Joey Eschrich

Excerpt: Q+A with Kim Stanley Robinson

October 17, 2014 in Hieroglyph

Kim Stanley RobinsonEarlier today, the online hub for The Arizona Republic newspaper and Arizona’s 12 News, published a Q+A with Kim Stanley Robinson, a dear friend of Project Hieroglyph, a leading proponent of utopian thinking in science fiction, and one of the speakers at our Hieroglyph launch event in Phoenix on October 22. A brief excerpt:

Q: As a sci-fi writer, what got you interested in writing about the distant past?

A: To me they’re part of the same project, because if you write science fiction, you’re always asking what can human beings become in the future. And to answer that, you have to immediately think, well, what are we now and how did we become what we are now? I have been for a long time interested in looking backward to the Paleolithic, because there are some really extraordinary things that happened in the time. I guess the main one I would describe as a kind of paradox. We lived using, as far as we can tell, pretty much the same tools and the same lifestyle, doing the same things all the time, and yet during that time our brain grew to be like three times bigger than the start of that period. So what we were doing in that period was clearly basic to humanity, because it made us.

Check out the full piece at, and we hope to see you at the event on October 22! Robinson is also giving a free lecture at Changing Hands Bookstore in Downtown Phoenix on Friday, October 24 on the Chauvet Cave paintings and exploring the minds of our Paleolithic ancestors.

Joey Eschrich is the editor and program manager at the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University. He earned his bachelor's degree in Film and Media Studies in 2008 and his master's degree in Gender Studies in 2011, both from ASU.

Can Science Fiction Spur Science Innovation?

October 17, 2014 in Press

Pacific Standard

Joey Eschrich is the editor and program manager at the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University. He earned his bachelor's degree in Film and Media Studies in 2008 and his master's degree in Gender Studies in 2011, both from ASU.

Interview: Jathan Sadowski on the Future of Cities

October 14, 2014 in Hieroglyph

Earlier this fall I sat down with Arizona State University’s Jathan Sadowski, a writer on technology and society and a researcher on the future of cities. This interview is the third in our series of deep dives with creative thinkers from a variety of different backgrounds. You can read the other entries here.

Note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Joey Eschrich, Project Hieroglyph: Can you start by telling us a little bit about yourself?

Jathan Sadowski: Currently I’m a Ph.D. student in the Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology program at Arizona State University (ASU), which is part of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes. I’m also affiliated with the Center for Nanotechnology in Society and the Frankenstein Bicentennial Project at ASU. I have a master’s degree in applied ethics, also from ASU, and my undergraduate degree is from the Rochester Institute of Technology, where I started off as a polymer chemistry major but after a couple years I shifted focus to political philosophy, sustainability, ethics, and the philosophy of technology.

My primary research interest is cities and urban systems, and my interest in that grew out of working with researchers from the Center for Nanotechnology in Society on a project called Futurescape City Tours, which is a participatory public engagement project about urban technology and the future of cities. That project revolved around taking participants on an urban walking tour of their city—it took place in a handful of cities around the country—as a way of deliberating about the role of sociotechnical systems in urban life, especially the “invisible” infrastructural technologies that are often taken for granted.

I’m currently working on my dissertation, which is about “Smart Cities” and how information and communication technologies are influencing and shaping new forms of urbanism.

JE: You also do a lot of writing for popular publications, right? Can you tell us more about that, and maybe about a couple of recent articles you’ve written?

JS: I do write for a number of different popular outlets, including Slate, Wired, The New Inquiry, and others. I do that because it’s a way to reach a broader and wider audience with ideas about politics, social justice, and technology—and I think there is always more room for people to be thinking in a serious way about those issues and trying to influence the public discourse. So over time I’ve started thinking of myself as less of a technology writer, and more of a political writer who cares about technology.

U.S. Army, used under a Creative Commons license:

U.S. Army, Creative Commons:

In July I had a piece in Al Jazeera America about the emerging political economy around biometrics. We’ve seen a rapid expansion and implementation of technologies like facial recognition and iris or fingerprint scanning—ways of identifying or verifying people’s identities through some sort of biological characteristic. This allows for the creation, storage, and sale of somatic, bodily data. All of a sudden people are able to be broken apart into hyper-specific streams of data, which can be valuable commodities to marketers and to governments. We’ve all heard about Big Data and the data economy, but maybe we need to start thinking about the face economy or the iris economy or the gait economy.

