I was watching an interview with Kurt Vonnegut on Now last night, and the host called Mr. Vonnegut a luddite, to which he heartily agreed. He described the experience of going out and buying an envelope in order to mail a letter, rather than either emailing it or buying a stack of envelopes so that he wouldn't have to be troubled with going out and finding an envelope whenever he decided to write a letter. He went out and said hello to a woman walking her dog, he talked to other people, farted around and generally had a really nice time. The acquisition of an envelope was simply the excuse for him to go out and interact with the rest of the human race.

He didn't mention what he thought of Facebook, if he ever saw it. I think he would approve of the capacity for creating your own little gang, your own little extended family of friends. He knew that being alone was no way to live, and that the essence of living, as well as the best survival plan, is to connect with like-minded people and create overlapping networks of people you can rely on when times are tough and have fun with when times are good. I think he would have objected to the impersonal nature of it, and to how little effort it takes to call somebody your Facebook friend. He would have opted for going over to their house, meeting them and spending time with them.

Can you rely on your networks? Can you call up your Facebook friends when you need help? If you're planning a party, will they all show up? Probably not. It is, however, easier to let them know that there is a party though, right? If they can't be there, you can still share the experience with them and still share a connection with them about something they were unable to attend. It is a lot easier to do with your online friends than with a gang of luddites.

I hear a lot of complaints that people on Facebook are just farting around. So, what's wrong with that? Farting around is how some of the greatest things in life happen.

Ah, Google, where the motto is simply "Don't be evil." Is it possible that 10 years in, the organization is more likely to hire the likes of Dr. No and Blofeld than that do-gooder James Bond? (And who are we to talk at Social Edge, when we have just added the nefarious Dr. O to our roster of Evil Genius bloggers.)

Okay, I highly doubt it, and not just because megalomaniacs have such a hard time playing nice with others. It is hard not to start thinking that way when you hear that Google is deploying their own data satellite (sort of) and have filed a patent for a fleet of floating data centers that would host the world's biggest repository of human knowledge out in international waters. And there's the little matter of Google Maps Street View to be considered as well.



I mean, has anyone checked to see if Sergey and Larry have adopted matching white persian cats?

It's easy to think that just because Google is huge, it is going to succumb to the temptations of the marketplace and become evil. It is also quite easy to take a look at the good that comes from Google and its associated technologies and think 'pshaw! How can a company that enables so many cool and altruistic things be evil?' The truth, however, probably lies somewhere in between.

The notion that companies have become so anthropomorphic in our societies as to be viewed as evil or benevolent is in and of itself a bit worrisome. Same goes for nations. Both Google and (your country here) are more complex than that, as they are made up of a multitude of individuals. Some individuals may be evil, others benevolent. What's the ratio of good to evil? Who has the upper hand? Can a culture - national, corporate or otherwise - be evil?