Thomas Lunde wrote:
>
> I don't suggest I have any answers except a deep sense that what we are
> doing is wrong and that it is leading us and our children to a future of
> horrific problems and experiences. And yet daily, I am advised that the
> economy is growing, that science has invented the next new miracle.
How long have you experienced this "deep sense"? Have you considered therapy or
counselling? Who have you been reading? We have probably read a lot of the same
stuff: Ehrlich, Henderson, Schell, Suzuki, and a host of others of their ilk. I
have enjoyed them all because they do raise one's awareness of the earthly
condition. But I haven't slipped into a funk. Why? Because for every crisis
identified, there are other equally articulate writers who write
authoritatively of the opportunities.
Be assured, however, no one has any answers. We may have to be satisfied with
simply "muddling through" (which, according to some sources I've read, is not a
simple approach but indeed a very sophisticated one).
James Burke in his "connections" series (TV, books, WWW) has provided many
interesting, and surprising, examples of the strange and often contradictory
events triggered by social and technological change. John Nef in "War and Human
Progress" has documented the positive role of war in furthering the well-being
of humankind. But few of us would dream of actively advocating war as a major
tool for progress. But those who survive do derive benefits! Such might give
one pause when considering the role of the MAI and transnational corporations.
They certainly do seem to be the guys wearing the black hats these days, but
how will they be perceived down the road? One need not be an apologist for such
institutions by asking what larger, yet unrecognized role, may they be
fulfilling in the human agenda.
What role has technology played in the advance of women's rights? While many
deplore the "working mum", others applaud and encourage women to enter the
workforce and compete with men on a level playing field. In large measure no
one planned the technological changes which to some degree have made possible
the release of women from age-old roles.
>
> Today in the paper was a picture of a Japanese machine that can plant rice
> without any human operators. It goes up and down the field using a Global
> Positioning satellite, I assume it will use fertilizers and pesticides,
> probaly also planned without human hands touching them. In ten years, it
> will this eliminate the millions of third world families ability to grow
> rice because it will be more economically vialble and even more effective
> than traditional farming. And yet, there was no announcement along with the
> invention to say how the poor of the world will get the rice that is grown -
> no transfer of funds so they can buy that abundance. They will join the
> army of the unemployed and become a social problem requiring welfare and
> laws to keep them from sleeping on urban streets. Yes technology can do
> wonders but what are we going to do with all those people who have no money
> to buy the goods, and who have no work in an economic system set up to
> transfer funds between people based on the production of their labour - when
> we take away the need for their labour. And yet, the GNP, will go up, the
> stock market will reflect the growth of certain companies and the economists
> will tell us that with lower interest rates, more rice machines can be built
> and more money can be made.
>
> We need a council of elders to listen to the cries of the human tribe. Not
> Phd's and career climbers, but rice farmers and single mothers and lovers of
> the planet.
>
Never mind just the poor: How will anyone qualify to partake of the fruits of
automation? That is one of my favourite areas of speculation. Take it to the
reductio ad absurdum - everyone is put out of work! I find it hard to believe
that the automated factories will simply continue to churn out stuff when no
one can buy it. What kind of allocative system may emerge?
Just as, in the industrial age, there is a stigma associated with lack of paid
employment, so in the information age may appear a new stigma associated with
ignorance. It may be perceived that, in a world awash in readily accessible
information, there is no excuse for ignorance. (Not too long ago in Sweden a
referendum on nuclear energy was held - one had to pass an exam to qualify for
the right to vote!) Does that suggest some criterion for access to the world's
largesse?
But strangely, while automation (which was much feared in the 1950s) has
continued to make strides, employment has not declined proportionately. It
seems that people are nothing if not ingenious in finding ways to adapt the
tools of automation to their own purposes. Of course, all bets may be off if we
can incorporate human intelligence into some future biochip.
Many can earn a decent income by publishing their concerns and serving as
speakers at conventions. Others who are retired find a useful outlet for
pent-up energies and frustrations by exploiting the internet. In that process
valuable skills are being acquired, but who thinks of that? Suddenly one may
awaken and realize: Hey, I'm a webmaster!
--
http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