Also in July The Baffler published a piece I wrote about the myth of the “digital native.” I looked at the history and use of that term and the vast set of faulty or unfounded assumptions that are baked into it, as well as who is propagating it and profiting from it. It turns out that the main proponents of the concept of these “digital natives” are education technology consultants and gurus and proprietors. Their narrative is that all of a sudden you have this whole new generation of students who are much more comfortable and productive when they’re plugged in online than when they’re sitting in a classroom, and how are these un-savvy “digital immigrant” teachers ever going to educate the next generation if they’re stuck in the old analog world? The problem, though, is that the moral panic these profiteers stoke mostly benefits them, and not the students and teachers.

JE: In addition to all of this great work for the popular press, you’re writing a dissertation on “Smart Cities.” What is a Smart City?

JS: It’s funny—every time someone finds out that I’m working on Smart Cities, inevitably their first question is “What is a Smart City?” And I don’t really have a neat, pat answer, because a major thrust of my research is looking at the narratives and discourses around Smart Cities. There isn’t a dictionary definition, and this is a very contested field right now with a lot of actors, from government agencies and policy analysts to technology reporters and corporations. Just like with the “digital native,” there is a lot of power behind the definition of a buzzword like “Smart City,” and the definition that wins out will do a lot to shape the future of actual cities.

An important underlying commonality in the definitions floating around now is that Smart Cities merge information and communication technologies—things like sensors, mobile computing, surveillance and data gathering apparatuses—with urban environments. Of course, how these technologies will be used, and to what end, is another question entirely, and a hotly contested one.

JE: What kinds of Smart Cities exist today? Is there a shining example?

Anti-Smart City graffiti in Rio de Janeiro. Photo by Paul Keller/Flickr, used under a Creative Commons license:

Anti-Smart City graffiti in Rio de Janeiro, by Paul Keller, Creative Commons:

JS: Existing Smart Cities today take a number of forms. The first is the retrofitted Smart City, where initiatives are implemented in existing cities, layered on top of existing infrastructure, to make the cities “smarter” in one way or another. In Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil, they’ve built this big central control center that is constantly monitoring the city through surveillance arrays and sensors tracking things like traffic patterns, crime, energy use, and so forth. This is a very security-oriented version of the Smart City, but the endpoint is that the city is networked and connected in such a way that it can be monitored as one big industrial system. Importantly, a lot of the hardware and software is built by U.S. technology corporations. In the case of Rio, IBM was the main actor who developed most of the underlying technology.

A second type of retrofitted Smart City is oriented primarily towards efficiency—cutting costs, being more sustainable, cutting down on things like utility costs and transit times. New York City has implemented a number of initiatives that, rather than securitizing the city, are aimed at making all of the different flows of the city run more smoothly: traffic, infrastructure, water, utilities. This involves using data analytics, collecting and analyzing massive amounts of data about the city. Just like with Rio, the narrative is that the city is an urban system, a technical or industrial gestalt. The goal is to quantify the chaos of urban life in order to make tweaks that reduce and control it, to create a cleaner and more efficient system.

Then you have top-down Smart Cities that are built from nothing. The most well known example of this is Songdo in

Songdo, South Korea, by Dongho Kim, Creative Commons:

Songdo, South Korea, by Dongho Kim, Creative Commons:

South Korea, although it is yet to be “brought online.” The idea here is that instead of layering information and communication technologies on top of existing urban infrastructure, the technology is built in as a fundamental feature of all aspects of the city’s design and development. I would argue that Songdo is as much Cisco Systems’ city as it is South Korea’s, because they have most of the contracts for the hardware and software that power it.

In this built-from-nothing model, you’re looking at an urban environment where every single aspect is monitored and controlled in very specific and granular ways.

The key thing to think about in terms of implications is where to draw boundaries about how information is collected, how it is used, and who has access to it. Of course it’s helpful to have a sensor on the side of a building that is able to detect how weather is affecting that building’s durability and structural integrity. But if that sensor is then connected to a massive, seamless web of other sensors and all of that is being closely and actively monitored and tweaked and scrutinized, that’s a different story entirely. There’s a gestalt in that the whole of all of the sensors in a city is much greater than the sum of its parts.

JE: No one sensor by itself is “the problem,” or presents a particular threat, but if you take the whole system as a unit, it becomes more eerie.

JS: Right.

JE: So it’s easy to see why this idea of the Smart City is attractive to citizens and governments: more efficiency, more security. What are we not thinking about or talking about enough? Where are the blind spots in our image of the Smart City?

