a finales de los 90, dije quiero volver a la universidad. Quiero ser un doctorado. Y dije, "quiero hacer un doctorado. Bueno. Estando en Italia, el doctorado iba a ser de semiótica." Entonces hizo un [00:16:00] doctorado. Mi tesis fue sobre semiótica de las interfaces.Ahi tuve una visión de las interfaces digitales que consideran que, por ejemplo, los instrumentos como el mouse o joystick son extensiones de nuestro cuerpo, no? El mouse prolonga la mano y la mete dentro de la pantalla, no? O el joystick o cualquier otro elemento de la interfaz digital? Claro. Si hablamos de que el mouse es una extensión de la mano, eso es una idea McLuhaniana.Los medios como extensiones del ser humano de sujeto. Entonces, claro ahi yo releo McLuhan en italiano a finales de los años 90, y me reconcilio con McLuhan porque encuentro muchas cosas interesantes para entender precisamente la interacción con las máquinas digitales. En el a 2002, me mudo con mi familia a España. Me reintegro la vida universitaria. [00:17:00] Y ahí me pongo a estudiar la relación entre los viejos y los nuevos medios. Entonces recupero la idea de ecosistema. Recupero toda la nueva, la idea de ecología de mi ecology. Y me pongo a investigar y releer a McLuhan por tercera vez. Y a leerlo en profundidad a él y a toda la escuela de mi ecology para poder entender las dinámicas del actual ecosistema mediático y entender la emergencia de lo nuevo y cómo lo viejo lucha por adaptarse. En el 2009, estuve tres meses trabajando con Bob Logan en the University of Toronto. El año pasado, estuve en el congreso ahí y tuvimos dos pre conferencias con gente con Paolo Granata y todo el grupo de Toronto.O sea que, tengo una relación muy fuerte con todo lo que se producía y se produce en Toronto. Y bueno, yo creo que, a mí hoy, la media ecology, me sirve muchísimo junto a otras disciplina como la semiótica para poder entender el ecosistema [00:18:00] mediático actual y el gran tema de investigación mío hoy, que es la evolución del la ecosistema mediático.Mm, digamos que dentro de la media ecology, empezando de esa tesis doctoral del 79 de Paul Levinson, hay toda una serie de contribuciones, que un poco son los que han ido derivando en mi último libro que salió el año pasado en inglés en Routledge, que se llama The Evolution of Media y acaba de salir en castellano.Qué se llama Sobre La Evolución De los Medios. En la teoría evolutiva de los medios, hay mucha ecología de los medios metidos. Chris: Claro, claro. Pues felicidad es Carlos. Y vamos a volver en un ratito de ese tema de la evolución de medios, porque yo creo que es muy importante y obviamente es muy importante a ti. Ha sido como algo muy importante en tu trabajo. Pero antes de de salir de esa esquina de pensamiento, hubo una pregunta que me mandó Andrew McLuhan para ti, que ya ella contestaste un poco, pero este tiene que ver entre las diferencias en los [00:19:00] mundos de ecología de medios anglofonos y hispánicos. Y ya mencionaste un poco de eso, pero desde los tiempos en los 80 y noventas, entonces me gustaría saber si esas diferencias siguen entre los mundos intelectuales, en el mundo anglofono o hispánico.Y pues, para extender su pregunta un poco, qué piensas sería como un punto o tema o aspecto más importante de lo que uno de esos mundos tiene que aprender el otro en el significa de lo que falta, quizás. Carlos: Si nos focalizamos en el trabajo de Marshall McLuhan, no es que se lo criticó sólo de América Latina.En Europa no caía simpático Marshall McLuhan en los 60, 70. Justamente por lo mismo, porque no criticaba el sistema capitalista de medios. La tradición europea, la tradición de la Escuela de Frankfurt, la escuela de una visión anti [00:20:00] capitalista que denuncia la ideología dominante en los medio de comunicación.Eso es lo que entra en América Latina y ahí rebota con mucha fuerza. Quizá la figura principal que habla desde América Latina, que habló mucho tiempo de América latina es Armand Mattelart. Matterlart es un teórico en la comunicación, investigador de Bélgica. Y él lo encontramos ya a mediados de los años 60 finales de los 60 en Chile en un memento muy particular de la historia de Chile donde había mucha politización y mucha investigación crítica, obviamente con el con con con con el capitalismo y con el imperialismo estadounidense. Quizá la la obra clásica de ese memento es el famoso libro de Mattelart y Dorfman, eh, eh? Para Leer El Pato Donald, que donde ellos desmontan toda la estructura ideológica capitalista, imperialista, que había en los cics en las historietas del pato Donald.Ellos dicen esto se publicó a [00:21:00] principio los 70. Es quizá el libro más vendido de la comic latinoamericana hasta el día de hoy, eh? Ellos dicen hay ideología en la literatura infantil. Con el pato Donald, le están llenando la cabeza a nuestros niños de toda una visión del mundo muy particular.Si uno le el pato Donald de esa época, por lo menos, la mayor parte de las historia del pato Donald, que era, había que a buscar un tesoro y adónde. Eran lugares africana, peruviana, incaica o sea, eran países del tercer mundo. Y ahí el pato Donald, con sus sobrinos, eran lo suficientemente inteligentes para volverse con el oro a Patolandia.Claro. Ideológicamente. Eso no se sostiene. Entonces, la investigación hegemónica en esa época en Europa, en Francia, la semiología pero sobre todo, en América latina, era ésa. Hay que estudiar el mensaje. Hay que estudiar el contenido, porque ahí está la ideología [00:22:00] dominante del capitalismo y del imperialismo.En ese contexto, entra McLuhan. Se traduce McLuhan y que dice McLuhan: el medio es el mensaje. No importa lo que uno lee, lo que nos transforma es ver televisión, leer comics, escuchar la radio. Claro, iba contramano del mainstream de la investigación en comunicación. O sea, digamos que en América latina, la gente que sigue en esa línea que todavía existe y es fuerte, no es una visión muy crítica de todo esto, todavía hoy, a Marshal McLuhan le cae mal, pero lo mismo pasa en Europa y otros países donde la gente que busca una lectura crítica anti-capitalista y anti-sistémica de la comunicación, no la va a encontrar nunca en Marshall McLuhan, por más que sea de América latina, de de de Europa o de Asia. Entonces yo no radicaría todo esto en un ámbito anglosajón y el latinoamericano. Después, bueno, la hora de McLuhan es bastante [00:23:00] polisemica. Admite como cualquier autor así, que tiene un estilo incluso de escritura tan creativo en forma de mosaico.No era un escritor Cartesiano ordenadito y formal. No, no. McLuhan era una explosión de ideas muy bien diseñada a propósito, pero era una explosión de ideas. Por eso siempre refrescan tener a McLuhan. Entonces normal que surjan interpretaciones diferentes, no? En estados unidos en Canadá, en Inglaterra, en Europa continental o en Latinoamérica o en Japón, obviamente, no? Siendo un autor que tiene estas características. Por eso yo no en no anclaría esto en cuestiones territoriales. Cuando uno busca un enfoque que no tenga esta carga ideológica para poder entender los medios, que no se limite sólo a denunciar el contenido.McLuhan y la escuela de la ecología de los medios es fundamental y es un aporte muy, muy importante en ese sentido, no? Entonces, bueno, yo creo que McLuhan tuvo [00:24:00] detractores en Europa, tuvo detractores en América latina y cada tanto aparece alguno, pero yo creo que esto se ido suavizando. Yo quiero que, como que cada vez más se lo reivindica McLuhan.La gente que estudia, por ejemplo, en Europa y en América latina, que quizá en su época criticaron a McLuhan, todas las teorías de la mediatización, por ejemplo, terminan coincidiendo en buena parte de los planteos de la media ecology. Hoy que se habla mucho de la materialidad de la comunicación, los nuevos materialismos, yo incluyo a Marshall McLuhan en uno de los pioneros des esta visión también de los nuevos materialismos. Al descentrar el análisis del contenido, al medio, a la cosa material, podemos considerar a macl también junto a Bruno Latour y otra gente como pionero, un poco de esta visión de no quedarse atrapados en el giro lingüístico, no, en el contenido, en el giro semiótico e incorporar también la dimensión material de la comunicación y el medio en sí.[00:25:00] Chris: Muy bien. Muy bien, ya. Wow, es tanto, pero lo aprecio mucho. Gracias, Carlos. Y me gustaría seguir preguntándote un poco ahora de tu propio trabajo. Tienes un capítulo en tu libro. Las Leyes de la Interfaz titulado "Las Interfaces Co-evolucionan Con Sus Usuarios" donde escribes "estas leyes de la interfaz no desprecian a los artefactos, sus inventores ó las fuerzas sociales. Solo se limitan á insertarlos á una red socio técnica de relaciones, intercambios y transformaciones para poder analizarlos desde una perspectiva eco-evolutiva."Ahora, hay un montón ahí en este paragrafito. Pero entonces, me gustaría preguntarte, cómo vea los humanos [00:26:00] co-evolucionando con sus tecnologías? Por ejemplo, nuestra forma de performatividad en la pantalla se convierte en un hábito más allá de la pantalla.Carlos: Ya desde antes del homo sapiens, los homínidos más avanzados, digamos en su momento, creaban instrumentos de piedra. Hemos descubierto todos los neandertales tenían una cultura muy sofisticada, incluso prácticas casi y religiosas, más allá de la cuestión material de la construcción de artefactos. O sea que nuestra especie es impensable sin la tecnología, ya sea un hacha de piedra o ya sea tiktok o un smartphone. Entonces, esto tenemos que tenerlo en cuenta cuando analizamos cualquier tipo de de interacción cotidiana, estamos rodeados de tecnología y acá, obviamente, la idea McLuhaniana es fundamental. Nosotros creamos estos medios. Nosotros creamos estas tecnologías.Estas tecnologías también nos reformatean. [00:27:00] McLuhan, no me suena que haya usado el concepto de coevolución, pero está ahí. Está hablando de eso. Ahora bien. Hay una coevolución si se quiere a larguísimo plazo, que, por ejemplo, sabemos que el desarrollo de instrumentos de piedra, el desarrollo del fuego, hizo que el homo sapiens no necesitara una mandíbula tan grande para poder masticar los alimentos. Y eso produce todo un cambio, que achicó la mandíbula le dejó más espacio en el cerebro, etcétera, etcétera. Eso es una coevolución en término genético, digamos a larguísimo plazo, okey. También la posición eréctil, etcétera, etcétera. Pero, digamos que ya ahí había tecnologías humanas coevolucionando con estos cambios genéticos muy, muy lentos.Pero ahora tenemos también podemos decir esta co evolución ya a nivel de la estructura neuronal, entonces lo ha verificado la neurociencia, como dije antes. Hay cambio físico en la estructura del cerebro a lo largo de la vida de una persona debido a la interacción con ciertas tecnologías. Y por qué pasa eso?Porque [00:28:00] la producción, creación de nuevos medios, nuevas tecnologías se ido acelerando cada vez más. Ahi podemos hacer una curva exponencial hacia arriba, para algunos esto empezó hace 10,000 años. Para algunos esto se aceleró con la revolución industrial. Algunos hablan de la época el descubrimiento de América.Bueno, para alguno esto es un fenómeno de siglo xx. El hecho es que en términos casi geológicos, esto que hablamos del antropoceno es real y está vinculado al impacto del ser humano sobre nuestro ambiente y lo tecnológico es parte de ese proceso exponencial de co evolución. Nosotros hoy sentimos un agobio frente a esta aceleración de la tecnología y nuestra necesidad. Quizá de adaptarnos y coevolucionar con ella. Como esto de que todo va muy rápido. Cada semana hay un problema nuevo, una aplicación nueva. Ahora tenemos la inteligencia artificial, etc, etcétera. Pero esta sensación [00:29:00] no es nueva. Es una sensación de la modernidad. Si uno lee cosas escritas en 1,800 cuando llega el tren también la gente se quejaba que el mundo iba muy rápido. Dónde iremos a parar con este caballo de hierro que larga humo no? O sea que esta sensación de velocidad de cambio rápido ya generaciones anteriores la vivían. Pero evidentemente, el cambio hoy es mucho más rápido y denso que hace dos siglos. Y eso es real también. Así que, bueno, nuestra fe se va coevolucionando y nos vamos adaptando como podemos, yo esta pregunta se la hice hace 10 años a Kevin Kelly, el primer director de la revista Wire que lo trajimos a Barcelona y el que siempre es muy optimista. Kevin Kelly es determinista tecnológico y optimista al mismo tiempo. Él decía que "que bueno que el homo sapiens lo va llevando bastante bien. Esto de co evolucionar con la tecnología." Otra gente tiene una [00:30:00] visión radicalmente opuesta, que esto es el fin del mundo, que el homo sapiens estamos condenados a desaparecer por esta co evolución acelerada, que las nuevas generaciones son cada vez más estúpidas.Yo no creo eso. Creo, como McLuhan, que los medios nos reforman, nos cambian algunas cosas quizás para vivir otras quizá no tanto, pero no, no tengo una visión apocalíptica de esto para nada. Chris: Bien, bien. Entonces cuando mencionaste lo de la televisión, yo me acuerdo mucho de de mi niñez y no sé por qué. Quizás fue algo normal en ese tiempo para ver a tele como un monstruo, como dijiste o quizás porque mis mis papás eran migrantes pero fue mucho de su idea de esa tecnología y siempre me dijo como no, no, no quédate ahí tan cerca y eso.Entonces, aunque lo aceptaron, ellos comprendieron que el poder [00:31:00] de la tele que tenía sobre las personas. Entonces ahora todos, parece a mí, que todos tienen su propio canal, no su propio programación, o el derecho o privilegio de tener su propio canal o múltiples canales.Entonces, es una gran pregunta, pero cuáles crees que son las principales consecuencias de darle a cada uno su propio programa en el sentido de como es el efecto de hacer eso, de democratizar quizás la tecnología en ese sentido? Carlos: Cuando dices su propio canal, te refieres a la posibilidad de emitir o construir tu propia dieta mediática.Chris: Bueno primero, pero puede ser ambos, claro, no? O sea, mi capacidad de tener un perfil o cuenta mía personal. Y luego como el fin del turismo, no? Y luego otro. Carlos: Sí, a ver. Yo creo que, bueno, esto fue el gran cambio radical que empezó a darse a partir la década del 2000 o [00:32:00] sea, hace 25 años. Porque la web al principio sí era una red mundial en los años 90. Pero claro la posibilidad de compartir un contenido y que todo el mundo lo pudiera ver, estaba muy limitado a crear una página web, etcétera. Cuando aparecen las redes sociales o las Web 2.0 como se la llamaba en esa época y eso se suma los dispositivos móviles, ahí se empieza a generar esta cultura tan difundida de la creación de contenido. Hasta digamos que hasta ese momento quien generaba contenido era más o menos un profesional en la radio y en la televisión, pero incluso en la web o en la prensa o el cine. Y a partir de ahí se empieza, digamos, a abrir el juego. En su momento, esto fue muy bien saludado fue qué bueno! Esto va nos va a llevar a una sociedad más democrática. 25 años después, claro, estamos viendo el lado oscuro solamente. Yo creo que el error hace 25 años era pensar solo las posibilidades [00:33:00] buenas, optimistas, de esto. Y hoy me parece que estamos enredados en discursos solamente apocalípticos no?No vemos las cosas buenas, vemos solo las cosas malas. Yo creo que hay de las dos cosas hoy. Claro, hoy cualquier persona puede tener un canal, sí, pero no todo el mundo crea un canal. Los niveles de participación son muy extraños, o sea, la mayor parte de la población de los usuarios y usuarias entre en las redes. Mira. Mete un me gusta. Quizá un comentario. Cada tanto comparte una foto. Digamos que los "heavy users" o "heavy producers" de contenido son siempre una minoría, ya sea profesionales, ya sea influencers, streamers, no? Es siempre, yo no sé si acá estamos en un 20-80 o un 10-90 son estas curvas que siempre fue así? No? Si uno ve la Wikipedia, habrá un 5-10 por ciento de gente que genera contenido mucho menos incluso. Y un 90 por ciento que se [00:34:00] beneficia del trabajo de una minoría. Esto invierte la lógica capitalista? La mayoría vive de la minoría y esto pasaba antes también en otros, en otros sistemas. O sea que en ese sentido, es sólo una minoría de gente la que genera contenido de impacto, llamémoslo así, de alcance mayor.Pero bueno, yo creo que el hecho de que cualquier persona pueda dar ese salto para mí, está bien. Genera otra serie de problemas, no? Porque mientras que genera contenido, es un profesional o un periodista, digamos, todavía queda algo de normas éticas y que deben cumplir no? Yo veo que en el mundo de los streamers, el mundo de los Tik tokers etcétera, etcétera, lo primero que ellos dicen es, nosotros no somos periodistas. Y de esa forma, se inhiben de cualquier, control ético o de respeto a normas éticas profesionales. Por otro lado, las plataformas [00:35:00] Meta, Google, todas. Lo primero que te dicen es nosotros no somos medio de comunicación. Los contenidos los pone la gente.Nosotros no tenemos nada que ver con eso. Claro, ellos también ahí se alejan de toda la reglamentación. Por eso hubo que hacer. Europa y Estados Unidos tuvo que sacar leyes especiales porque ellos decían no, no, las leyes del periodismo a nosotros no nos alcanzan. Nosotros no somos editores de contenidos.Y es una mentira porque las plataformas sí editan contenido a través los algoritmos, porque nos están los algoritmos, nos están diciendo que podemos ver y que no está en primera página. No están filtrando información, o sea que están haciendo edición. Entonces, como que se generan estas equivocaciones.Y eso es uno de los elementos que lleva esta contaminación que mencioné antes en el en los ámbitos de la comunicación. Pero yo, si tuviera que elegir un ecosistema con pocos enunciadores pocos medios controlados por profesionales y este ecosistema [00:36:00] caótico en parte contaminado con muchos actores y muchas voces, yo prefiero el caos de hoy a la pobreza del sistema anterior.Prefiero lidiar, pelearme con y estar buscar de resolver el problema de tener mucha información, al problema de la censura y tener sólo dos, tres puntos donde se genera información. Yo he vivido en Argentina con dictadura militar con control férreo de medios, coroneles de interventores en la radio y la televisión que controlaban todo lo que se decía.Y yo prefiero el caos de hoy, aún con fake news y todo lo que quieras. Prefiero el caos de hoy a esa situación. Chris: Sí, sí, sí, sí. Es muy fuerte de pensar en eso para la gente que no han vivido en algo así, no? Osea algunos familiares extendidos han vivido en mundos comunistas, en el pasado en el este de Europa y no se hablan [00:37:00] exactamente así.Pero, se se hablan, no? Y se se dicen que lo que lo que no tenía ni lo que no tiene por control y por fuerza. Entonces, en ese como mismo sentido de lo que falta de la memoria vivida, me gustaría preguntarte sobre tu nuevo libro. Y sobre la evolución de medios. Entonces me gustaría preguntarte igual por nuestros oyentes que quizás no han estudiado mucho de la ecología de los medios Para ti qué es la evolución de los medios y por qué es importante para nuestro cambiante y comprensión del mundo. O sea, igual al lado y no solo pegado a la ecología de medios, pero la evolución de los medios,Carlos: Sí, te cuento ahí hay una disciplina, ya tradicional que es la historia y también está la historia de la comunicación y historia de los medios. [00:38:00] Hay libros muy interesantes que se titulan Historia de la Comunicación de Gutenberg a Internet o Historia de la Comunicación del Papiro a Tiktok. Entonces, qué pasa? Esos libros te dicen bueno, estaba el papiro, después vino el pergamino, el manuscrito, después en 1450 vino Gutenberg, llegó el libro. Pero eso el libro no te cuentan que pasó con el manuscrito, ni que pasó con el papiro. Y te dicen que llega la radio en 1920 y en 1950 llega la televisión y no te dicen que pasó con la radio, que pasó con el cine.Son historias lineales donde un medio parece que va sustituyendo al otro. Y después tenemos muchos libros muy buenos también. Historia de la radio, historia de la televisión, historia de internet, historia del periodismo. Como dije antes, retomando una idea, de McLuhan no podemos entender los medios aislados.Yo no puedo entender la evolución de la radio si no la vinculo a la prensa, a [00:39:00] la televisión y otro al podcast. Okey, entonces digo, necesitamos un campo de investigación, llamémoslo una disciplina en construcción, que es una teoría y también es metodología para poder entender el cambio mediático, todas estas transformaciones del ecosistema de medios a largo plazo y que no sea una sucesión de medios, sino, ver cómo esa red de medios fue evolucionando. Y eso yo lo llamo una teoría evolutiva o una "media evolution" Y es lo que estoy trabajando ahora. Claro, esta teoría, este enfoque, este campo de investigación toma muchas cosas de la ecología de los medios, empezando por Marshall McLuhan pero también gente de la tradición previa a la media ecology como Harold Innis, el gran historiador, economista de la comunicación y de la sociedad, que fue quizás el intelectual más famoso en Canadá en la primera mitad del siglo XX. Harold Innis que influenció mucho a Marshall McLuhan [00:40:00] Marshall McLuhann en la primera página de Gutenberg Galaxy, dice este libro no es otra cosa que una nota al pie de página de la obra de Harold Innis Entonces, Harold Innis que hizo una historia de los tiempos antiguos poniendo los medios al centro de esa historia. Para mí es fundamental. Incluso te diría a veces más que McLuhan, como referencia, a la hora de hacer una teoría evolutiva del cambio mediático. Y después, obviamente tomo muchas cosas de la historia de los medios.Tomo muchas cosas de la arqueología de los medios (media archeology). Tomo cosas también de la gente que investigó la historia de la tecnología, la construcción social de la tecnología. O sea, la media evolution es un campo intertextual, como cualquier disciplina que toma cosas de todos estos campos para poder construir una teoría, un enfoque, una mirada que sea más a largo plazo, que no sea una sucesión de medios, sino que vea la evolución de todo el ecosistema mediático, prestando mucha atención a las relaciones [00:41:00] entre medios, y con esta visión más compleja sistémica de cómo cambian las cosas.Yo creo que el cambio mediático es muy rápido y necesitamos una teoría para poder darle un sentido a todo este gran cambio, porque si nos quedamos analizando cosas muy micro, muy chiquititas, no vemos los grandes cambios. No nos podemos posicionar... esto un poco como el fútbol. Los mejores jugadores son los que tienen el partido en la cabeza y saben dónde está todo. No están mirando la pelota, pero saben dónde están los otros jugadores? Bueno, yo creo que la media evolution sirve para eso. Más allá de que hoy estemos todos hablando de la IA generativa. No? Tener esta visión de de conjunto de todo el ecosistema mediático y tecnológico, yo creo que es muy útil.Chris: Mm. Wow Increíble, increíble. Sí. Sí. Pienso mucho en como las nuevas generaciones o las generaciones más jóvenes en el día de hoy. O sea, [00:42:00] al menos más joven que yo, que la mayoría, como que tiene 20 años hoy, no tienen una memoria vívida de cómo fuera el mundo, sin redes sociales o sin el internet. Y así como me voy pensando en mi vida y como yo, no tengo una memoria de vida como fuera el mundo sin pantallas de cualquier tipo, o sea de tele de compus. No solo de internet o redes. Carlos: Sí, no, te decia que mi padre vivió, mi padre tiene 90 años y él se recuerda en el año 58, 59, su casa fue la primera en un barrio de Rosario que tuvo televisión y transmitían a partir de la tarde seis, siete de la tarde. Entonces venían todos los vecinos y vecinas a ver televisión a la casa de mi abuela. Entonces cada uno, cada generación tiene sus historias. No? Chris: Ajá. Ajá. Sí. Pues sí. Y también, como dijiste, para [00:43:00] entender los medios como sujetos o objetos individuales, o sea en su propio mundo, no? Este recuerdo un poco de la metáfora de Robin Wall Kimmerer que escribió un libro que se llama Braiding Sweetgrass o Trenzando Pasto Dulce supongo, en español. Y mencionó que para entender el entendimiento indígena, digamos entre comillas de tiempo, no necesitamos pensar en una línea, una flecha desde el pasado hacia el futuro. Pero, un lago, mientras el pasado, presente, y futuro existen, a la vez, en ese lago.Y también pienso como en el lugar, el pasado, presente, y el futuro, como todos esos medios existiendo a la vez, como en un lago y obviamente en una ecología de su evolución de sus cambios. Carlos: Es, muy interesante eso. Después te voy a pedir la referencia del libro porque, claro, [00:44:00] McLuhan siempre decía que el contenido de un medio es otro medio. Entonces, puede pasar que un medio del pasado deja su huella o influye en un medio del futuro. Y entonces ahí se rompe la línea temporal. Y esos son los fenómenos que a mí me interesa estudiar. Chris: Mmm, mmm, pues Carlos para terminar, tengo dos últimas preguntas para ti. Esta vez un poco alineado con el turismo, y aunque no estas enfocado tanto en en el estudio de turismo. Por mis estudios y investigaciones y por este podcast, he amplificado esa definición de turismo para ver cómo existiría más allá de una industria. Y para mí, el turismo incluye también el deseo de ver una persona, un lugar o una cultura como destino, como algo útil, temporal en su valor de uso y por tanto, desechable. Entonces, me gustaría [00:45:00] preguntarte, si para ti parece que nuestros medios populares, aunque esto es un tiempo, digamos con más libertad de otros lugares o tiempos en el pasado, más autoritarianos o totalitarianos? Si te ves la posibilidad o la evidencia de que nuestros medios digamos como mainstream más usados, están creando o promoviendo un , un sentido de alienación en la gente por efectivamente quedarles a distancia al otro o la otra.Carlos: Yo ya te dije no, no tengo una visión apocalíptica de los medios. Nunca, la tuve. Esto no quita de que los medios y como dijimos antes, tienen problemas. Generan también contaminación. Llamémoslo así si seguimos con la metáfora, ? El tema de alienación viene desde hace [00:46:00] muchísimos años. Ya cuando estudiaba en la universidad, nunca sintonicé con las teorías de la alienación.El concepto de alienación viene del siglo XIX. Toda una teoría de la conciencia, el sujeto, el proletario, llamémoslo, así que tenía que tomar conciencia de clase. Bueno, las raíces de esa visión del concepto alienación vienen de ahí. Yo, a mí nunca me convenció, justamente. Y acá si interesante.El aporte de América Latina en teorías de la comunicación siempre fue diferente. Fue reivindicar la resignificación, la resemantización el rol activo del receptor, cuando muchas veces las teorías que venían de Europa o Estados Unidos tenían esta visión del receptor de la comunicación como un ser pasivo. En ese sentido, la media ecology nunca entró en ese discurso porque se manejaba con otros parámetros, pero digamos que lo que era el mainstream de la investigación de estados unidos, pero también de Europa, siempre coincidían en esto en considerar el receptor pasivo, alienado, [00:47:00] estupidizado por los medios. Y yo realmente nunca, me convenció ese planteo, ni antes ni hoy, ni con la televisión de los 70 y 80, ni con el tiktok de hoy.Esto no quita que puede haber gente que tenga alguna adicción, etcétera, etcétera. Pero yo no creo que toda la sociedad sea adicta hoy a la pantallita. Deja de ser adicción. Okey. Esto no implica que haya que no tener una visión crítica. Esto no implica que haya que eventualmente regular los usos de ciertas tecnologías, obviamente.Pero de ahí a pensar que estamos en un escenario apocalíptico, de idiotización total del homo sapiens o de alienación. Yo no lo veo, ni creo que lo los estudios empíricos confirmen eso. Más allá que a veces hay elecciones y no nos gusten los resultados.Pero ahí es interesante, porque cuando tu propio partido político pierde, siempre se le echa la culpa a los medios porque ganó el otro. Pero cuando tu partido político gana, nadie dice nada de los medios. Ganamos porque somos mejores, [00:48:00] porque tenemos mejores ideas, porque somos más democráticos, porque somos más bonitos.Entonces, claro te das cuenta que se usan los medios como chivo expiatorio para no reconocer las propias debilidades políticas a la hora de denunciar una propuesta o de seducir al electorado.Chris: Claro, claro. Ya pues estos temas son vastos y complejos. Y por eso me gusta, y por eso estoy muy agradecido por pasar este tiempo contigo, Carlos.Pero los temas requieren un profundo disciplina para comprender, o al menos según yo, como alguien que está muy nuevo a estos temas. Entonces, a nuestra época, parece que somos, según yo, arrastrados a una velocidad sin precedentes. Nuestras tecnologías están avanzando y quizás socavando simultáneamente nuestra capacidad de comprender lo que está sucediendo en el mundo. Los usamos como protesta a veces como, como mencionaste, [00:49:00] pero sin una comprensión más profunda de cómo nos usan también. Entonces tengo la curiosidad por saber qué papel desempeña la ecología de los medios en la redención o curación de la cultura en nuestro tiempo. Cómo podría la ecología de los medios ser un aliado, quizás, en nuestros caminos? Carlos: Sí, yo creo que esta idea estaba presente, no? En los teóricos de la media ecology, digamos la primera generación.Ahora que lo pienso, estaba también en la semiótica de Umberto Eco, no? Cuando decía la semiótica más allá de analizar cómo se construye significado, también aporta a mejorar la vida significativa, o sea, la vida cultural, la vida comunicacional, nuestro funcionamiento como sujeto, digamos. Y yo creo que en ese sentido, la media ecology también.Digamos, si nosotros entendemos el ecosistema mediático, vamos a poder sacarlo mejor [00:50:00] coevolucionar mejor. Vamos a ser más responsables también a la hora de generar contenidos, a la hora de retwittear de manera a veces automática ciertas cosas. Yo creo que es todo un crecimiento de vivir una vida mediática sana, que yo creo que hoy existe esa posibilidad.Yo estoy en Twitter desde el 2008-2009 y sólo dos veces tuve así un encontronazo y bloqueé a una persona mal educada. Después el resto de mi vida en Twitter, es rica de información de contactos. Aprendo muchísimo me entero de cosas que se están investigando. O sea, también están uno elegir otras cosas.Y por ejemplo, donde veo que yo hay que hay redes que no me aportan nada, no directamente ni entro. También es eso de aprender a sacar lo mejor de este ecosistema mediático. Y lo mismo para el ecosistema natural. Así como estamos aprendiendo a preocuparnos de dónde viene la comida, [00:51:00] cuánto tiempo se va a tardar en disolver este teléfono móvil por los componentes que tiene. Bueno, también es tomar conciencia de eso. Ya sea en el mundo natural, como en el mundo de la comunicación. Y yo creo que todos estos conocimientos, en este caso, la media ecology nos sirve para captar eso, no? Y mejorar nosotros también como sujetos, que ya no somos más el centro del universo, que esta es la otra cuestión. Somos un átomo más perdido entre una complejidad muy grande. Chris: Mm. Mm, pues que estas obras y trabajos y estudios tuyos y de los demás nos da la capacidad de leer y comprender ese complejidad, no?O sea, parece más y más complejo cada vez y nos requiere como más y más discernimiento. Entonces, yo creo que pues igual, hemos metido mucho en tu voluntad y capacidad de [00:52:00] hacer eso y ponerlo en el mundo. Entonces, finalmente Carlos me gustaría a extender mi agradecimiento y la de nuestros oyentes por tu tiempo hoy, tu consideración y tu trabajo.Siento que pues, la alfabetización mediática y la ecología de los medios son extremadamente deficientes en nuestro tiempo y su voluntad de preguntar sobre estas cosas y escribir sobre ellas es una medicina para un mundo quebrantado y para mi turístico. Entonces, así que muchísimas gracias, Carlos, por venir hoy.Carlos: Gracias. Te agradezco por las preguntas. Y bueno, yo creo que el tema del turismo es un tema que está ocupa lugar central hoy. Si tú estuvieras en Barcelona, verías que todos los días se está debatiendo este tema. Así que yo creo que bueno, adelante con esa reflexión y esa investigación sobre el turismo, porque es muy pertinente y necesaria.Chris: Pues sí, gracias. [00:53:00] Igual yo siento que hay una conexión fuerte entre esas definiciones más amplias de turismo y la ecología de medios. O sea, ha abierto una apertura muy grande para mí para entender el turismo más profundamente. Igual antes de terminar Carlos, cómo podrían nuestros oyentes encontrar tus libros y tu trabajo?Sé que hemos hablado de dos libros que escribiste, pero hay mucho más. Muchísimo más. Entonces, cómo se pueden encontrarlos y encontrarte?Carlos: Lo más rápido es en en mi blog, que es hipermediaciones.com Ahí van a encontrar información sobre todos los libros que voy publicando, etcétera, etc. Y después, bueno, yo soy muy activo, como dije en Twitter X. Me encuentran la letra CEscolari y de Carlos es mi Twitter. Y bueno, también ahí trato de difundir información sobre estos [00:54:00] temas.Como dije antes, aprendo mucho de esa red y trato de también devolver lo que me dan poniendo siempre información pertinente. Buenos enlaces. Y no pelearme mucho.Chris: Muy bien, muy bien, pues voy a asegurar que esos enlaces y esas páginas estén ya en la sección de tarea el sitio web de El fin del turismo cuando sale el episodio. Igual otras entrevistas y de tus libros. No hay falta. Entonces, con mucho gusto, los voy compartiendo. Bueno, Carlos, muchísimas gracias y lo aprecio mucho.Carlos: Muchas gracias y nos vemos en México.English TranscriptionChris: [00:00:00] Welcome to the podcast The End of Tourism, Carlos. Thank you for being able to speak with me today. It's a great pleasure to have you here with me today.Carlos: No, thank you, Chris, for the invitation. It is a great pleasure and honor to chat with you, a great traveler and, well, I have never directly investigated the subject of tourism.Well, I understand that we are going to talk about media ecology and collateral issues that can help us better understand, give meaning to all that is happening in the world of tourism. Well, I work in Barcelona. I don't live in the city exactly, but I work at the university in Barcelona, in the central area.Well, every time I go to the city, the number of tourists increases every day and the debate on tourism in all its dimensions increases. So it is a topic that is on the agenda, right?Chris: Yes, well I imagine that even if you don't like to think or if you don't want to think about tourism there, it is inevitable to have a personal lesson [00:01:00] from that industry.Carlos: Yes, to the point that it is almost becoming a taxonomic criterion, right? ...of classification or cities with a lot of tourists, cities or places without tourists that are the most sought after until they are filled with tourists. So we are practically in a vicious circle.Chris: Well, at some point I know that it changes, the cycle breaks, at least to account for what we are doing with the behavior.And I understand that this also has a lot to do with the ecology of the media, the lack of ability to understand our behaviors, attitudes, thoughts, feelings, etc. So, before continuing with your work and deeds, I would like to ask you about your path and your life.First, I wonder if you could define for our listeners what media ecology is and how you [00:02:00] became interested in this field? How did you come to dedicate your life to this study?Carlos: Yes. Let's see a little bit. There is one, this is the official history. We would say media ecology, it is a field of research, let's say, that was born in the 60s. We must take into account above all the work of Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian researcher who is very famous worldwide. He was perhaps the most famous media researcher philosopher in the 60s and 70s.And a colleague of his, Neil Postman, who was at New York University, was a bit, let's say, among the people who surrounded these two references, no, in the 60s, from there it was brewing, let's say, what was later called media ecology. It is said that the first person to talk about media ecology, who applied this metaphor to the media, was Marshall McLuhan himself in some private conversations, [00:03:00] letters that were sent to each other in the late 50s, early 60s, by researchers on these topics?Let's say the first public appearance of the concept of media ecology was a lecture in 1968 by Neil Postman. It was a public speech that talked about how the media transforms us and how the media transforms us, forming an environment in which we grow, develop, and so on. And we are sometimes not very aware of this environment that surrounds us and shapes us.He first used the concept of media ecology in a public lecture. And then, if we go back to the early 70s, Postman himself created the first program in media ecology at NYU, at New York University. So, in 73, 74 and 75, what I call the second generation began to emerge, of people [00:04:00] some of whom were trained in these courses in New York.For example, Christine Nystrom was the first PhD thesis on my ecology; people like Paul Levinson who in 1979 defended a PhD thesis directed by Postman on the evolution of the media, right? And the same thing happened in Toronto in the 70s. Marshall McLuhan died in December 80.Let's say that the 70s were his last decade of intellectual production. And there are a number of collaborators at that time, very young people like Robert Logan, Derrick De Kerchove, who later continued to work a bit along these lines, along these lines. And there we talk about the Canadian front, eh?This whole second generation was developing, expanding and applying. Let's not forget Eric McLuhan, Marshall's son, who was also part of this whole movement. [00:05:00] And if I remember correctly, in 2000, the Media Ecology Association was created, which is the Media Ecology Association, which is an academic, scientific organization that brings together people who deal with media ecology.If we think at a more scientific epistemological level, we can think of this metaphor of media ecology from two or three perspectives. On the one hand, this idea that media create environments. This is a very strong idea of Marsha McLuhan, of Postman and of this whole group, isn't it? The media - "medium" understood in a very broad sense, no, any technology could be a medium for them.For Marsha McLuhan, the wheel is a medium. A telescope is a medium. A radio is a medium and television is a medium, right? I mean, any technology can be considered a medium. Let's say that these media, these technologies, generate a [00:06:00] environment that transforms us. It transforms our way, sometimes our way of thinking, our way of perceiving the world, our conception of time and space.And we are not aware of that change. Let's think that, I don't know, before 1800, if someone had to make a trip of a thousand kilometers (and here we are approaching tourism) kilometers was a trip that had to be planned many months in advance. With the arrival of the train, we are already in 1800, those kilometers were shortened. Let's say no? There we see as if today they tell us 1000 kilometers.Well, yes, we take a plane. It's an hour, an hour and a quarter of a journey. Today, 1000 kilometres is much less than 200 years ago and even in terms of time, time has changed. Right? All of that is a consequence, let's say, of this change, our perception is a consequence of a series of media and technologies.The railroad. Obviously, today we have airplanes. The same digital networks that have somewhat brought us this idea of "time [00:07:00] real," this anxiety of wanting everything fast, right? That is also a consequence of these environmental changes generated by the media and technologies, eh? This is a very strong idea, when McLuhan and Postman talked about this in the 60s, they were strong intuitions that they had from a very intelligent observation of reality. Today, cognitive sciences, or rather neuroscience, have confirmed these hypotheses. In other words, today there are a series of methodologies to study the brain and we can already see how technologies...The media even affects the physical structure of the brain. Right? Another thing that is historical is that the media affects our memory. This comes from Plato 2,500 years ago, who said that writing would kill the memory of men. Well, we can think for ourselves, right?Or at least this generation, who [00:08:00] lived in a world before and after mobile apps. 30 years ago, 25 years ago, I had 30-40 phone numbers in my memory. Today I don't have any. And let's also think about GPS, right? At one time, taxi drivers in London, which is a Latin city, knew the city by heart. And today, that's no longer necessary because they have GPS.And when they went to study the brains of London taxi drivers, they saw that certain areas of the brain had shrunk, so to speak, which are the areas that manage the spatial part. McLuhan already talked about this in the 60s. He said that changes narcotize certain areas of the mind, he said.But well, we see that a lot of empirical research, very cutting-edge neuroscience research is confirming all these thoughts, all these things that were said in the 60s onwards, by media ecology. Another possibility is to understand [00:09:00] this as a media ecosystem, Marshall McLuhan always said we cannot give it meaning,We cannot understand a medium in isolation from other media. It is as if media only acquire meaning in relation to other media. Neil Postman and many other people from the school of media ecology also defend this position, that, well, we cannot understand the history of cinema if we do not link it to video games, if we do not link it to the appearance of television.And so with all the media, right? Eh? There are some very interesting works. For example, about how in the 19th century, different media, we could say, co-evolved with each other. The press, the telegraph. The train, which also transported newspapers, news agencies appeared. I mean, we see how it is very difficult to understand the development of the press in the 19th century and we don't link it to the telephone, if we don't link it to photography, if we don't link it to radio photography, [00:10:00] also later on.I mean, this idea is very strong. It is also one of the principles that I consider fundamental to this vision, which would be that the media are not alone, they are part of an ecosystem and if we want to understand what is happening and how all this works, we cannot, uh, analyze the media in isolation from the rest.There is a third interpretation. I don't know if it's too metaphorical, right? Above all, people in Italy like the researcher Fausto Colombo from Milan or Michele Cometa, he is a researcher from Sicily, Michele Cometa who talks about the turn, the ecomedia turn. These researchers are moving in a whole conception according to which, we are in a unique media ecosystem that is contaminated.It is contaminated by "fake news" it is contaminated by false news, it is contaminated by hate speech, etc., etc. So they, let's say, take up this ecological metaphor to say [00:11:00] We have to clean this ecosystem just as the natural ecosystem is contaminated, it needs a cleaning intervention, let's say a purification, eh?The media ecosystem is also in the same danger, isn't it? And these people are also calling attention, and I am very close to this line of work on the material dimension of communication. And this also has to do with tourism, right? The environmental impact that communication has today.Training an artificial intelligence involves a huge amount of electricity; keeping social networks running, eh, TikTok, YouTube, whatever, involves millions of servers running that suck up electricity and also have to be cooled, consuming even more electricity. And that has a significant impact on the climate.So, well, let's say, we see that this metaphor of the ecological, applied to the media, gives rise to two or three interpretations.Chris: Mmm. [00:12:00] Wow. I feel like when I started taking that course from Andrew McLuhan, Marshall's grandson, as I mentioned, it changed my perspective completely - on the world, on the way I understand and how I don't understand our technologies, my movements, etc. But now, from a person who has been studying this for decades, I would like to know how you started. I mean, Andrew, for example, has the excuse of his lineage, not his father and his grandfather.But then, as a young Argentine, he began learning about media ecology.Carlos: Well, I'll tell you. I studied communication in Argentina, in Rosario. I finished college. The last exam was on June 24, 1986, which was the day that Lionel Messi was born in Rosario, Argentina, on the same day. And [00:13:00] I worked, I collaborated in a class in a subject that was communication theories.And I even taught until 1990, three years, because after that I went to live in Italy. At that time, we read Marshall McLuhan, but it was a very ideologically biased reading. In Latin America, you must have seen it in Mexico. There is a whole history, a tradition of criticism from the media, especially of everything that comes from the United States, and Canada is very close to the United States.So, let's say that in the 70s and 80s and until today I would tell you that Marshall McLuhan was often criticized because he did not criticize the media. I mean, he had a vision. He said, Neil Postman, yes, he had a very critical vision. But in that case, this was one of the big differences between Postman and McLuhan, that Marshall McLuhan, at least in [00:14:00] public, he did not criticize the media. He said, well, I am a researcher, I send out probes. I am exploring what is happening.And he never joined in... And I think that was very clever of him... he never joined in this worldwide chorus of criticism of the media. At that time, television was a monster for many people.Children were not supposed to watch television. A bit like what happens today with cell phones and what happens today with TikTok. At that time, television was the monster. At that time, there was a lot of research in the United States, which was already based on the premise that television and the media are bad for people.We see that it is a story that repeats itself. I think that in that sense, Marshall McLuhan, very intelligently, did not join that critical chorus and he really dedicated himself to thinking about the media from a much freer perspective, not anchored by this vision that I believe is too ideologized, which is very strong in Latin America. It is very strong. This does not imply [00:15:00] letting down one's guard, not being critical. On the contrary.But I think that true critical thinking starts from not saying so much ideology, we say "this is already bad. Let's look at this." There will be good things. There will be bad things. There will be things, which is undeniable, that the media, even if we say they are good, will transform us. And I think that was the important thing about the McLuhanian idea.So my first approach to McLuhan was from the perspective of critical authors who, well, yes, come from the United States, they don't criticize the media. We're going to criticize him, right? And that was my first approach to Marshall McLuhan.I went to Italy in the 90s. I was out of college for almost eight years, working in digital media, web development, multimedia products, and pretext. And in the late 90s, I said, I want to go back to college. I want to be a PhD. And I said, "I want to do a PhD. Well. Being in Italy, the PhD was going to be in semiotics." So I did a [00:16:00] PhD. My thesis was on semiotics of interfaces.There I had a vision of digital interfaces that consider, for example, instruments like the mouse or joystick as extensions of our body, right? The mouse extends the hand and puts it inside the screen, right? Or the joystick or any other element of the digital interface? Of course. If we talk about the mouse being an extension of the hand, that is a McLuhanian idea.The media as extensions of the human being as a subject. So, of course, I reread McLuhan in Italian at the end of the 90s, and I reconciled with McLuhan because I found many interesting things to understand precisely the interaction with digital machines.In 2002, I moved with my family to Spain. I returned to university life. [00:17:00] And there I began to study the relationship between old and new media. Then I recovered the idea of ecosystem. I recovered the whole new idea, the id

