I appreciate your answer and your encouragement, thanks.
> The concept of an "information ecology" is very much like an activity
> system. We define it as "people, practices, values and technologies" in a
> local setting. Information Ecologies is a trade book, so we had to come up
> with a metaphor that evokes a more emotional response in a familiar idiom
> than the somewhat dry "activity system."
It sounds very effective considering the addressed audience. The
awareness of both designer and users in respect of the compatibility
of technology and use is extremely necessary. An awareness that is
sure lacking and has to be fostered.
> The book is basically an argument for finding a middle ground between
> technophilia and technophobia, with emphasis on being aware of the rhetoric
> of inevitability in technology discourse (from both ends of the technology
> love-hate spectrum).
Nietzsche would be certainly happy considering his invocation of the
Greek gods Apollo and Dionysus to designate two basic impulses, the
former associated with order, the latter with disorder, among other
categories. Michel Serres brings another one, Hermes, the messenger of
the gods, but that is another story that may complement their
relationship.
> The idea of the information ecology is to get local groups
> of people to examine their own practices and values and then make their own
> decisions about technology use based on their local concerns.
> Information ecologies are of course part of a larger world. But it's also a
> relative term: Al Gore can play in a bigger information ecology than the
> high school students studying digital photography. The metaphor is intended
> to get people to reflect on their own spheres of influence, and to act
> within them.
Their spheres of influence can be very large though. William Rees,
from British Columbia, Canada, has develop a concept called
"ecological footprint" (see "Our Ecological Footprint", Mathis
Wackernagel & William Rees, New Society Publishers, 1996). "Ecological
footprint" is the world surface, including land and water, required to
sustain a human community at a certain level material standard
indefinitely. What is shown with this is that the current use of
energy (essergy as they define) in the "developed" world far exceeds
the world's capacity to recuperate. What is most interesting is that
the excess of energy is being extracted from the "third world".
A cultural comparison is difficult because the above concept only
deals with the relation between the necessary resources and the
available sustainable ones. And when dealing with mediated action,
division of labor, and community practices, things are more
complicated and challenging. But it is enough to show the dependence
of the local on the distant. For example computers are as cheap as
they are also because wages are lower in the places they are
manufactured. The majority of technology designers have not been
successful because have not considered the distant setting in which
technology is used, distant from the their community of practice, but
local from the user's ones. In other words, the local is in a
dialogical relationship with the distant. The form of relationship is
what makes the associated praxes empowering or oppressing.
Thanks again for your answer,
Luiz