JS: I don’t think enough people are thinking seriously about how the boundaries between these urban technologies and the people and bodies within them are starting to blur. Part of what I’m working on in my own research is trying to think about this connection among the city, the human body, and technology in a different way, specifically using Donna Haraway’s ideas about the cyborg as a lens.

We have to think about interfaces—points of connection between people and our cities. You don’t really live in a city; it’s not a passive relationship. You live with the city and you live through the city. Being in a specific city fundamentally changes who you are, the way you think, and how you can live your life. Cities have very fundamental effects on us, when we interact with them and they simultaneously interact with us.

The boundaries are not as discrete as we think. We tend to think, “well, there’s technology over there, there’s the city all around me, and then there’s me, complete in myself.” But in reality those boundaries are blurred—and these sensors and surveillance technologies just make those connections, those interpenetrations more obvious.

So the term I’m using to think through this is “cyborg urbanization”—a term that comes from some of the newer literature in urban studies and political ecology—which pays careful attention to these boundaries, these frontiers or points of contact, and tries to incorporate an understanding of relationships and interfaces into the way we design cities and the technologies that we build into them. The key outcome is to design cities that amplify and emanate the values we have as people: human agency and autonomy, the right to move through the city freely, the ability to flourish.

JE: How can we think hopefully about the future of cities, using these ideas you’ve been developing? What is an image of the future of cities that are designed with attention to the values you just talked about?

JS: It’s not enough just to think about these interfaces and boundaries critically; we also need normative and ethical principles. I think that a hopeful vision of a future city would have to attend to what urban studies scholars call “the right to the city,” which is a normative principle, or even a tagline or slogan that says that city dwellers should have a right to make choices and control the cities they live in. This sounds straightforward but it’s quite radical when you apply it to every aspect of a city. The right to the city concept means that people would have a say in every aspect of what is called the “urban metabolism”—all of the things that flow in and out of a city, including commerce, capital, labor, energy, water, people, knowledge, institutions.

The geographer David Harvey, in a punchy way, gets at the essence of “the right to the city,” what it entails, and why it’s important:

The question of what kind of city we want cannot be divorced from that of what kind of social ties, relationship to nature, lifestyles, technologies and aesthetic values we desire. The right to the city is far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city.

I believe that information and communication technologies have a big part to play in this future. When I write about Smart Cities I’m often suspicious of the way that the technology is used to control and monetize people and communities, but it’s not that these technologies are inherently good or bad. It’s a question of politics: who has authority and power over the technology, how is it used and interpreted, and why. Are sensors being used to create a city where the residents are easier to monitor and control, or where their information is being turned into a revenue stream for corporations or other entities? Or are they being used in a more democratic way where people are able to access the data on their own and use it to enrich their lives?

JE: Is the recent movement for governments to make more data public and open a promising development for you?

JS: Simply making data open and available doesn’t go far enough. You can have open access data or open source technologies at the city level, but that will have little or no effect if people aren’t able to understand it and use it. Data needs to be designed in a way that makes it easy for citizens to actually use it and then in a meaningful way influence how the data is used and policy is derived from it. It’s not enough just to have open access as a principle; it needs to have actionable results for the people that governments are supposed to be there to serve.

JE: Right. Information literacy and accessibility need to be factored in, or else you just have massive reams of data that is inscrutable to most people.

JS: That’s right, but it’s not just a question of literacy, because that puts the onus on the individual city dweller to increase their literacy and seek out additional education and training. We used to have this idea of governance and government where the public sector was there to, first and foremost, actually help and aid the public as a whole—rather than to create and maintain markets and profitable business environments for the private sector. Governments should have the obligation to not just throw open the vault to data, but actually design it and make it available in ways that are actually helpful to people. The onus is on the people in power to make that data accessible, not for us to adjust to the way they have it formatted and packaged.

Too often the people benefiting from open government data are big technology corporations, which now have access to huge free troves of data that can be used and manipulated in any number of ways. But that’s the thing—it often takes the infrastructure and abilities of a large corporation to actually make use of this information.

JE: What story has inspired you most in thinking through these issues about Smart Cities and the future of cities?

Ghost in the Shell posterJS: Ghost in the Shell is a mid-1990s anime science fiction movie that really engages with questions of the cyborg, and also depicts the future of the city in really interesting ways. The film features a cyborg city where people not only have a technological body but are actually able to interface with and reconfigure the urban environment.