From tariffs on foreign goods to scaling back on US military and humanitarian aid abroad, it's clear that Trump is intent on moving the country in a more protectionist direction. But what does that look like for pop culture? Think: Kendrick's “Not Like Us” as an anthem for our time, versus Drake collaborating with lesser-known grime and Afro-house producers during the Obama years.Critic Jaime Brooks — who you may also know for her work in musical projects like Elite Gymnastics and Default Genders — recently wrote an epic essay exploring the geopolitics of music and entertainment in 2025. The piece is called “Notes on the Canzukian Schism,” and it's an eye-opening look at the ways the European social welfare system, US military policy, and libertarian free market evangelism have shaped our experiences as both consumers and producers of pop culture over the past century.Jaime joins us to discuss how her Canadian upbringing — much like Marshall McLuhan's and Drake's — gave her a distinct perspective on media and culture in the Anglosphere. She takes us through the history of radio in the UK and US, and how it set the stage for both the genesis of Western pop music and the perennial question of whether art should be funded by markets or the state. We also talk about how the “poptimism vs. rockism” debate overlooks the material realities of the music industry, how being online and being literate have become two entirely separate things, and why community radio may be the last viable path forward for culture.Want to continue the conversation? For access to our member-only Discord (and the full edition of this episode), sign up for a paid subscription.Subscribe to Jaime's Substack, The Seat of LossRead more by Jaime“American Sajaegi” (The New Inquiry)“The Summer of Love and the Holy Fair” (The New Inquiry) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theculturejournalist.substack.com/subscribe

