Module 7 Technobiophilia Mini-Assignment — Gabby Keiran

 For this mini-assignment, I chose to work with the first reading in our module, “Nature and Wellbeing in the Digital Age: How to feel better without logging off”, by Dr. Sue Thomas. This short except from Thomas’ novel delves into the nuanced relationship between technology and nature, exploring how modern lifestyles often prioritize digital connectivity at the expense of experiencing the natural world. The sample suggests that while technology can offer immense benefits as an integral facet of our daily lives, there’s a growing awareness of the importance of maintaining a connection with nature for our overall well-being.

I was drawn to this reading for its tone and the empathy it grants readers, as evidenced in the foreword where Thomas states, “I wrote [this book] for people who love their wired lives and the natural world but worry they can't have both. You can. Don't fret. Don't feel guilty.” Thomas relates to her readers on a personal level, suggesting her understanding of the plight of attempting to cross the rift between nature and convenience in a technologically-centred society. 

I experimented with this excerpt in “WordClouds”, an online word/tag cloud creator, and produced a word cloud representative of the most utilized concepts and words in Thomas’ sample. The following is the image of said generation:

I found this exercise interesting, not only for the words that were emphasized in this representation, but also for the dialogue created between nature vs. technology as a result of the exercise itself. Thomas’ own writing can be interpreted as her own “organic” creation, in that it began from her own mind and evolved through the manipulation of her body and thoughts. In adapting her words, and simplifying them, through a digital framework, we see the “digital” component of her research playing a part in the creation process. Thomas frequently mentions technology within the sample of her novel, and in bringing in this digital collaboration the “technology” seems almost personified in a way, as if Thomas were referring to her peer rather than to a foreign, inorganic entity.

In order to properly understand Dr. Thomas’ perspectives, I relied on an interview where she further explains the concept of “technobiophilia”; the connection between humans, technology, and nature. In this interview, Dr. Thomas highlights how people are increasingly accessing nature through technology, explaining the positive impacts of this connection (e.g., reducing stress and promoting well-being). She touches on innovations in virtual reality that could augment our experience with nature through the lens of technology, which she utilizes as a case study in her novel, “Technobiophilia: Nature and Cyberspace”. 

Thomas’s emphasis on the ways we can not only integrate organic design, but natural environments, into our digital lives is what made her body of research stand out to me. In her work, she discusses how virtual reality (VR) technology can be used to simulate environments, which, though she presents the concept in an optimistic way, still rings “dystopian” to me, personally. I think of the ways these technologies might be implemented in the future, not only because humanity “can”, but because we “must”. This idea is repeated quietly in the word cloud, with the addition of “need outdoors” at the bottom of the image. The word cloud itself has certain instances where rather desperate-sounding combinations are juxtaposed against more positive associations. “Just try”, seen in the right of the image, bolder than other phrases, seems to me a plea rather than an excited gesture.

It interested me that, though Dr. Thomas presents an optimistic view of the possibilities of technobiophilia, the technology itself translated this message into something of a much more sombre tone. The addition of phrases such as “good guilt”, on the left hand side in dark purple, surrounded by conflicting words such as “disconnect” and “reconnect” elicited thoughts of what our responsibility, as organic human beings, is when facing this new arena of nature and technology. Just as the tone of the word cloud seems to war between the light and dark, the concept of merging nature with technology has both exciting and frightening potential, which should both be weighed equally to ensure this research corresponds with the collective goals of communities, both locally and globally.

Overall, I believe that the word cloud aligns with this duality, just as Dr. Thomas integrates both these potentials in her own research. In her work, Thomas highlights innovative developments that can provide immersive experiences, facilitate outdoor exploration, foster community engagement, and promote environmental awareness, underscoring the positive impact of technobiophilia on human well-being. Her stance seems to be one of preparation, saying “technology is here to stay, and we’re going to have to work with it rather than around it”. Her emphasis on its ability to reduce stress, improve mental health, inspire creativity and cultivate a sense of wonder for the natural world shows how the merging of nature and technology can lead to meaningful benefits for individuals and society as a whole. 

Opposingly, Thomas acknowledges the potential pitfalls of such integration. In her work, she raises concerns about the over-reliance on digital experiences at the expense of real interactions with nature (which mimic many parents’ concerns regarding their children’s “addiction” to video games and digital media). She cautions against the commodification of nature in a similar manner that the word cloud seems to, emphasizing the potential for disconnect in both communities and the natural environment. Additionally, she explores the ironic implications for the ways that such digital technologies can harm our natural environment instead of integrating it into modern lifestyles (e.g., electronic waste, energy consumption, etc). 

Overall, the use of the word cloud seemed to summarize not only the overarching themes of Thomas’ research, but also the tonal implications of technobiophilia as a whole. I can see further uses for such a tool in both academic and personal contexts, when examining a source as useful to your research, or critically examining media biases and important context clues that may have been omitted (purposefully or not) from a piece of media.

 Sources

Thomas, Sue, (2018). Nature and Wellbeing in the Digital Age: How to feel better without logging off. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B06XS85C26/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=sl1&ta g=technobiop08b-21&linkId=212ce712bbeec36f26677071ec9f8907

Thomas, Sue, (2013). “A Place So New that Some Things Still Lack Names,” Technobiophilia.

YouTube. (2021, April 17). Technobiophilia - life, nature and Technology. YouTube. Retrieved December 1, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcb7debi4wE 

Sue Thomas, (2013). "Next nature: 'nature caused by people',” Journal of Professional Communication, 3.2, Article 5. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/jpc/vol3/iss2/5