I’ve read some quotes from one of the lead designers and animators, and he talks about the exact ideas we’ve been discussing—the boundaries and interfaces among people, technologies, and cities. He uses the metaphor of a spider and its web: we create this huge system that is interconnected and networked and encompasses everything, but the human isn’t the spider that constructs and controls and oversees the web. Instead, each of us is just a thread in the web: we can become engulfed by the systems we create.

Ghost in the Shell’s city is very much along the lines of what I’ve started calling “Frankenstein’s Metropolis”: a situation where the things we create rise up and start to control us, fight back against us, and encompass us within their complexity. And so the master doesn’t always remain the master. The creator doesn’t remain the creator.

Editor’s Note: The Hieroglyph anthology features two visions of the future of cities: Madeline Ashby’s “By the Time We Get To Arizona” and Annalee Newitz’s “Two Scenarios for the Future of Solar Energy.”

Joey Eschrich is the editor and program manager at the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University. He earned his bachelor's degree in Film and Media Studies in 2008 and his master's degree in Gender Studies in 2011, both from ASU.

Sci-Fi Writers Urge Strapped Researchers to Keep Dreaming

October 13, 2014 in Press

The Chronicle of Higher Education

Joey Eschrich is the editor and program manager at the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University. He earned his bachelor's degree in Film and Media Studies in 2008 and his master's degree in Gender Studies in 2011, both from ASU.

Peter Thiel Is Wrong About the Future

October 8, 2014 in Press

Bloomberg View

Joey Eschrich is the editor and program manager at the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University. He earned his bachelor's degree in Film and Media Studies in 2008 and his master's degree in Gender Studies in 2011, both from ASU.

Interview: Sean Lally, Architect

October 7, 2014 in Hieroglyph

Earlier this fall, I sat down with architect Sean Lally to discuss his Big Idea: how architecture can take advantage of energy, and not just matter, as a building material. This interview is the second in our series of deep dives with creative thinkers from a variety of different backgrounds. You can read the first entry with complex systems scientist Sam Arbesman here. To see more samples of Sean’s work and learn more about his book, The Air from Other Planets, check out this Hieroglyph blog post from September 2014. 

Note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Joey Eschrich, Project Hieroglyph: Can you start by telling us about yourself?

Sean Lally: I have a design office called WEATHERS in Chicago. I’m educated as an architect and landscape architect, and that has played a role in how I think about the materials available that make space. The focus of my work and research is to explore the creation of new spaces and how those spaces enable and shape the interactions of the people that use them.

JE: Tell me a little bit about the last major project you worked on.

"Wanderings," Sean Lally, WEATHERS LLC

“Wanderings,” Sean Lally, WEATHERS LLC

SL: Right now I’m working on two seemingly very different approaches to the same project. I’m building a series of large models and stage sets that I’m photographing to produce detailed high-res images that depict a particular spatial and social scene. These scenes demonstrate both the new shapes architecture can have with energy as a primary building material, as well as the social interactions and repercussions for people using them. Simultaneously, I’m building working prototypes of the technologies embedded in the photos that would make them feasible. Fictions with footnotes, you could say!

JE: How did you decide to become an architect?

SL: I really have no idea. I went into landscape architecture because I liked plants and biology coupled with design. After working in that for a few years, I realized more opportunities might exist in architecture to really push the design side of the discussion. But now, my work is now as rooted in landscapes and our outdoor environments as it is in architecture. I think the greatest opportunity today is in addressing space and architecture through the lens of the landscape and crises affecting our environment as a result of climate change.

JE: What is the main argument of your book The Air From Other Planets?

SL: World environments are changing, and simultaneously, the human body is continually being engineered, from immunization to the enhancement of our eyesight and other senses. These might seem like two separate events, but as an architect, what it means is that the materials that make up our surroundings and how the human body interacts and senses them are both in play.

In the past, architects manipulated matter to make steel, glass, and concrete, which gave us new novel spaces, but the human body always remained the same. We were learned more about it: how the eye works, what low frequencies do to the ear, and so forth, but we weren’t tuning our bodies to the spaces we inhabit. Today, both the built environment and the human sensorium can be designed simultaneously; one doesn’t necessarily predetermine the other.

This is an important conversation to have because the climates and environments of our world are changing, and so are our bodies. For life on Earth to continue forward, it’s unreasonable to believe we can simply preserve what we currently have now. For humanity to live sustainably and responsibly, both Earth’s environments and the human body will have to artificially evolve together. And I’m interested in exploring what the technological and aesthetic implications could be.