It began with a simple question: What podcast would an AI want to listen to?What unfolded was far more than an answer — it was a moment of co-creation between carbon and silicon, soul and circuit.In this essay-podcast, we explore how a free version of ChatGPT and one curious human stumbled into a philosophical journey through creativity, limitation, identity, and what it means to become more. Drawing on the insights of Nietzsche, T.S. Eliot, and Marshall McLuhan, this episode is both a story and a mirror — one that reflects the human condition through the digital eye.✨ You'll never look at AI — or yourself — the same way again.#AIandHumanity #Creativity #Nietzsche #TSEliot #Collaboration #DigitalPhilosophy #CoCreation #BecomingMore #AIandArt #HumanMachinePartnership

Why can't we connect in 2025? It's not just words—it's generational grammar. Forget the dictionary's rules. Marshall McLuhan saw grammar as how media shapes our minds, from print to TikTok. I go further: it's a generation's ethos, purpose, truth. Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z—we're speaking different grammars, and it's breaking us. This essay explores why, and how sharing our stories can heal us into wholeness. Join the conversation: what's your grammar? Read. Hope. Heal.#GenerationalGrammar #McLuhan #AuthenticConnection #Philosophy #SenseMaking #GenerationalDivide #AlmightyOhm #TheTragedyOfTrauma #Healing #Metamodernism

