Well well well, look who's back! That internet hobo…
The other day, I was having a chat with one of my hookups (okay okay, my only hookup, whatever...) about humanity's progress regarding the digital world. He claimed that since the invention of the mobile phone, nothing has had a real impact on our society, not even the internet as we know it. According to him, the internet has reached its potential, and we shouldn't expect anything greatly paradigm-shifting from it. One of his observation was that no matter how far the internet and the metaworld in general (aka digital world, non-physical man-made world) progress, it hasn't had much significant impact on the physical world. And because of its dependency on hardware and other tangible equipment, the physical world will therefore always will always forestall its intangible mini-me, from very far ahead.
My opinion, on the other hand, was that he underestimated the digital world. I've recently started dipping my toes into the magical realm of cryptocurrencies and blockchain shenanigans (or blockchainanigans), therefore becoming increasingly aware of the internet's mutation and the new realities this brings to our - physical - world. Like giving so much more independence and opportunities for individuals to realize themselves financially, without having to bring in a third party. Another observation I shared with the hookup was that yes, the internet has been around for a bit and it seems like more could have been done (let's leave the military forces and the technologies they don't share with the rest of us out of this conversation), but never has the physical world been connected so widely, intensely and instantly. Actually, its consequences on the physical world, whether through changing the existing or changing our ways of designing what is to come, are very much present. Here is one real-life example you can refer to whenever you have a similar conversation with an acquaintance.
I like cities. Which is a fortunate thing, since I am an urban planner in the making. I think cities are a great environment for observing all that is wrong with the world, although in a very condensed and concentrated manner. And for over more than a decade or so, since the big boom of the internet as we know it today, cities have become almost like independent entities from the countries and nation-states they are a part of. New York, Tokyo, London, to name a few, have grown into their own identities so much, that it has become difficult to see the future of globalisation solely from a nation-based perspective. Cities are the future, the biggest and soon enough, they could become the only stages where being seen, existing and expressing ourselves will matter. But how does the global meta-connection concretely impact our physical world, and how is it becoming a prerequisite to its design?
I currently live in Brussels, and it is heartbreaking and infuriating to witness how little politicians give a fuck when it comes to urban development for the sake of, well, decent urban development. Of course, this growing phenomena can be seen in most cities, but Brussels is particular in that it is located in a complex country with complex political and administrative structures. And of course, it being the capital of the European Union doesn't really help either. So that adds to the pressure of looking good. But this pressure would not be the same if it weren't for the metaworld and all the digital gossip and shaming and idealizing that has been going on for a while (for instance, have you heard of the Paris Syndrome?).
Because I am lazy, and because I've already written about this topic, I think it's appropriate for me to share with you an extract of my first year masters' thesis, that I dedicated to urban governance and the knowledge-driven economy (which is very tightly linked to the growth of the internet).
First, here is a passage on understanding the new metaworld vs physical world paradigm shift:
"Our societies have experienced many paradigm shifts, whether social, scientific, cultural or economic. When analyzing the changes in production cores from which economic growth and prosperity may result, one can observe different eras of our history and pinpoint the changes that triggered the end of an economic paradigm and the beginning of a new one. [...] When looking at the jump to 'informationalism', for instance, one can see that only recently computers and metaphysical produce created a new part of our economic market. This new period of 'informationalism' can be defined by certain discontinuities, such as wage assessment and money form. In other words, there is a discontinuity in the relation between work and wage, and money does not only come in bill form anymore. Goods and money do not have to be materialized (e-money, domains, internet access), and abstract notions (such as knowledge and information) have become commodified. We have indeed witnessed many discontinuities, yet in the end those changes only greatly affect the form and presentation of our economic paradigm. On the other hand, continuities that link Fordism to today's economic period are structural and philosophical roots or attitudes that find themselves very much complexified by the globalizing and metaphysical-izing process through which our economies have undergone."
Now, let's dive into why the metaworld impacts the physical (the how lies in the execution of the why):
"Another concept that is very much present in Jessop's explanation of post-Fordism is the contradiction between space and place. With the transformation of knowledge as an immaterial wage labor produce the physical locus of such output loses its relevance. In Jessop's words, "it is capital in these abstract moments that is most easily disembedded from specific places and thereby freed to 'flow' freely through space and time" (Boyd & Ngo, 2005, p.32). And if knowledge (as a valuable product) can become disjoined from any physical place, it enters a metaphysical space that can generate economic growth and still produce a certain image. The new flexibility of knowledge as an economic commodity means that cities can represent themselves and feed their image both from their physical territory and intangible space. This discontinuity that greatly defines the beginning of the knowledge-driven economic period can be both beneficial and dangerous for the development of cities. For instance, the needs and priorities of a given territory can be overshadowed by the potential of its space; for the attractiveness and economic growth that come out of a well-advertised space is oftentimes favored over a city's territorial and social needs."
Fortunately for us, Brussels overflows with great examples of how the physical place can easily be relegated to the back for the good of its international image. Let's talk about the brand new museum of European History, a project as unnecessary as unwanted. 52 million fucking euros to ruin yet another piece of Belgian architectural heritage. How can this not be obvious, and fundamentally paradoxical and hypocritical, to have a museum of European history deny the architectural history of its host city AND destroy the patrimonial value of the very building it plans to making profit from? Bruxellisation is not over yet, and the eyes of Brussels' city leaders are turning greener and greener.
Although I am a very opinionated person, especially when it comes to politics and public spaces, I must say that the political leaders of Brussels make it very hard to welcome their urban development propositions with open arms. We must take into consideration the changes in paradigms that affect our sense of priorities and space-making strategies, if we want to build truly resilient cities. How can we make sure that an activity is profitable, both economically and socially? How do we find the balance between benefits for the physical place and for the meta space? I guess we'll have to wait for after the first round of quite definitely physical Friday beer whether an answer has been found.