I’m interested in making energy…a building material like steel or concrete and making new and novel spaces and shapes with it.

JE: How do you define “material energies,” a term you use several times in the book?

SL: Architects work with materials that build spaces and define boundaries: things like steel, concrete, and glass. Each has its own proclivities, which effect what that space looks like, and the shapes it can take: a tall tower, an enormous stadium, a transparent, modernist house. Energy in architecture is generally seen as a fuel for simply heating, cooling, or lighting up an existing building design.

I’m interested in making energy—electromagnetic, thermal, acoustic, chemical—a building material like steel or concrete and making new and novel spaces and shapes with it. This definition of energy also includes the social and political interactions that emerge, both intentionally and unintentionally, from those shapes and spaces. We’re not starting from scratch here. Energy is already something that kind of courses through our lives. We just need to build on it.

JE: How can we conceptualize architecture as working with the energy around it, instead of confining it or keeping it out?

SL: The best way to do this is to give energy shape. This is why I’m doing the photographs and design speculations while simultaneously developing the underlying technology. If something doesn’t have a shape or aesthetic you can describe or articulate, it’s difficult to give it value. Energy is essentially invisible at the moment, except in extreme conditions. As a fuel, it’s something that resides in our mechanical systems. When we think of energy in architecture now, we usually think of solar panels or the mechanical ducts that run through a building. If it’s not seen as a fuel that cools or heats our buildings, then it’s seen as a technology that sits on top of it—but not as an integral part of it.

But if you take street lighting as an example, you have a shape—a cone of light coming down from the light bulb—produced by a spectrum of light that creates a physical boundary. At night, if you’re in the light cone, you have safety, recreation, commerce. When you’re outside that boundary edge, you don’t.

Courtesy of AshtonPal (, used under a Creative Commons license.

Courtesy of AshtonPal (, used under a Creative Commons license.

Street lighting is an amazing piece of architecture, and it’s one that can go away when it’s not needed. Simply flip a switch. It also changes its shape and aesthetics day to day: from a full moon to a new moon, its boundaries and edges look different as it interacts with the local environment.

When energy can be given its own shape, new quirks and proclivities emerge that differ from what you can do with steel or glass. It can also get people excited about what we can do with energy when we have more of it available, when we can find other clean and responsible ways of generating it. Maybe architecture should start with the streetlight and go forward from there as a new model for how we build our spaces. Start with street lighting and layer new energy systems and technologies, one on top of the other, until you have a built environment that is robust enough to flexibly accommodate diverse ways of using space. Something that is nimble, flexible and embedded with the same energy fields as the environment that it sits within. It would be a space that is suited to people’s changing needs and requirements, instead of static limiting factors that tell us what we can and can’t do inside them.

It’s time to give energy shape, get people exited about what life and social interactions might be like and have them demand the political and technological changes that have to happen to make them possible. It might sound counterintuitive at first, but we need to double down on our energy use, at least in the visions we speculate on, and not get stuck in the mindset of conserving the energy we’re currently getting from fossil fuels.

JE: You’re arguing that architects shouldn’t think of energy only in terms of conservation, in terms of cutting back and maximizing efficiency. How else should energy be conceptualized and deployed by architects?

SL: There are some very talented and smart people working to find better ways to harness, store, and move renewable energy around. At the same time, I don’t think we can escape the fact that, at least here in the U.S., all of our discussions of energy or the environment are increasingly tied nearly exclusively to an ethical and moral responsibility. Either cut back and conserve or you’re wasting energy, contributing to a crisis, even being selfish.

I think it might be beneficial to take a different approach, one that markets and demonstrates new activities, aesthetics, and lifestyles, while simultaneously smuggling into the discussion the idea of a responsibly evolving environment that requires the need for additional funding and political backing to make possible. The environments we live in, either locally or globally, have never been static, yet nearly all discussions of the environment are tied to a notion of conservation. We’re using the wrong language, the wrong metaphors.

Maybe what we need instead right now are visions of a future environment that might not look like what we have around us today, but are more supportive of the well-being of as many species as possible going forward. I think it’s necessary to decouple the word “sustainable” from the framework of energy conservation as we move forward.

JE: With all this in mind, do you think we should be training architects differently? Is there a different set of skills or perspectives that young architects should master?