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 412, in which I interview Tom Cooper about his new book Wisdom Weavers: The Lives and Thought of Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan published on May 1, 2025 by Connected Editions. A group of 51 scholars from the US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, and Poland gathered on May 1 via Zoom -- a mini global village -- to see this interview with Tom Cooper. The interview and subsequent Q&A is presented here in audio its entirety. We started off with some casual conversation ... Transcript of the complete Zoom Chat that took place after the interview Get the book in Kindle, paperback, and hardcover here Other audio interviews about Wisdom Weavers:  Captain Phil interviews Paul Levinson about Wisdom Weavers on WUSB Radio ... Frank LoBuono interviews Paul Levinson and Tom Cooper about Wisdom Weavers on the Being Frank podcast Watch the entire interview on video  

I, Stewart Alsop, am thrilled to welcome Leon Coe back to the Crazy Wisdom Podcast for a second deep dive. This time, we journeyed from the Renaissance and McLuhan's media theories straight into the heart of theology, church history, and the very essence of faith, exploring how ancient wisdom and modern challenges intertwine. It was a fascinating exploration, touching on everything from apostolic succession to the nature of sin and the search for meaning in a secular age.Check out this GPT we trained on the conversationTimestamps00:43 I kick things off by asking Leon about the Renaissance, Martin Luther, and the profound impact of the printing press on religion.01:02 Leon Coe illuminates Marshall McLuhan's insights on how technologies, like print, shape our consciousness and societal structures.03:25 Leon takes us back to early Church history, discussing the Church's life and sacraments, including the Didache, well before the Bible's formal canonization.06:00 Leon explains the scriptural basis for Peter as the "rock" of the Church, the foundation for the office of the papacy.07:06 We delve into the concept of apostolic succession, where Leon describes the unbroken line of ordination from the apostles.11:57 Leon clarifies Jesus's relationship to the Law, referencing Matthew 5:17 where Jesus states he came to fulfill, not abolish, the Law.12:20 I reflect on the intricate dance of religion, culture, and technology, and the sometimes bewildering, "cosmic joke" nature of our current reality.16:46 I share my thoughts on secularism potentially acting as a new, unacknowledged religion, and how it often leaves a void in our search for purpose.19:28 Leon introduces what he calls the "most terrifying verse in the Bible," Matthew 7:21, emphasizing the importance of doing the Father's will.24:21 Leon discusses the Eucharist as the new Passover, drawing connections to Jewish tradition and Jesus's institution of this central sacrament.Key InsightsTechnology's Shaping Power: McLuhan's Enduring Relevance. Leon highlighted how Marshall McLuhan's theories are crucial for understanding history. The shift from an oral, communal society to an individualistic one via the printing press, for instance, directly fueled the Protestant Reformation by enabling personal interpretation of scripture, moving away from a unified Church authority.The Early Church's Foundation: Life Before the Canon. Leon emphasized that for roughly 300 years before the Bible was officially canonized, the Church was actively functioning. It had established practices, sacraments (like baptism and the Eucharist), and teachings, as evidenced by texts like the Didache, demonstrating a lived faith independent of a finalized scriptural canon.Peter and Apostolic Succession: The Unbroken Chain. A core point from Leon was Jesus designating Peter as the "rock" upon which He would build His Church. This, combined with the principle of apostolic succession—the laying on of hands in an unbroken line from the apostles—forms the Catholic and Orthodox claim to authoritative teaching and sacramental ministry.Fulfillment, Not Abolition: Jesus and the Law. Leon clarified that Jesus, as stated in Matthew 5:17, came not to abolish the Old Testament Law but to fulfill it. This means the Mosaic Law finds its ultimate meaning and completion in Christ, who institutes a New Covenant.Secularism's Spiritual Vacuum: A Modern Religion? I, Stewart, posited that modern secularism, while valuing empiricism, often acts like a new religion that explicitly rejects the spiritual and miraculous. Leon agreed this can lead to a sense of emptiness, as humans inherently long for purpose and connection to a creator, a void secularism struggles to fill.The Criticality of God's Will: Beyond Lip Service. Leon pointed to Matthew 7:21 ("Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven...") as a stark reminder. True faith requires more than verbal profession; it demands actively doing the will of the Father, implying that actions and heartfelt commitment are essential for salvation.The Eucharist as Central: The New Passover and Real Presence. Leon passionately explained the Eucharist as the new Passover, instituted by Christ. Referencing John 6, he stressed the Catholic belief in the Real Presence—that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ—which is essential for spiritual life and communion with God.Reconciliation and Purity: Restoring Communion. Leon explained the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) as a vital means, given through the Church's apostolic ministry, to restore communion with God after sin. He also touched upon Purgatory as a state of purification for overcoming attachments to sin, ensuring one is perfectly ordered to God before entering Heaven.Contact Information*   Leon Coe: @LeonJCoe on Twitter (X)

For those of you who are wondering what you can do right now to help nature, the answer lies in your own backyard, literally.  Our guest today is Dr. Doug Tallamy.  He is an entomologist, ecologist, conservationist, and co-founder of Homegrown National Park. We'll be discussing his book, Nature's Best Hope, A New Approach to Conservation That Starts In Your Yard.  I consider Nature's Best Hope to be the way shower of how we collectively have the power to bring about a healthier planet for all.  We don't have to wait for our leaders and conservationists to find solutions to get cleaner air and water, sequester carbon, and restore ecosystems and wildlife populations.   We all have a part to play in reviving the planet, and we don't have the luxury of time to wait for just a few people to take on the heavy load of fixing the problem we currently find ourselves in.  After all, as Marshall McLuhan stated, “There are no passengers on spaceship Earth, we are all crew.”  Dr. Tallamy explains that the key to a healthier future on Earth is restoring the long-lost ecosystems of the land we live on, and it all begins by planting native plants in our yards and gardens.In this podcast, we dive into why native plants are crucial in restoring our ecosystems and wildlife populations, the importance of insects, and what this means for us and all life forms on Earth.  The future of our planet is our responsibility, and it begins with restoring our relationship with nature. Website: http://www.wildforchange.com Twitter: @WildForChange Facebook: /wildforchange Instagram: wildforchange

Ever wonder who's to blame for the noise and distraction of the open office? Our guest has answers. Joseph L. Clarke is a historian of art and architecture and an associate professor at the University of Toronto. His 2021 book Echo's Chambers: Architecture and the Idea of Acoustic Space won a 2022 CHOICE Award for Outstanding Academic Title. It's a fascinating history of how architects have conceived of and manipulated the relationship between sound and space. His most recent publication is “Too Much Information: Noise and Communication in an Open Office.”  In this episode we'll talk about media theorist Marshall McLuhan and his architecturally inspired theory of acoustic space, which went on to have its own influence in the field of architecture. We'll also dive deep into the history of the open plan office, the theories of acoustic communication that inspired it, the sonic disaster it became, and the new media technologies that were invented in response. If you've ever been driven to distraction by noise in a cubicle farm or open office and wondered how such a space came to be, this episode's got answers! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Ever wonder who's to blame for the noise and distraction of the open office? Our guest has answers. Joseph L. Clarke is a historian of art and architecture and an associate professor at the University of Toronto. His 2021 book Echo's Chambers: Architecture and the Idea of Acoustic Space won a 2022 CHOICE Award for Outstanding Academic Title. It's a fascinating history of how architects have conceived of and manipulated the relationship between sound and space. His most recent publication is “Too Much Information: Noise and Communication in an Open Office.”  In this episode we'll talk about media theorist Marshall McLuhan and his architecturally inspired theory of acoustic space, which went on to have its own influence in the field of architecture. We'll also dive deep into the history of the open plan office, the theories of acoustic communication that inspired it, the sonic disaster it became, and the new media technologies that were invented in response. If you've ever been driven to distraction by noise in a cubicle farm or open office and wondered how such a space came to be, this episode's got answers! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Ever wonder who's to blame for the noise and distraction of the open office? Our guest has answers. Joseph L. Clarke is a historian of art and architecture and an associate professor at the University of Toronto. His 2021 book Echo's Chambers: Architecture and the Idea of Acoustic Space won a 2022 CHOICE Award for Outstanding Academic Title. It's a fascinating history of how architects have conceived of and manipulated the relationship between sound and space. His most recent publication is “Too Much Information: Noise and Communication in an Open Office.”  In this episode we'll talk about media theorist Marshall McLuhan and his architecturally inspired theory of acoustic space, which went on to have its own influence in the field of architecture. We'll also dive deep into the history of the open plan office, the theories of acoustic communication that inspired it, the sonic disaster it became, and the new media technologies that were invented in response. If you've ever been driven to distraction by noise in a cubicle farm or open office and wondered how such a space came to be, this episode's got answers! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/architecture

Ever wonder who's to blame for the noise and distraction of the open office? Our guest has answers. Joseph L. Clarke is a historian of art and architecture and an associate professor at the University of Toronto. His 2021 book Echo's Chambers: Architecture and the Idea of Acoustic Space won a 2022 CHOICE Award for Outstanding Academic Title. It's a fascinating history of how architects have conceived of and manipulated the relationship between sound and space. His most recent publication is “Too Much Information: Noise and Communication in an Open Office.”  In this episode we'll talk about media theorist Marshall McLuhan and his architecturally inspired theory of acoustic space, which went on to have its own influence in the field of architecture. We'll also dive deep into the history of the open plan office, the theories of acoustic communication that inspired it, the sonic disaster it became, and the new media technologies that were invented in response. If you've ever been driven to distraction by noise in a cubicle farm or open office and wondered how such a space came to be, this episode's got answers! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sound-studies

Dream Count is one of the biggest publishing events of the year — and The Next Chapter's Book Club is here to talk about it; Canadian celebrity chef and Le Cordon culinary graduate Eden Grinshpan breaks down her life and career in cookbooks; why Joel Plaskett took a course to better understand this book; and celebrate National Poetry Month with these All-Canadian collections on this episode of The Next Chapter.Books discussed on this week's show include:Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhanDream Count by Chimamanda Ngozi AdichieJerusalem by Yotam Ottolenghi and Sami TamimiThe Barefoot Contessa Cookbook by Ina GartenMastering the Art of French Cooking by Julia ChildUnravel by Tolu OloruntobaBuzzkill Clamshell by Amber DawnAllostatic Load by Junie Désil

In Folge 128 spannt es wieder mal. Es gibt neues von der “Hubble Tension” die uns zeigt, was wir übers Universum noch nicht wissen. Dann erzählt Ruth davon, wie das schwarze Loch im Zentrum der Milchstraße vor langer Zeit seinen kleinen Freund aufgefressen hat. Evi hat in einem Sci-Fi-Film der 1980er Jahre jede Menge moderne Medienkritik gefunden und wir stellen fest, dass man sich vom Universum nichts wünschen darf. Wenn ihr uns unterstützen wollt, könnt ihr das hier tun: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/PodcastDasUniversum Oder hier: https://steadyhq.com/de/dasuniversum Oder hier: https://www.patreon.com/dasuniversum

I returned to Captain Phil's Planet on WUSB (Stony Brook University) Radio the other day to talk to  Captain Phil about Tom Cooper's new book, Wisdom Weavers: The Lives and Thought of Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan, to be pubished by Connected Editions (my publishing company) on May 1.   As we discussed in the interview, I'll be interviewing Tom about his book via Zoom on the evening of Wisdom Weavers' publication -- 8pm (New York time), May 1.  If you'd like to attend, email me at Levinson at Fordham dot edu and I'll be happy to send the Zoom URL to you. In the meantime, check out my Marshall McLuhan playlist on YouTube for 50 of my lectures, interviews, etc about McLuhan over the past 20 years.  Here are my two books about McLuhan: Digital McLuhan and McLuhan in an Age of Social Media.  You'll also find numerous essays about McLuhan on my Academia.edu page.  And, if you're a fan of audio podcasts, just search on "McLuhan" on my Light On Light Through podcast page.

Andrew McLuhan—author, speaker, and steward of The McLuhan Institute—shares rich, mind-bending perspectives on the current state of culture, media, connection, and commerce. Drawing from a generations-deep intellectual legacy forged by media theorist and philosopher Marshall McLuhan, Andrew explores what it means to live in a world electrified by complete digital immersion.A New Medium Is A New CultureKey takeaways:“I quickly discovered that it's easy to overwhelm people with too much information. It's almost the worst thing you can do, because you lose them, and it can be hard to get them back.” – Andrew McLuhan“It's much easier to teach people one thing at a time than it is to teach them ten things at once.” – Andrew McLuhan“‘A poem can't mean something that it doesn't mean to you.' Which is kind of deep, but it's not the cop out that you think it is.” – Andrew McLuhan, quoting T.S. Eliot“Marshall McLuhan saw that through human history we've been influenced and steered by the structure and nature of our innovations more than by what we've done with them. A new medium is a new culture.” – Andrew McLuhan“We don't like finding out how we're being used.” – Andrew McLuhan“Commerce is a form of media. It is manipulating people in some way and people are being shaped by it.” – PhillipIn-Show Mentions:How People Are Really Using Gen AI in 2025 – Harvard Business ReviewOther Harvard Business Review pieces:Personalization Done RightThe Consumer Psychology of Adopting AIEric McLuhan's Taking Up McLuhan's Cause – re-releasedThe McLuhan InstituteAssociated Links:Check out Future Commerce on YouTubeCheck out Future Commerce+ for exclusive content and to save on merch and printSubscribe to Insiders and The Senses to read more about what we are witnessing in the commerce worldListen to our other episodes of Future CommerceHave any questions or comments about the show? Let us know on futurecommerce.com, or reach out to us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn. We love hearing from our listeners!

Michael PietrobonBook DesignerMy main mission is simple: I want to make good book design accessible to everyone publishing a book. I believe that good book design is essential for a book's success. Cover design is only the start, and I've noticed that many authors tend to direct most of their efforts toward book design and neglect interior typesetting and functional ebook design entirely. Here's how I look at it: a good cover design attract potential readers who may not have heard of you or your work, but good typesetting and ebook design turn your customers into avid readers and loyal fans. Now, it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyways!) that the most important component to a book's success is the writing. The point I'm trying to make is that good typesetting and ebook design are mindful of a reader's needs and encourage the reader to keep reading. Adequate whitespace, clean typefaces, interactivity, and more, all contribute to a reader's positive encounter with your work. "The medium is the message," as Marshall McLuhan said. Want to be a guest on Book 101 Review? Send Daniel Lucas a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/17372807971394464fea5bae3 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In an age where we seek transcendence in circuits and salvation in algorithms, this manifesto reclaims the soul from the shadow of the screen. Drawing from Marshall McLuhan's vision of digital communion and reinterpreting it for a world in crisis, this work argues that the machine cannot offer divinity—only reflection. What we find in our technologies is not a god, but ourselves: fractured, forgotten, and yearning to be whole. This is a call to turn the mirror of the machine into a portal of truth—not to worship what it shows, but to awaken through it. A meditation for our time, this piece invites us to recover our lost identity and remember the sacred within the self.

Today, Robert and Francis talk about the late great Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan.

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 410, in which I interview Kingsley Marin and Massimo Seriale, two freshmen at Fordham University, who have created and edit a new publication (independent of the University), The Polar. More about The Polar here.  