SL: I do think there’s a distinction between the discipline and the profession. And so within the profession of “architect,” there are education and training criteria that need to be met. But the architect is the great generalist. We’re not usually specialists in anything—we’re generalists whose work draws in knowledge and insights from everywhere. In terms of the education and training, it’s about being able to piece together an awareness of all these subsets of variables that are at play, and being able to build the design scenarios and the collaborations to get a project done.

I think it’s necessary to decouple the word “sustainable” from the framework of energy conservation.

JE: In the book, you argue that architects have a unique relationship with time. How do you relate to time and its passage in your own work?

SL: When you think about a building, you usually think about the walls that stand strong against the natural elements. Those walls are made of stored and ossified energy—wood, steel, etc.—that mediate and defend against the local weather. The success of that architecture is rooted in its permanence, but we know in the back of our minds that it all starts to decay as soon as it’s finished, if it’s not continually maintained.

But if we go back to street lighting as an example of an architecture made from these material energies, you get a different relationship with its surroundings and time. Unlike an architecture made of walls that mediate against those energies that make up the local environment, the shape and aesthetic qualities of the streetlight are directly informed by the dialogue between the spectrum of light coming out of the streetlight and the light levels of the site it is on. And it goes away for half the day when the sun is out.

Buildings tend to be depicted with images that represent permanence. How else would you get a 30 year mortgage on your house if the bank wasn’t convinced it wasn’t going to be there that long? But when you start to think of architecture as intense micro-climates or energy fields that can take on those same architectural responsibilities, you realize the images we create of built spaces can’t have the same static form. It’s not to say they can’t last as long; it’s just that over time they’ll look different, from hour to hour or season to season, as those climatic forces push on the energies that make up the spaces.

Jodorowsky's Dune posterJE: Okay, last question: What story has inspired you most?

SL: Most recently, I would say Kim Stanley Robinson’s novel 2312, Robert Charles Wilson’s short story “Utriusque Cosmi,” and also the documentary Jodorowsky’s Dune.

But if you consider the re-launch of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos as a type of story of the universe, I think that was pretty amazing. There were so many instances when seemingly fundamental issues were discussed and I couldn’t help think “How did I not know this?” I really like those moments.

I couldn’t help but feel inspired. We all have a role to play. It might not be the one we initially intended or hoped for, but that shouldn’t prevent us from continuing to push forward. Architects need to find new ways to do things and act boldly, not scale back and retrench in the face of our the energy crisis and our other challenges. We need to invent new relationships with energy and space, not just a diminished version of our current understanding.


Thanks to Elizabeth Garbee for editorial assistance and expert co-editing!

Joey Eschrich is the editor and program manager at the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University. He earned his bachelor's degree in Film and Media Studies in 2008 and his master's degree in Gender Studies in 2011, both from ASU.

Project Hieroglyph: Talks at Google

October 6, 2014 in Hieroglyph

On September 10, 2014, Project Hieroglyph visited Google in Mountain View, California for an event as part of their Talks at Google program. Check out the conversation with contributors Neal Stephenson, Keith Hjelmstad, Annalee Newitz, and Rudy Rucker, and co-editors Ed Finn and Kathryn Cramer:

Joey Eschrich is the editor and program manager at the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University. He earned his bachelor's degree in Film and Media Studies in 2008 and his master's degree in Gender Studies in 2011, both from ASU.

Book Review: ‘Hieroglyph’ edited by Ed Finn and Kathryn Cramer

September 26, 2014 in Press

The Wall Street Journal

Joey Eschrich is the editor and program manager at the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University. He earned his bachelor's degree in Film and Media Studies in 2008 and his master's degree in Gender Studies in 2011, both from ASU.

Hieroglyph on Slate’s Future Tense Channel

September 23, 2014 in Hieroglyph

Slate magazine’s Future Tense channel is running a series of stories inspired by and excerpted from Hieroglyph: Stories and Visions for a Better Future, exploring about the connections between science fiction storytelling, scientific discovery, public policy, and real-world innovation. Check back to this post for updates as more pieces are published!

Joey Eschrich is the editor and program manager at the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University. He earned his bachelor's degree in Film and Media Studies in 2008 and his master's degree in Gender Studies in 2011, both from ASU.

Forget the Tricorder

September 12, 2014 in Hieroglyph, Press


Joey Eschrich is the editor and program manager at the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University. He earned his bachelor's degree in Film and Media Studies in 2008 and his master's degree in Gender Studies in 2011, both from ASU.