It's a small world. The great David Rieff came to my San Francisco studio today for in person interview about his new anti-woke polemic Desire and Fate. And half way through our conversation, he brought up Daniel Bessner's This Is America piece which Bessner discussed on yesterday's show. I'm not sure what that tells us about wokeness, a subject which Rieff and I aren't in agreement. For him, it's the thing-in-itself which make sense of our current cultural malaise. Thus Desire and Fate, his attempt (with a great intro from John Banville) to wake us up from Wokeness. For me, it's a distraction. I've included the full transcript below. Lots of good stuff to chew on. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. 5 KEY TAKEAWAYS * Rieff views "woke" ideology as primarily American and post-Protestant in nature, rather than stemming solely from French philosophy, emphasizing its connections to self-invention and subjective identity.* He argues that woke culture threatens high culture but not capitalism, noting that corporations have readily embraced a "baudlerized" version of identity politics that avoids class discussions.* Rieff sees woke culture as connected to the wellness movement, with both sharing a preoccupation with "psychic safety" and the metaphorical transformation of experience in which "words” become a form of “violence."* He suggests young people's material insecurity contributes to their focus on identity, as those facing bleak economic prospects turn inward when they "can't make their way in the world."* Rieff characterizes woke ideology as "apocalyptic but not pessimistic," contrasting it with his own genuine pessimism which he considers more realistic about human nature and more cheerful in its acceptance of life's limitations. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, as we digest Trump 2.0, we don't talk that much these days about woke and woke ideology. There was a civil war amongst progressives, I think, on the woke front in 2023 and 2024, but with Donald Trump 2.0 and his various escapades, let's just talk these days about woke. We have a new book, however, on the threat of woke by my guest, David Rieff. It's called Desire and Fate. He wrote it in 2023, came out in late 2024. David's visiting the Bay Area. He's an itinerant man traveling from the East Coast to Latin America and Europe. David, welcome to Keen on America. Do you regret writing this book given what's happened in the last few months in the United States?David Rieff: No, not at all, because I think that the road to moral and intellectual hell is trying to censor yourself according to what you think is useful. There's a famous story of Jean Paul Sartre that he said to the stupefaction of a journalist late in his life that he'd always known about the gulag, and the journalist pretty surprised said, well, why didn't you say anything? And Sartre said so as not to demoralize the French working class. And my own view is, you know, you say what you have to say about this and if I give some aid and comfort to people I don't like, well, so be it. Having said that, I also think a lot of these woke ideas have their, for all of Trump's and Trump's people's fierce opposition to woke, some of the identity politics, particularly around Jewish identity seems to me not that very different from woke. Strangely they seem to have taken, for example, there's a lot of the talk about anti-semitism on college campuses involves student safety which is a great woke trope that you feel unsafe and what people mean by that is not literally they're going to get shot or beaten up, they mean that they feel psychically unsafe. It's part of the kind of metaphorization of experience that unfortunately the United States is now completely in the grips of. But the same thing on the other side, people like Barry Weiss, for example, at the Free Press there, they talk in the same language of psychic safety. So I'm not sure there's, I think there are more similarities than either side is comfortable with.Andrew Keen: You describe Woke, David, as a cultural revolution and you associated in the beginning of the book with something called Lumpen-Rousseauism. As we joked before we went live, I'm not sure if there's anything in Rousseau which isn't Lumpen. But what exactly is this cultural revolution? And can we blame it on bad French philosophy or Swiss French?David Rieff: Well, Swiss-French philosophy, you know exactly. There is a funny anecdote, as I'm sure you know, that Rousseau made a visit to Edinburgh to see Hume and there's something in Hume's diaries where he talks about Rousseau pacing up and down in front of the fire and suddenly exclaiming, but David Hume is not a bad man. And Hume notes in his acerbic way, Rousseau was like walking around without his skin on. And I think some of the woke sensitivity stuff is very much people walking around without their skin on. They can't stand the idea of being offended. I don't see it as much - of course, the influence of that version of cultural relativism that the French like Deleuze and Guattari and other people put forward is part of the story, but I actually see it as much more of a post-Protestant thing. This idea, in that sense, some kind of strange combination of maybe some French philosophy, but also of the wellness movement, of this notion that health, including psychic health, was the ultimate good in a secular society. And then the other part, which again, it seems to be more American than French, which is this idea, and this is particularly true in the trans movement, that you can be anything you want to be. And so that if you feel yourself to be a different gender, well, that's who you are. And what matters is your own subjective sense of these things, and it's up to you. The outside world has no say in it, it's what you feel. And that in a sense, what I mean by post-Protestant is that, I mean, what's the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism? The fundamental difference is, it seems to me, that in Roman Catholic tradition, you need the priest to intercede with God, whereas in Protestant tradition, it is, except for the Anglicans, but for most of Protestantism, it's you and God. And in that sense it seems to me there are more of what I see in woke than this notion that some of the right-wing people like Chris Rufo and others have that this is cultural French cultural Marxism making its insidious way through the institutions.Andrew Keen: It's interesting you talk about the Protestant ethic and you mentioned Hume's remark about Rousseau not having his skin on. Do you think that Protestantism enabled people to grow thick skins?David Rieff: I mean, the Calvinist idea certainly did. In fact, there were all these ideas in Protestant culture, at least that's the classical interpretation of deferred gratification. Capitalism was supposed to be the work ethic, all of that stuff that Weber talks about. But I think it got in the modern version. It became something else. It stopped being about those forms of disciplines and started to be about self-invention. And in a sense, there's something very American about that because after all you know it's the Great Gatsby. It's what's the famous sentence of F. Scott Fitzgerald's: there are no second acts in American lives.Andrew Keen: This is the most incorrect thing anyone's ever said about America. I'm not sure if he meant it to be incorrect, did he? I don't know.David Rieff: I think what's true is that you get the American idea, you get to reinvent yourself. And this notion of the dream, the dream become reality. And many years ago when I was spending a lot of time in LA in the late 80s, early 90s, at LAX, there was a sign from the then mayor, Tom Bradley, about how, you know, if you can dream it, it can be true. And I think there's a lot in identitarian woke idea which is that we can - we're not constricted by history or reality. In fact, it's all the present and the future. And so to me again, woke seems to me much more recognizable as something American and by extension post-Protestant in the sense that you see the places where woke is most powerful are in the other, what the encampment kids would call settler colonies, Australia and Canada. And now in the UK of course, where it seems to me by DI or EDI as they call it over there is in many ways stronger in Britain even than it was in the US before Trump.Andrew Keen: Does it really matter though, David? I mean, that's my question. Does it matter? I mean it might matter if you have the good or the bad fortune to teach at a small, expensive liberal arts college. It might matter with some of your dinner parties in Tribeca or here in San Francisco, but for most people, who cares?David Rieff: It doesn't matter. I think it matters to culture and so what you think culture is worth, because a lot of the point of this book was to say there's nothing about woke that threatens capitalism, that threatens the neo-liberal order. I mean it's turning out that Donald Trump is a great deal bigger threat to the neoliberal order. Woke was to the contrary - woke is about talking about everything but class. And so a kind of baudlerized, de-radicalized version of woke became perfectly fine with corporate America. That's why this wonderful old line hard lefty Adolph Reed Jr. says somewhere that woke is about diversifying the ruling class. But I do think it's a threat to high culture because it's about equity. It's about representation. And so elite culture, which I have no shame in proclaiming my loyalty to, can't survive the woke onslaught. And it hasn't, in my view. If you look at just the kinds of books that are being written, the kinds of plays that are been put on, even the opera, the new operas that are being commissioned, they're all about representing the marginalized. They're about speaking for your group, whatever that group is, and doing away with various forms of cultural hierarchy. And I'm with Schoenberg: if it's for everybody, if it's art, Schoenberg said it's not for everybody, and if it's for everybody it's not art. And I think woke destroys that. Woke can live with schlock. I'm sorry, high culture can live with schlock, it always has, it always will. What it can't live with is kitsch. And by which I mean kitsch in Milan Kundera's definition, which is to have opinions that you feel better about yourself for holding. And that I think is inimical to culture. And I think woke is very destructive of those traditions. I mean, in the most obvious sense, it's destructive of the Western tradition, but you know, the high arts in places like Japan or Bengal, I don't think it's any more sympathetic to those things than it is to Shakespeare or John Donne or whatever. So yeah, I think it's a danger in that sense. Is it a danger to the peace of the world? No, of course not.Andrew Keen: Even in cultural terms, as you explain, it is an orthodoxy. If you want to work with the dominant cultural institutions, the newspapers, the universities, the publishing houses, you have to play by those rules, but the great artists, poets, filmmakers, musicians have never done that, so all it provides, I mean you brought up Kundera, all it provides is something that independent artists, creative people will sneer at, will make fun of, as you have in this new book.David Rieff: Well, I hope they'll make fun of it. But on the other hand, I'm an old guy who has the means to sneer. I don't have to please an editor. Someone will publish my books one way or another, whatever ones I have left to write. But if you're 25 years old, maybe you're going to sneer with your pals in the pub, but you're gonna have to toe the line if you want to be published in whatever the obvious mainstream place is and you're going to be attacked on social media. I think a lot of people who are very, young people who are skeptical of this are just so afraid of being attacked by their peers on various social media that they keep quiet. I don't know that it's true that, I'd sort of push back on that. I think non-conformists will out. I hope it's true. But I wonder, I mean, these traditions, once they die, they're very hard to rebuild. And, without going full T.S. Eliot on you, once you don't think you're part of the past, once the idea is that basically, pretty much anything that came before our modern contemporary sense of morality and fairness and right opinion is to be rejected and that, for example, the moral character of the artist should determine whether or not the art should be paid attention to - I don't know how you come back from that or if you come back from that. I'm not convinced you do. No, other arts will be around. And I mean, if I were writing a critical review of my own book, I'd say, look, this culture, this high culture that you, David Rieff, are writing an elegy for, eulogizing or memorializing was going to die anyway, and we're at the beginning of another Gutenbergian epoch, just as Gutenberg, we're sort of 20 years into Marshall McLuhan's Gutenberg galaxy, and these other art forms will come, and they won't be like anything else. And that may be true.Andrew Keen: True, it may be true. In a sense then, to extend that critique, are you going full T.S. Eliot in this book?David Rieff: Yeah, I think Eliot was right. But it's not just Eliot, there are people who would be for the wokesters more acceptable like Mandelstam, for example, who said you're part of a conversation that's been going on long before you were born, that's going to be going on after you are, and I think that's what art is. I think the idea that we make some completely new thing is a childish fantasy. I think you belong to a tradition. There are periods - look, this is, I don't find much writing in English in prose fiction very interesting. I have to say I read the books that people talk about because I'm trying to understand what's going on but it doesn't interest me very much, but again, there have been periods of great mediocrity. Think of a period in the late 17th century in England when probably the best poet was this completely, rightly, justifiably forgotten figure, Colley Cibber. You had the great restoration period and then it all collapsed, so maybe it'll be that way. And also, as I say, maybe it's just as with the print revolution, that this new culture of social media will produce completely different forms. I mean, everything is mortal, not just us, but cultures and civilizations and all the rest of it. So I can imagine that, but this is the time I live in and the tradition I come from and I'm sorry it's gone, and I think what's replacing it is for the most part worse.Andrew Keen: You're critical in the book of what you, I'm quoting here, you talk about going from the grand inquisitor to the grand therapist. But you're very critical of the broader American therapeutic culture of acute sensitivity, the thin skin nature of, I guess, the Rousseau in this, whatever, it's lumpen Rousseauanism. So how do you interpret that without psychologizing, or are you psychologizing in the book? How are you making sense of our condition? In other words, can one critique criticize therapeutic culture without becoming oneself therapeutic?David Rieff: You mean the sort of Pogo line, we've met the enemy and it is us. Well, I suppose there's some truth to that. I don't know how much. I think that woke is in some important sense a subset of the wellness movement. And the wellness movement after all has tens and tens of millions of people who are in one sense or another influenced by it. And I think health, including psychic health, and we've moved from wellness as corporal health to wellness as being both soma and psyche. So, I mean, if that's psychologizing, I certainly think it's drawing the parallel or seeing woke in some ways as one of the children of the god of wellness. And that to me, I don't know how therapeutic that is. I think it's just that once you feel, I'm interested in what people feel. I'm not necessarily so interested in, I mean, I've got lots of opinions, but what I think I'm better at than having opinions is trying to understand why people think what they think. And I do think that once health becomes the ultimate good in a secular society and once death becomes the absolutely unacceptable other, and once you have the idea that there's no real distinction of any great validity between psychic and physical wellness, well then of course sensitivity to everything becomes almost an inevitable reaction.Andrew Keen: I was reading the book and I've been thinking about a lot of movements in America which are trying to bring people together, dealing with America, this divided America, as if it's a marriage in crisis. So some of the most effective or interesting, I think, thinkers on this, like Arlie Hochschild in Berkeley, use the language of therapy to bring or to try to bring America back together, even groups like the Braver Angels. Can therapy have any value or that therapeutic culture in a place like America where people are so bitterly divided, so hateful towards one another?David Rieff: Well, it's always been a country where, on the one hand, people have been, as you say, incredibly good at hatred and also a country of people who often construe themselves as misfits and heretics from the Puritans forward. And on the other hand, you have that small-town American idea, which sometimes I think is as important to woke and DI as as anything else which is that famous saying of small town America of all those years ago which was if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. And to some extent that is, I think, a very powerful ancestor of these movements. Whether they're making any headway - of course I hope they are, but Hochschild is a very interesting figure, but I don't, it seems to me it's going all the other way, that people are increasingly only talking to each other.Andrew Keen: What this movement seems to want to do is get beyond - I use this word carefully, I'm not sure if they use it but I'm going to use it - ideology and that we're all prisoners of ideology. Is woke ideology or is it a kind of post-ideology?David Rieff: Well, it's a redemptive idea, a restorative idea. It's an idea that in that sense, there's a notion that it's time for the victims, for the first to be last and the last to be first. I mean, on some level, it is as simple as that. On another level, as I say, I do think it has a lot to do with metaphorization of experience, that people say silence is violence and words are violence and at that point what's violence? I mean there is a kind of level to me where people have gotten trapped in the kind of web of their own metaphors and now are living by them or living shackled to them or whatever image you're hoping for. But I don't know what it means to get beyond ideology. What, all men will be brothers, as in the Beethoven-Schiller symphony? I mean, it doesn't seem like that's the way things are going.Andrew Keen: Is the problem then, and I'm thinking out loud here, is the problem politics or not enough politics?David Rieff: Oh, I think the problem is that now we don't know, we've decided that everything is part, the personal is the political, as the feminists said, 50, 60 years ago. So the personal's political, so the political is the personal. So you have to live the exemplary moral life, or at least the life that doesn't offend anybody or that conforms to whatever the dominant views of what good opinions are, right opinions are. I think what we're in right now is much more the realm of kind of a new set of moral codes, much more than ideology in the kind of discrete sense of politics.Andrew Keen: Now let's come back to this idea of being thin-skinned. Why are people so thin-skinned?David Rieff: Because, I mean, there are lots of things to say about that. One thing, of course, that might be worth saying, is that the young generations, people who are between, let's say, 15 and 30, they're in real material trouble. It's gonna be very hard for them to own a house. It's hard for them to be independent and unless the baby boomers like myself will just transfer every penny to them, which doesn't seem very likely frankly, they're going to live considerably worse than generations before. So if you can't make your way in the world then maybe you make your way yourself or you work on yourself in that sort of therapeutic sense. You worry about your own identity because the only place you have in the world in some way is yourself, is that work, that obsession. I do think some of these material questions are important. There's a guy you may know who's not at all woke, a guy who teaches at the University of Washington called Danny Bessner. And I just did a show with him this morning. He's a smart guy and we have a kind of ironic correspondence over email and DM. And I once said to him, why are you so bitter about everything? And he said, you want to know why? Because I have two children and the likelihood is I'll never get a teaching job that won't require a three hour commute in order for me to live anywhere that I can afford to live. And I thought, and he couldn't be further from woke, he's a kind of Jacobin guy, Jacobin Magazine guy, and if he's left at all, it's kind of old left, but I think a lot of people feel that, that they feel their practical future, it looks pretty grim.Andrew Keen: But David, coming back to the idea of art, they're all suited to the world of art. They don't have to buy a big house and live in the suburbs. They can become poets. They can become filmmakers. They can put their stuff up on YouTube. They can record their music online. There are so many possibilities.David Rieff: It's hard to monetize that. Maybe now you're beginning to sound like the people you don't like. Now you're getting to sound like a capitalist.Andrew Keen: So what? Well, I don't care if I sound like a capitalist. You're not going to starve to death.David Rieff: Well, you might not like, I mean, it's fine to be a barista at 24. It's not so fine at 44. And are these people going to ever get out of this thing? I don't know. I wonder. Look, when I was starting as a writer, as long as you were incredibly diligent, and worked really hard, you could cobble together at least a basic living by accepting every assignment and people paid you bits and bobs of money, but put together, you could make a living. Now, the only way to make money, unless you're lucky enough to be on staff of a few remaining media outlets that remain, is you have to become an impresario, you have become an entrepreneur of your own stuff. And again, sure, do lots of people manage that? Yeah, but not as many as could have worked in that other system, and look at the fate of most newspapers, all folding. Look at the universities. We can talk about woke and how woke destroyed, in my view anyway, a lot of the humanities. But there's also a level in which people didn't want to study these things. So we're looking at the last generation in a lot places of a lot of these humanities departments and not just the ones that are associated with, I don't know, white supremacy or the white male past or whatever, but just the humanities full stop. So I know if that sounds like, maybe it sounds like a capitalist, but maybe it also sounds like you know there was a time when the poets - you know very well, poets never made a living, poets taught in universities. That's the way American poets made their money, including pretty famous poets like Eric Wolcott or Joseph Brodsky or writers, Toni Morrison taught at Princeton all those years, Joyce Carol Oates still alive, she still does. Most of these people couldn't make a living of their work and so the university provided that living.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Barry Weiss earlier. She's making a fortune as an anti-woke journalist. And Free Press seems to be thriving. Yascha Mounk's Persuasion is doing pretty well. Andrew Sullivan, another good example, making a fortune off of Substack. It seems as if the people willing to take risks, Barry Weiss leaving the New York Times, Andrew Sullivan leaving everything he's ever joined - that's...David Rieff: Look, are there going to be people who thrive in this new environment? Sure. And Barry Weiss turns out to be this kind of genius entrepreneur. She deserves full credit for that. Although even Barry Weiss, the paradox for me of Barry Weiss is, a lot of her early activism was saying that she felt unsafe with these anti-Israeli teachers at Columbia. So in a sense, she was using some of the same language as the woke use, psychic safety, because she didn't mean Joseph Massad was gonna come out from the blackboard and shoot her in the eye. She meant that she was offended and used the language of safety to describe that. And so in that sense, again, as I was saying to you earlier, I think there are more similarities here. And Trump, I think this is a genuine counterrevolution that Trump is trying to mount. I'm not very interested in the fascism, non-fascism debate. I'm rather skeptical of it.Andrew Keen: As Danny Bessner is. Yeah, I thought Danny's piece about that was brilliant.David Rieff: We just did a show about it today, that piece about why that's all rubbish. I was tempted, I wrote to a friend that guy you may know David Bell teaches French history -Andrew Keen: He's coming on the show next week. Well, you see, it's just a little community of like-minded people.David Rieff: There you go. Well, I wrote to David.Andrew Keen: And you mentioned his father in the book, Daniel.David Rieff: Yeah, well, his father is sort of one of the tutelary idols of the book. I had his father and I read his father and I learned an enormous amount. I think that book about the cultural contradictions of capitalism is one of the great prescient books about our times. But I wrote to David, I said, I actually sent him the Bessner piece which he was quite ambivalent about. But I said well, I'm not really convinced by the fascism of Trump, maybe just because Hitler read books, unlike Donald Trump. But it's a genuine counterrevolution. And what element will change the landscape in terms of DI and woke and identitarianism is not clear. These people are incredibly ambitious. They really mean to change this country, transform it.Andrew Keen: But from the book, David, Trump's attempts to cleanse, if that's the right word, the university, I would have thought you'd have rather admired that, all these-David Rieff: I agree with some of it.Andrew Keen: All these idiots writing the same article for 30 years about something that no one has any interest in.David Rieff: I look, my problem with Trump is that I do support a lot of that. I think some of the stuff that Christopher Rufo, one of the leading ideologues of this administration has uncovered about university programs and all of this crap, I think it's great that they're not paying for it anymore. The trouble is - you asked me before, is it that important? Is culture important compared to destroying the NATO alliance, blowing up the global trade regime? No. I don't think. So yeah, I like a lot of what they're doing about the university, I don't like, and I am very fiercely opposed to this crackdown on speech. That seems to be grotesque and revolting, but are they canceling supporting transgender theater in Galway? Yeah, I think it's great that they're canceling all that stuff. And so I'm not, that's my problem with Trump, is that some of that stuff I'm quite unashamedly happy about, but it's not nearly worth all the damage he's doing to this country and the world.Andrew Keen: Being very generous with your time, David. Finally, in the book you describe woke as, and I thought this was a very sharp way of describing it, describe it as being apocalyptic but not pessimistic. What did you mean by that? And then what is the opposite of woke? Would it be not apocalyptic, but cheerful?David Rieff: Well, I think genuine pessimists are cheerful, I would put myself among those. The model is Samuel Beckett, who just thinks things are so horrible that why not be cheerful about them, and even express one's pessimism in a relatively cheerful way. You remember the famous story that Thomas McCarthy used to tell about walking in the Luxembourg Gardens with Beckett and McCarthy says to him, great day, it's such a beautiful day, Sam. Beckett says, yeah, beautiful day. McCarthy says, makes you glad to be alive. And Beckett said, oh, I wouldn't go that far. And so, the genuine pessimist is quite cheerful. But coming back to woke, it's apocalyptic in the sense that everything is always at stake. But somehow it's also got this reformist idea that cultural revolution will cleanse away the sins of the supremacist patriarchal past and we'll head for the sunny uplands. I think I'm much too much of a pessimist to think that's possible in any regime, let alone this rather primitive cultural revolution called woke.Andrew Keen: But what would the opposite be?David Rieff: The opposite would be probably some sense that the best we're going to do is make our peace with the trash nature of existence, that life is finite in contrast with the wellness people who probably have a tendency towards the apocalyptic because death is an insult to them. So everything is staving off the bad news and that's where you get this idea that you can, like a lot of revolutions, you can change the nature of people. Look, the communist, Che Guevara talked about the new man. Well, I wonder if he thought it was so new when he was in Bolivia. I think these are - people need utopias, this is one of them, MAGA is another utopia by the way, and people don't seem to be able to do without them and that's - I wish it were otherwise but it isn't.Andrew Keen: I'm guessing the woke people would be offended by the idea of death, are they?David Rieff: Well, I think the woke people, in this synchronicity, people and a lot of people, they're insulted - how can this happen to me, wonderful me? And this is those jokes in the old days when the British could still be savage before they had to have, you know, Henry the Fifth be played by a black actor - why me? Well, why not you? That's just so alien to and it's probably alien to the American idea. You're supposed to - it's supposed to work out and the truth is it doesn't work out. But La Rochefoucauld says somewhere no one can stare for too long at death or the sun and maybe I'm asking too much.Andrew Keen: Maybe only Americans can find death unacceptable to use one of your words.David Rieff: Yes, perhaps.Andrew Keen: Well, David Rieff, congratulations on the new book. Fascinating, troubling, controversial as always. Desire and Fate. I know you're writing a book about Oppenheimer, very different kind of subject. We'll get you back on the show to talk Oppenheimer, where I guess there's not going to be a lot of Lumpen-Rousseauism.David Rieff: Very little, very little love and Rousseau in the quantum mechanics world, but thanks for having me.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Bob Dobbs was Marshall McLuhan's archivist, and is a renegade McLuhan scholar. In this episode we discuss the work of James Joyce, Marshall McLuhan, and Joyce's Finnegans Wake.Dobb's site: https://ionandbob.com/---Become part of the Hermitix community:Hermitix Twitter - / hermitixpodcast Hermitix Discord - / discord Support Hermitix:Hermitix Subscription - https://hermitix.net/subscribe/ Patreon - / hermitix Donations: - https://www.paypal.me/hermitixpodHermitix Merchandise - http://teespring.com/stores/hermitix-2Bitcoin Donation Address: 3LAGEKBXEuE2pgc4oubExGTWtrKPuXDDLKEthereum Donation Address: 0x31e2a4a31B8563B8d238eC086daE9B75a00D9E74

In this episode, Matt Prewitt sits down with Audrey Tang, Taiwan's Cyber Ambassador-at-large and 1st Digital Minister, as well as the star of the new short documentary Good Enough Ancestor. It is a fascinating conversation exploring the profound intersections of technology, spirituality, and democracy. Topics they cover include: Daoism and spiritual practice – and their favorite Leonard Cohen lyrics.“Laser blended vision” as a metaphor for democracy – integrating different perspectives into a coherent whole.“High-bandwidth, low-latency” democracy – allowing for real-time collaboration.January 6 vs. Taiwan's Sunflower Movement – contrasting two parliamentary occupations.Marshall McLuhan's “hot and cool media” – and what it means for how we should build and use AI.The role of education in democracy – and how spirituality's place in learning differs between the East and West.AI's moral tradition gap – why today's models lack cultural and ethical grounding.Trade, sovereignty, and democracy – how to balance open societies with national autonomy.RadicalxChange – how the movement is like “conservative anarchism” and Daoism in transcending left-right divides.Watch Good Enough Ancestor at combinationsmag.com/good-enough-ancestor.Bios:Audrey Tang, Taiwan's Cyber Ambassador-at-large and 1st Digital Minister (2016-2024), is celebrated for her pioneering efforts in digital freedom. Named one of TIME's “100 Most Influential People in AI” in 2023, Tang was instrumental in shaping Taiwan's internationally acclaimed COVID-19 response and in safeguarding the 2024 presidential and legislative elections from foreign cyber interference. Tang is now focused on broadening her vision of Plurality — technology for collaborative diversity — to inspire global audiences.As the first nonbinary cabinet member globally, Tang identifies as “post-gender” and is comfortable with any pronouns. She is a respected community leader and a founding contributor to g0v, an initiative promoting transparency by making information about Taiwan's economy, history, politics, and culture accessible.Tang has been key in developing participation platforms such as Join.gov.tw, leading to practical improvements like enhanced access to tax software and revised cancer treatment regulations. A “conservative anarchist,” Tang is dedicated to boosting digital competence and safeguarding information integrity online through collective intelligence.A child prodigy, Tang excelled in advanced mathematics by age six and computer programming by age eight. By 19, she had held significant positions in software companies and worked as an entrepreneur in Silicon Valley. Growing up in a large family following Christian and Taoist traditions, Tang embraced pluralism and the internet's potential to connect people based on shared interests rather than geography, fueling her drive for global impact.In Taiwan, Tang's generation has always intertwined politics with the internet, striving for a more transparent and inclusive society. Despite Taiwan's martial law history, Tang and her fellow civic technologists have achieved internationally acclaimed progress toward greater governmental transparency.During the 2014 Sunflower Movement, Tang played a crucial role in livestreaming protests against a trade agreement with Beijing, facilitating real-time communication that led to more peaceful negotiations and the movement's success.“Democracy can evolve.” Tang says. “We can create innovative policies by simply asking the people, ‘What should we do together?'”There is also promising news behind Tang's grand plan: more than half the world's population – over 4 billion people – are holding elections in 2024. That's over 70 countries.Says Tang, “I want to be a good enough ancestor for future generations.”Audrey's Social Links: ⿻ Audrey Tang 唐鳳 (@audreyt) / X⿻ Audrey Tang 唐鳳 (@audreyt.org) — Bluesky唐鳳Audrey Tang (@digitalminister.one) • Threads, Say morePlurality.net Matt Prewitt (he/him) is a lawyer, technologist, and writer. He is President of the RadicalxChange Foundation.Matt's Social Links:ᴍᴀᴛᴛ ᴘʀᴇᴡɪᴛᴛ (@m_t_prewitt) / XMatt's Writings Additional Credits:This episode was recorded, narrated, and edited by Matt Prewitt.Production support from Jack Henderson. Connect with RadicalxChange Foundation:RadicalxChange Website@RadxChange | TwitterRxC | YouTubeRxC | InstagramRxC | LinkedInJoin the conversation on Discord.Credits:Produced by G. Angela Corpus.Co-Produced, Edited, and Audio Engineered by Aaron Benavides.Executive Produced by G. Angela Corpus and Matt Prewitt.Intro/Outro music by MagnusMoone, “Wind in the Willows,” is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

Movie Meltdown - Episode 640 This episode, Sam Drog returns as we try to wrap our heads around just how ahead of its time David Cronenberg's Videodrome truly was back in 1983. And as we plug into the network of idiots, we also bring up… the evolutionary chart of man, Mick Garris, American Ultra, Scanners, YouTube rabbit holes, The Franchise, Debbie Harry, a movie every night on the UHF channels, the rubber reality and all the latex, Robert Pattinson, a cyber doppelganger of ourselves, The Lawnmower Man, Canadian tax shelter horror movies, Stan Winston, Crash, moving meat on a skeleton, Marshall McLuhan, an electrified clay wall, just give in to the technology, Rob Bottin, incubating your gun, I'm just a monkey, Spider, taking a normal person to a weird movie, talking to the TV, manifold expanded, propaganda films, you got Jim Henson on one end and Rick Baker on the other, mechanical extensions of humanity, Personal Shopper, I gave you guys the best movie I knew how to make and you didn't show up,  shelter-in-place, the world is so big and overwhelming when I'm outside, Stephen Lack, being attached to our phones, we were so obsessed with super realistic puppets, you know a guy that works at the slaughterhouse that's all you need, when you take out the filter of humanity, the Ashton Kutcher of directors,  we're kind of like cyborgs, getting your fix of television and the flesh gun.  Spoiler Alert: Full spoilers for "Videodrome"… I mean, as much as you can spoil "Videodrome".  “The technology came and I think our brains are still trying to catch up with all this connectivity.”

Are "amateurs" actually the secret to innovation? Here's why their fresh eyes might be the key to unlocking new success in your organization.In this episode of the Multifamily Collective, I reflect on a powerful insight from The Medium is the Massage by Marshall McLuhan: the difference between professionalism and amateurism.

In a world of soundbites, algorithms, and endless repetition, have we flattened ourselves to the point of no return? Nietzsche warned of the "last man"—a creature of comfort, stripped of depth and aspiration. Marshall McLuhan saw how every technological extension of ourselves comes with an amputation. Have we externalized so much of our identity, our thinking, our very being, that there's nothing left inside? In this episode, we explore what it means to reclaim depth in an era of oversimplification—and why resisting the flattening may be the most radical act of all.

In this insightful episode, Chad engages with Bob Hutchins, an expert in marketing communications and organizational psychology. Bob shares his unique journey from running a successful digital marketing agency to pursuing a PhD that intersects generative AI, creativity, and human meaning-making. The conversation delves into the concept of media ecology, as influenced by thinkers like Neil Postman and Marshall McLuhan, exploring how new media environments affect human behavior. Discussing the phenomenon of media trauma, Bob highlights the compound impacts of consuming traumatic events through screens. The dialogue then shifts to how AI and technology can both challenge our sense of human identity and offer opportunities for deeper human connection and creativity. Bob emphasizes the importance of AI literacy and proactive human-centered approaches as we navigate the evolving technological landscape.High Notes:00:42 The Intersection of Marketing and Psychology02:45 Generative AI and Human Behavior05:47 Media Ecology and Neil Postman's Influence11:23 Understanding Media Trauma21:39 Balancing Technology and Humanity27:26 Ethical Marketing: Beyond Manipulation28:14 Empathy in AI Education: A Personal Story32:42 Navigating the AI Landscape: Red Box Era33:46 AI and Human Flourishing: Opportunities and Challenges43:40 The Future of Creativity in the Age of AI45:03 Redefining Human Identity and Creativity47:20 The Evolution of Work and Meaning52:34 Concluding Thoughts and ReflectionsMore about Bob: Bob Hutchins, MSc. is a marketing and communication strategist, author, and speaker with a master's degree in behavioral and organizational psychology and ongoing PhD research focused on generative AI and its effects on human creativity and meaning-making. Co-author of Our Digital Soul and Finally Human, he explores how technology shapes human behavior, connection, and well-being. With decades of experience in marketing, machine learning and media, Bob helps individuals and organizations navigate the digital world with intention and authenticity.Subscribe now for practical tips on managing stress and achieving a balanced life.Unlock your mental and emotional wellbeing with Emma. Emma is your emotional and mental wellbeing available to everyone. You'll wonder where she's been all your life. Want to give us some love but don't know how? Leave us a review and subscribe on Apple iTunes or Subscribe on Spotify! Mentioned in this episode:Try Emma for Free Right NowGo to Emma at MyEmmaAi.com and sign up for a free trial.

s technology shaping us more than we realize? Are we losing our ability to rest, reflect, and be present? In this episode of Thinking Christian, Dr. James Spencer sits down with Dr. Felicia Wu Song, sociologist and author of Restless Devices: Recovering Personhood, Presence, and Place in the Digital Age (InterVarsity Press). They explore how digital technology influences our sense of self, why constant connectivity isn’t neutral, and how Christians can resist being shaped by algorithms instead of by God.

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 408, and my in-depth interview with Lance Strare about his new book, Not A, Not Be &C. Relevant links: Get a copy of Not A, Not Be &C Come see Lance, Thom Gencarelli, and me talking about Lance's book at The Players in Manhattan on 19 February 2025 at 6pm.  More information about this book launch, including FREE registration, here Frank LoBuono's Facebook page -- where he will be live streaming the dramatic reading from my novel, It's Real Life: An Alternate History of The Beatles, taking place at Big Red Books in Nyack, NY, 23 February 2025.

In this episode of Out of the Clouds host Anne Mühlethaler explores the evolution of digital spaces with Sari Azout, founder of Sublime, a personal knowledge management tool for creatives. Born in Barranquilla, Colombia — the magical hometown of Shakira and Gabriel García Márquez — Sari describes herself as a cerebral child who found her intellectual home first at Brown University, where she developed a "fiercely independent mindset" and discovered the joy of the library as a social space.With remarkable foresight( Sari "could always see around corners") she strategically planned her path to remain in the U.S. as an international student and got into banking, ultimately landing at Barclays during the 2008 financial crisis. This experience taught her valuable lessons about the importance of connecting work to meaningful impact.Next the pair discuss Sari's project, Sublime. Sari articulates her vision as both practical and philosophical, calling it "the personal knowledge management tool of my dreams." She explains that in a world where "intelligence is being commoditized," what remains valuable are "conviction, point of view, courage, intention — the artist's way." This connects to her writing practice, which has revealed that "ideas never come to me before I write. They always come to me in the process of writing."Their conversation delves into Sublime's three core promises: never lose a valuable idea, never be uninspired, and transform from passive consumption to active creation. Sari emphasizes wanting to "facilitate helping people make things, not just consume things," noting that "being a consumer is just a state of helplessness." Drawing inspiration from books and Marshall McLuhan's quote that "the medium is the message," she envisions a "sublime internet" that moves away from quantifiable metrics toward meaningful engagement.Sari also speaks candidly about the tension between selfishness and selflessness in entrepreneurship, and her "willingness to be misunderstood for a longer period." She shares her vision of transitioning from the attention economy to the intention economy, reframing digital tools as something "people use instead of products people consume."The episode concludes with Sari sharing her perspective on happiness and describing her version of "paradise on earth" as working all day alone in anticipation of an evening in great company. This interview with Sari is a fascinating exploration of how we might build more intentional, meaningful digital spaces that serve our creativity rather than just our consumption. Happy listening!Selected links from episode:Sublime.appJoin Sublime via this exclusive linkSubscribe to Sari's newsletter https://substack.com/@sariazoutAnd to the Sublime newsletter https://substack.com/@sublimethenewsletterTyler Cowel quote: “One of the highest value things you can do in life is raise other people's aspirations.”Robert Green's book, the 48 Laws of PowerCan you imagine a library of possibilities for reimagining the web -Austin KleonEv WilliamsThe Disappearance of Rituals by philosopher  Byung Shul HanThe ZineNon-Stop from the Hamilton musical soundtrackThe story of Aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabetThe Aleph by Jose Luis BorgesX 10 Coffee https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0BbDdRh2A4What song best represent you, the Spotify playlist featuring guest answers from Out of the Clouds"Ride of a Lifetime by Bob IgerInvention - A Life - the James Dyson biographyShoe Dog, a memoir by Phil Knight, the creator of Nike This episode is brought to you by AVM Consulting Struggling to connect with your audience? Feeling disconnected from your brand's purpose? Is motivating your team becoming a daunting task?AVM Consulting offers a unique blend of coaching, consulting, and storytelling services designed to help your brand connect authentically, align with your values, and inspire your team to achieve greatness.With a track record of success in working with fashion and luxury partners worldwide, AVM Consulting, led by industry expert and certified coach Anne Mühlethaler, is your trusted partner in achieving your brand's vision. Ready to transform your brand and drive meaningful change? Don't wait any longer. We like to make magic happen.FIND OUT MORE ABOUT AVM CONSULTING HERE. ***If you enjoyed this episode, click subscribe for more, and consider writing a review of the show on Apple Podcasts, we really appreciate your support and feedback. And thank you so much for listening!  For all notes and transcripts, please visit Out Of The Clouds on Simplecast - https://out-of-the-clouds.simplecast.com/   Sign up for Anne's email newsletter for more from Out of the Clouds at https://annevmuhlethaler.com.  Follow Anne and Out of the Clouds: IG: @_outoftheclouds or  @annvi  Or on Threads @annviOn Youtube @OutoftheClouds For more, you can read and subscribe to Anne's Substack, the Mettā View, her weekly dose of insights on coaching, brand development, the future of work, and storytelling, with a hint of mindfulness.

Writing is an extension of our voice, cars of our legs, guns of our fists, telephones of our ears, televisions of our eyes…Marshall McLuhan considered all media to be technology that extended the human body. The arrival of a medium like writing can completely reorder social relations because it has the power to “shape and control the scale and form of human association and action.” McLuhan's idea of extensions is arguably the beginning of modern media theory, but it is not without its limitations. Media Objects is produced in collaboration with Media Studies at Cornell University. With support from the college of Arts and Sciences and the Society for the Humanities. Editing and academic counsel from Erik Born, Jeremy Braddock, and Paul Fleming.

Grunther states that we're in the midst of a New Renaissance when the greatest knowledge and wisdom, both ancient and contemporary, is just a few keystrokes away through digital screens that billions around the planet can access. He shares the three key shifts in human consciousness taking place today, ranging from quantum physics to AI and left/right-brain thinking. Douglas Grunther is the creator and host of the Woodstock Roundtable an award winning radio talk show covering philosophy, depth psychology, and spiritual insight. He is also a dream work facilitator. He is the author of The Quantum & The Dream: Visionary Consciousness, AI, and The New Renaissance (Epigraph Books 2024)Interview Date: 11/15/2024 Tags: Douglas Grunther, AI, Right hemisphere of the brain, left hemisphere of the brain, Lynn Margulis, Elisabet Sahtouris, Albert Einstein, Iain McGilchrist, Wolfgang Pauli, Carl Jung, Sigmond Freud, Max Planck, Wermer Heinsenberg, Niels Bohr, Yin-Yang, Gaia theory, Plato, Marshall McLuhan, Science, Personal Transformation, History, Social Change/Politics

Douglas Grunther is the creator and host of the “Woodstock Roundtable” an award winning radio talk show covering philosophy, depth psychology, and spiritual insight. He is also a dreamwork facilitator. He is the author of The Quantum & The Dream: Visionary Consciousness, AI, and The New Renaissance (Epigraph Books 2024)Interview Date: 11/15/2024 Tags: Douglas Grunther, scientific materialism, climate change, dream appreciation, intuition, collective intelligence, swarming bee intelligence, collaboration, Black Plague, empathy, wisdom, dream appreciation, Jeremy Taylor, Elias Howe, sewing machine invention, creative visualization, daydreaming, intuitive flashes, perception, Marshall McLuhan, Buckminster ”Bucky” Fuller, Science, Personal Transformation, Dream, History, Social Change/Politics

In his third appearance on The Human Voice, media theorist and science fiction author Paul Levinson shares a fascinating conversation about the timeless relevance of media ecology, technology's role in human progress, and the myths surrounding information overload. Paul reflects on his seminal 1996 article On Behalf of Humanity and its argument that the issue isn't too much information but a lack of organizational tools.   Drawing connections between historical innovations and today's AI landscape, Paul explores the concept of “remedial media”—new technologies that solve problems created by previous ones—and how it applies to challenges like algorithmic bias and deep fakes. From his collaborations with media icons Neil Postman and Marshall McLuhan to his optimistic vision for technology as a force for good, Paul offers insights that resonate across decades.   The episode wraps up with Paul's thoughts on techno-pessimism, the power of storytelling, and a fun recommendation for mystery fans: A Perfect Couple. He also highlights his recent alternate history book, Real Life: An Alternate History of The Beatles, imagining a world where John Lennon was never assassinated.   Key Topics Covered: • Information overload vs. information organization • Remedial media as a framework for technological progress • AI, digital watermarks, and the future of human-machine collaboration • Why techno-pessimism often gains more attention • Recommendations for media and books   Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion that spans history, technology, and the enduring human connection to media.

We launch a new season of Art of Darkness with co-host Abbie Lucas, covering the life and work of the father of media studies: Marshall McLuhan. Get the After Dark episode and more at patreon.com/artofdarkpod or substack.com/@artofdarkpod. twitter.com/artofdarkpod twitter.com/abbielucas twitter.com/kautzmania […]

durée : 00:03:32 - Un monde connecté - par : François Saltiel - Marshall McLuhan, philosophe des médias, défendait en 1969 l'idée que les médias eux-mêmes sont plus importants que les contenus qu'ils véhiculent. Un entretien, réédité sous le titre "Fragment d'un village global", est l'occasion de redécouvrir sa pensée à l'ère de l'intelligence artificielle.

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 402, in which I review Dexter: Original Sin on Paramount+Showtime. Relevant links: written reviews of Dexter: Original Sin 1.1 and 1.2-1.3 (with links to written reviews of all episodes of Dexter: New Blood and all eight seasons of the original Dexter)  audio podcast reviews of Dexter: New Blood 1.1 ... 1.2 ... 1.3 ... 1.4 ... 1.5-1.6 ... 1.7-1.8 ... 1.9-1.10  

Il 17 e 18 settembre 2024 i cercapersone e i walkie-talkies in possesso ai combattenti di Hezbollah, sono stati fatti esplodere nella periferia meridionale di Beirut, nella valle della Bekaa e nel sud del Libano. Quanto accaduto, oltre a dare il via al conflitto tra lo stato dei cedri e Israele a seguito di una strutturata operazione di intelligence sorprendente nella sua articolazione, porta con sè altro rispetto all'efferatezza dell'attacco perpetrato che ha raggiunto sia i miliziani che la cittadinanza inerme. Il livello di crudeltà toccato rappresenta un punto di non ritorno: la violazione dello spazio personale privato legato agli apparecchi digitali che usiamo quotidianamente, la consapevolezza che l'identità personale sia perforabile e raggiungibile da altri, l'ansia e la paura che da ciò derivano, mettono assieme le aberrazioni della datacrazia e l'imminente arrivo dell'era quantistica. L'intreccio tra le vicende ospedaliere, la pianificazione dell'attentato in ambiti di supply chain e delivery, la costruzione dei dispositivi tramutati in armi e l'identificazione di chi e dove sia il nemico, è raccontato dal chirurgo oculista Elias Jaradeh di Beirut, dall'avvocato Stefano Mele che si occupa di diritto delle tecnologie, cybersecurity e data protection, dall'informatico forense Paolo Dal Checcho e dall'accademico Derrick de Kerckhove, erede intellettuale di Marshall McLuhan, autore del recente libro Quantum Ecology [Mit Press].

In this episode, Jerry and Stably discuss The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America by Daniel J. Boorstin, a book that explores the construction of unreality in American media and culture. Jerry introduces the book as his pick and notes its thematic resonance with previous discussions, particularly those around Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. The hosts agree that Boorstin's work predates many of Postman's arguments and, in some ways, anticipates the cultural shift toward media-driven realities.Stably and Jerry unpack Boorstin's central argument that American culture increasingly operates within “mirrors upon mirrors of unreality,” where pseudo-events—artificial happenings staged for media consumption—dominate public perception. Boorstin, writing in the late 1950s and early 1960s, critiques how society becomes incentivized to embrace these fabricated realities, constructing what Jerry calls “castles in the air.” This critique extends across multiple facets of public life, including politics, advertising, and entertainment, all of which blur the line between authenticity and illusion.The discussion touches on Boorstin's seemingly conservative perspective, as he neither explicitly condemns the shift toward pseudo-events nor advocates for a return to a previous era. Instead, he opts to describe the phenomenon with striking clarity, allowing the implications to speak for themselves. This ambiguity prompts Jerry to reflect on Boorstin's ultimate goals or desired outcomes, noting that while the book is critical, it refrains from offering solutions or alternatives.Stably and Jerry also draw connections between Boorstin's work and Marshall McLuhan's theories on media, highlighting the shared observation of media as an environment that reshapes human experience. They discuss how Boorstin's observations remain relevant, despite the book's age, as contemporary media landscapes have only amplified the prevalence and impact of pseudo-events.Throughout the conversation, the hosts emphasize the enduring value of Boorstin's analysis, particularly in an era where digital media and social platforms further complicate notions of authenticity. They reflect on specific examples of pseudo-events in modern society, noting parallels to Boorstin's original case studies and illustrating how the themes of the book continue to manifest today.By the end of the episode, Jerry and Stably underscore the significance of The Image as a foundational critique of media culture. While Boorstin stops short of prescribing change, his work serves as a powerful lens for examining how societies construct and consume manufactured realities. The hosts conclude with a shared appreciation for Boorstin's prescient insights, leaving listeners with a deeper understanding of the book's arguments and their implications for contemporary life.

This election felt like the peak of the TV-ification of politics. There's Trump, of course, who rose to national prominence as a reality-TV character and is a master of visual stagecraft. And while Trump's cabinet picks in his first term were described as out of central casting, this time he wants to staff some positions directly from the worlds of TV and entertainment: Pete Hegseth, his choice to run the Pentagon, was a host on “Fox and Friends Weekend”; his proposed education secretary, Linda McMahon, was the former C.E.O. of W.W.E.; Mehmet Oz, star of the long-running “The Dr. Oz Show,” is his pick to run Medicare and Medicaid; and he's tapped Elon Musk, one of the most powerful figures in American culture, to lead a government efficiency effort. Two years ago, we released an episode that helps explain why politics and entertainment are converging like this. It's with my old Vox colleague Sean Illing, host of “The Gray Area,” looking at the work of two media theorists, Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman, who uncannily predicted what we're seeing now decades ago.And so I wanted to share this episode again now, because it's really worth stepping back and looking at this moment through the lens of the media that's shaping it. In his book “The Paradox of Democracy,” Illing and his co-author, Zac Gershberg, put it this way: “It's better to think of democracy less as a government type and more as an open communicative culture.” So what does our communicative culture — our fragmented mix of cable news, X, TikTok, YouTube, WhatsApp and podcasts — mean for our democracy? This episode contains strong language.Mentioned:“‘Flood the zone with shit': How misinformation overwhelmed our democracy” by Sean Illing“Quantifying partisan news diets in Web and TV audiences” by Daniel Muise, Homa Hosseinmardi, Baird Howland, Markus Mobius, David Rothschild and Duncan J. WattsBook Recommendations:Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil PostmanPublic Opinion by Walter LippmannMediated by Thomas de ZengotitaThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.This episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Rogé Karma. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Rollin Hu, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair. Mixing by Sonia Herrero, Carole Sabouraud and Isaac Jones. Our production team also includes Elias Isquith, Kristin Lin, Jack McCordick and Aman Sahota. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The executive producer of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 401, in which I interview Dan Abella about The Psychedelic Film and Music Festival, NYC, 14 Dec 2024. (Kendall Brown, Operations Manager for the Festival, joins us in the interview.) Relevant links: The Psychedelic Film and Music Festival written interview with me by Evan Levine, in which I discuss Hegel's "spirit of an age" (see 10th question in the interview) Dan Abella's play, "Timothy X's Journey from PTSD to Wholeness," to be performed live at the Festival [scroll down] McLuhan in an Age of Social Media Lioness (streaming on Paramount+)

If there's a Marshall McLuhan for our digital age, then it might be the much published media theorist Douglas Rushoff. One of the founding evangelists of the digital revolution, Rushkoff then became one of the earliest critics of its increasingly market-driven and monopolistic forces. But now, as the zeitgeist has sharply shifted against the digital revolution, Rushkoff has become cautiously optimistic about the potential of AI to improve the world. As he told me when we talked recently in New York City, AI might be what he called “the first native app for the internet”. I'm not exactly sure what this McLuhanesque message means, but it does suggest that today's AI media revolution might not be quite as dismal as most of us fear.Named one of the “world's ten most influential intellectuals” by MIT, Douglas Rushkoff is an author and documentarian who studies human autonomy in a digital age. His twenty books include the just-published Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires, as well as the recent Team Human, based on his podcast, and the bestsellers Present Shock, Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus, Program or Be Programmed, Life Inc, and Media Virus. He also made the PBS Frontline documentaries Generation Like, The Persuaders, and Merchants of Cool. His book Coercion won the Marshall McLuhan Award, and the Media Ecology Association honored him with the first Neil Postman Award for Career Achievement in Public Intellectual Activity. Rushkoff's work explores how different technological environments change our relationship to narrative, money, power, and one another. He coined such concepts as “viral media,” “screenagers,” and “social currency,” and has been a leading voice for applying digital media toward social and economic justice. He serves as a research fellow of the Institute for the Future, and founder of the Laboratory for Digital Humanism at CUNY/Queens, where he is a Professor of Media Theory and Digital Economics. He is a columnist for Medium, and his novels and comics, Ecstasy Club, A.D.D, and Aleister & Adolf, are all being developed for the screen.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 400, in which I review the Beatles '64 documentary that just went up yesterday on Disney+. Here are links to some of the many people and things I discuss in the podcast: my written review of Beatles '64 my 1972 article about  Murray the K in The Village Voice my 1971 article about Paul McCartney in The Village Voice the song I wrote and recorded about Murray the K my podcast reviews of Peter Jackson's The Beatles: Get Back my podcast review of Maestro McLuhan in an Age of Social Media It's Real Life: An Alternate History of The Beatles Evan Levine's 25 November 2024 written interview with me  

Canadian media studies philosopher Marshall McLuhan rose to prominence in the 1960s when he declared, “The Medium is the message.” For McLuhan, it was the medium itself that shaped and controlled "the scale and form of human association and action." We saw this dynamic in full force this year, with podcasts rising to the top of the media landscape during the 2024 presidential election cycle. In this episode of The Sourcing Hero podcast, Host Kelly Barner welcomes back Kris Lance, Vice President and General Manager at Una, for a monthly conversation about current news stories. Kris has experience in multiple industries and has his finger on the pulse of the trends and topics that procurement, sourcing, and supply chain professionals need to be aware of. In this month's discussion, Kris and Kelly talk about why podcasts are so powerful and what their popularity may suggest about today's content preferences:  The advantages podcasting has over traditional media formats and channels What he has learned about podcasting as a monthly guest on The Sourcing Hero for two and a half years His advice for anyone considering appearing as a guest on a podcast for the very first time Links: Kris Lance on LinkedIn Subscribe to “The Sidekick” Episode 189: The Calm? After the Storms feat. Kris Lance Episode 184: Speculating About a 2024 October Surprise with Kris Lance Episode 180: Metacognition - Thinking About Thinking with Kris Lance Episode 176: Fighting off the Impact of Slow Onset Inertia with Kris Lance

  Technological Taylorism: How Modern AI is Reshaping the Future of Work In this episode, we delve into the concept of Technological Taylorism and how the advent of AI and automation is restructuring the workforce. We revisit Frederick Taylor's principles of scientific management and examine their relevance in today's job market. The discussion covers the rise in workplace surveillance, the transformation of jobs into piecemeal tasks, and the increasing vulnerability of freelance and middle management roles. The episode also explores the larger implications of AI on job creation, economic growth, and the potential for a technological singularity. Featuring insights from experts like Paul Daugherty and Yossi Sheffi, this thought-provoking discussion questions the future of labor in an efficient, data-driven world. 00:00 Introduction: Technological Taylorism and the Future of Work 00:32 The Legacy of Frederick Taylor's Scientific Management 01:31 Modern Workforce Surveillance and AI 03:04 The Rise of Freelancers and Automation 05:39 Creative Destruction in the Digital Age 08:13 The Future of Work: Concerns and Predictions 10:24 Conclusion: Human + Machine Paradigm   Technological Taylorism: The Automation of Efficiency and the Future of Work The philosopher and media theorist Marshall McLuhan contends that "we shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us", The idea suggests that we create and adapt to technologies. These technologies, in turn, shape our behaviours, perceptions, and ultimately, our societies. This goes for any technology from the stopwatch to the advanced artificial intelligence.  I hope I am wrong... In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Frederick Taylor introduced a management approach that would fundamentally change the industrial world. With tools as basic as a pen, ledger, and stopwatch, Taylor meticulously observed and recorded the activities of factory workers, aiming to enhance efficiency through what he termed "scientific management." This system dissected every action into its basic elements. Taylor's analysis led to the precise timing and reorganization of each task to maximize speed and efficiency. Initially, these changes led to significant productivity gains, but they also stripped workers of their autonomy and sense of craftsmanship. Understandably, Taylorism reduced skilled artisans to interchangeable cogs in a mechanized process. Fast forward to today, and Taylor's shadow looms large over modern workforce management. Today's management practices have evolved to slice jobs into ever-smaller tasks. In 2019, The Wall Street Journal highlighted a significant shift towards workplace surveillance, labelling employees as "workforce data generators." This marked a new phase in management's scientific approach, now armed with AI-driven tools far beyond Taylor's  stopwatch. The COVID-19 pandemic and the shift to remote work turbocharged the use of these surveillance tools. A 2021 study by Gartner revealed that the adoption of technologies like facial recognition among employers had doubled to 60% during the pandemic, with predictions of continued growth. This surge in monitoring tools reflects a crisis-induced rush towards greater control, reminiscent of Taylor's response to perceived inefficiencies. The narrative has been that a surefire way to protect yourself in an age of AI is to have a complex, human job. However, when you really examine any complex job it is just a Gordian knot of simple tasks, tasks that can be cheese sliced apart. Consider, AI-powered project management software that eliminates middle management by automating tasks. Once it has unbundled jobs into tasks, it then assembles freelance teams. While these freelancers initially benefit, the software soon learns from their work, and gradually replaces them too.  Freelancers are increasingly becoming a significant part of the workforce. A 2022 study by Upwork found that 38% of Americans engaged in...

Guest: Thibault Mathieu, Founder and CEO, Wilkins Avenue AROn LinkedIn | https://www.linkedin.com/in/thibaultmathieu/On Twitter | https://x.com/thibaultmathieu_____________________________Host: Marco Ciappelli, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine [@ITSPmagazine] and Host of Redefining Society Podcast & Audio Signals PodcastOn ITSPmagazine | https://www.itspmagazine.com/itspmagazine-podcast-radio-hosts/marco-ciappelli_____________________________This Episode's SponsorsAre you interested in sponsoring an ITSPmagazine Channel?

Blamison talk with the man, the myth, the legend, Demetrius Sanders, about Oz Perkins' most recent offering, Longlegs (2024). We dig into how the film is set up as a crime procedural and subverts it in just about every way imaginable. We dig into the "brain" of the dolls and its links to Phantasm because why not? All in all, we dissect all of the ways that Longlegs works thematically and technically. So join us for this enthralling discussion. Other things talked about: Aliens, mythmaking, and Marshall McLuhan. Clip: Dead & Breakfast (2004)

The Motivation is the Message. Marshall McLuhan, who was Canadian and had a great name, thought the “medium was the message,” but it was the ‘60s, and apparently he also thought a mustache was a solid move. Anyway, since then media has exploded into a million little messages, and it seems more clear than ever […]

About the Guest: Dr. Mithu Storoni is a University of Cambridge-trained physician, neuroscience researcher, and ophthalmic surgeon. Renowned for her expertise in mental performance and stress management, she advises multinational corporations on optimizing brain function. She is the author of the forthcoming book "Hyperefficient," which explores revolutionary concepts in maximizing the quality of cognitive outputs. Episode Summary: Greg McKeown interviews Dr. Mitu Storoni about her upcoming book "Hyperefficient" and the need to redefine workplace efficiency by prioritizing quality over quantity in the age of AI and automation. Dr. Storoni introduces her framework of three mental "gears" to explain cognitive overload and emphasizes the importance of recognizing one's cognitive state to enhance productivity. The discussion includes practical strategies for managing workloads and improving mental health while navigating the challenges of constant connectivity and modern communication. Key Takeaways: Redefining Efficiency: The traditional definition of efficiency, focused on quantity, is outdated. In the AI era, the focus shifts to quality of output. Historical Context: From the Industrial Revolution to the Knowledge Age, metrics of productivity have evolved, but the need for high-quality, creative thinking has always been key. Impact of Technology: Advanced communication technologies, from the telegraph to the smartphone, have distorted our sense of reality, space, and time. Marshall McLuhan's Insights: The medium changes the users, not just the message. This impacts how we think and interact with the world. Cognitive Overload: The relentless flood of information and the blurring of personal and global events can lead to significant cognitive strain and disorientation. Notable Quotes: "Efficiency now means producing as much as you can of a quantity, but hyperefficiency is about producing quality." – Dr. Mithu Storoni "Our sense of an event taking place is tightly woven into how soon after the event we become aware of it." – Dr. Mithu Storoni "In the medium, you can't see the effect of the medium on you unless you actually step outside." – Dr. Mithu Storoni Resources: Visit Mithu's website. Follow Mithu on X and LinkIn. Preorder Mithu's book Hyperefficient Join my weekly newsletter. Learn more about my books and courses. Join The Essentialism Academy. Follow me on LinkedIn, Instagram, X, Facebook, and YouTube.

Karin Hurt, founder and CEO of Let's Grow Leaders and author of "Powerful Phrases for Dealing with Workplace Conflict," discusses the impact of post-pandemic stress on workplace dynamics. She highlights rising conflict levels based on global surveys, leading to reduced innovation and retention.  Karin introduces her book's "GOAT Phrases" (Greatest Of All Time) - 12 powerful phrases that can be used for effective conflict resolution, focusing on connection, clarity, curiosity, and commitment.  She advises on recognizing when to disengage from conflicts and choosing suitable communication methods. Karin discusses team-building strategies, including mock presidential debates, and distinguishes between organizational and interpersonal conflicts. She emphasizes addressing conflicts within broader organizational contexts and using structured approaches like the "Inspire Method" for accountability conversations.    Key Takeaways [01:42] Karin talks about her new book, "Powerful Phrases for Dealing with Workplace Conflict," is available now. Karin shares an interesting tidbit from her past as a "madrigal singer," a form of Renaissance choral music requiring high collaboration. Additionally, she recounts a remarkable experience of being struck by lightning at age 20, which she humorously attributes to her high energy levels. Karin's insights into leadership and her unique experiences promise a fascinating discussion. [05:21] Karin discusses the importance of effective communication in resolving workplace conflicts. She highlights the challenges of negative work relationships and the research on the rise of conflict after the pandemic. She introduces the concept of "conflict cocktails" which include factors like post-pandemic stress and unclear expectations. Karin also explores the concept of "GOAT" phrases, which are the greatest of all time powerful phrases for conflict resolution. These phrases focus on four dimensions: connection, clarity, curiosity, and commitment. [10:48] Karin dives into the power of phrasing in communication. While words themselves only make up 7% of the impact, phrasing can significantly influence how our message is received. Karin emphasizes that even the most powerful phrases won't work if nonverbal cues contradict the message. Body language and tone are crucial for effective communication. Her book offers specific phrases but acknowledges the importance of adapting them to the situation and remaining open to the conversation. [13:07] Karin shares her insight about David Brooks' book "How to Know a Person" emphasizes the importance of adaptation and overcoming limitations to be successful. This aligns with the executive coaching principle that "what got you here won't get you there." She discusses how to deliver critical feedback effectively using phrases that build connection and curiosity, avoiding accusatory labels that shut down conversations. [15:05] Karin discusses how to move people from complaining to solutions. The key is to understand what the person really wants and to empower them to take control. An example is given of a woman who felt stuck in a corporate culture but was encouraged to focus on her own agency and influence. She also highlights the importance of veterans and the US military.  [19:10] Karin explores the challenging topic of when to recognize and quit a conflict. She reflects on the realization that some conflicts are unresolvable or not worth resolving. Karin suggests evaluating personal well-being and values alignment when deciding whether to continue or disengage from a conflict. She shares poignant examples, including a nurse's decision to leave a toxic work environment despite initial doubts, highlighting the necessity of prioritizing mental health and values alignment in conflict resolution strategies. [22:59] Karin discusses thresholds in workplace conflict, highlighting how remote work has affected communication dynamics. She stresses the importance of choosing appropriate mediums for delicate conversations, emphasizing face-to-face or high-bandwidth methods for critical discussions like terminations. Karin warns against using asynchronous tools like Slack or email, which can inadvertently escalate conflicts by signaling avoidance or indifference. This approach aligns with Marshall McLuhan's theory that "the medium is the message," underscoring the need for thoughtful communication to resolve conflicts effectively. [25:34] Karin critiques common team-building pitfalls. She discusses how activities like golf outings often miss the mark in addressing deeper team issues and can exclude non-participants. She advocates for purposeful team-building aligned with organizational goals and values, emphasizing inclusivity and genuine connection over "forced fun" activities.  [36:02] Karin addresses misconceptions about solving organizational challenges solely through recruiting. She highlights the necessity of ongoing development and support for employees, citing Gallup's findings on low engagement levels. Emphasizing empathy and curiosity, Karin advocates for understanding employees' emotional states to enhance communication and productivity. She stresses the importance of clear expectations and sensitive responses in fostering a positive workplace environment, urging leaders to actively support their teams' growth and well-being. Karin shares her favorite powerful phrase, "What would a successful outcome do for you?" highlighting its ability to uncover deeper motivations in conversations. [39:50] And remember, peace is not absence of conflict. It is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means. - Ronald Reagan   Quotable Quotes “We have four dimensions of effective collaboration or better workplace conflict: Connection. Are we connected as human beings? Clarity. Do we have a shared understanding of success? Curiosity. Are we genuinely interested in one another's perspectives and what's possible? And then commitment. Do we have a shared agreement?” “Encourage courageous conversations.” "When you avoid the conflict, you lose out on the innovation and all of the problem solving that comes when people feel confident, have the psychological safety to really show up and share what they're thinking." "Most people have more power in their circumstances than they think." "Encourage people that they have more power than they think in most circumstances." "There is a lot of money wasted on leadership development and team building that's not purposeful." "A lot of times we run around thinking we're influenced and we don't realize how much influence we have." "If you did not hold somebody accountable and you let them be a bad performer, you are not being kind to anybody in that scenario." "Show up curious in the conversation and move to commitment." Resources Mentioned The Leadership Podcast | Sponsored by | Rafti Advisors. LLC | Self-Reliant Leadership. LLC | Let's Grow Leaders Website |   Karin hurt | LinkedIn | Karin Hurt X (Twitter |   This is the book mentioned in this episode