MIT Technology Review on Where Orwell Went Wrong

nakhla writes "MIT's Technology Review is running an interesting article entitled Who's Afraid of 1984? The article talks about Orwell's famous work, and examines how Orwell's view of technology's impact on freedom and democracy was flawed. The article points out that, in fact, freedom and democracy were strengthened by technological innovations, and addresses its affect on Stalinism and Nazism. An interestng read for those who are worried about technology's impact on our generation and beyond."

Comments

Re:More afraid of Socialism

[invckb]

Actually, Orwell was a Socialist.

Orwell was afraid of Totalitarianism, and both 1984 and Animal Farm should be viewed as a declaration against tyrants, not an endorsement of conservative values.

Re:They missed Orwell's biggest point

[Malcontent]

"Global warming? It's not true, and besides, there's nothing you can do about it."

Actually the rich have so far tried the following arguments in this order.

"Global warming does not exist"
"Global warming might exists but it's not our fault and we can't do anything about it"

and finally when people didn't buy either one they are now increasingly trying this one.

"global warming is good for you"

That last one has also been used for toxic waste, genetic engineering, pesticides etc.

Points to note

[guttentag]

1. MIT has an interest in ensuring that people do not fear technology. Worst case scenario: a technophobic generation starts shunning the MITs of the world for agricultural colleges.
   
   
2. Appending the MIT brand to someone's opinion doesn't necessarily mean the author is any more knowledgeable than the clerk at your local 7-eleven.

3. The author is not an MIT professor of economics, political science, sociology, literature, comp-sci or any other subject that would qualify him as an authority on the subjects covered by 1984. He teaches astrogeophysics at Berkeley. He currently teaches a course called "Physics for future Presidents" ["my goal is to cover the physics that future world leaders need to know (and maybe present world leaders too....)."] and is the author of a historical novel called "The Sins of Jesus."

   The assumption that presidents need to understand physics (rather than employ well-informed experts as advisors on the subject) and the profession that Jesus used "magic and deception" to pose as the son of God (based on "historical facts and biblical references") makes me wary of his preaching.

Re:It's already here

[anonymous_wombat]

How about the fact that Intel is going to put a radio on every chip? The article doesn't say if it only receives, or can broadcast as well (spyware anyone?).

Forms of social control

[asreal]

When 1984 was written, Orwell couldn't invision any form of social control that was not ideological control. After all, if you couldn't control people's ideas and keep them from thinking politically, they would revolt against their oppressors!

Since 1948, however, a new form of social control has emerged. Some of you may recognize the name. It's called capitalism. The illusion of choice created by being able to choose from 25 kinds of peanut butter and 500 cable channels is a far more effective way of quelling revolt than systematically cutting down political oppostion. But political oppostion has been cut down all the same.

The capitalist system has so deeply entrenched itself that two things have occurred. First, those who suggest that there should be alternatives for everyone are labelled as "Commies" or "Dirty Hippies" and largely ignored. So, collective oppostion is nearly impossible. Secondly, it is next to impossible for a person (at least someone in a G8/G7 nation) to live outside of the capitalist system. Self-sufficient farming requires land, which requires property tax, which requires income. If you sell your product to pay your taxes, you cannot be self-sufficient but turn into a for-profit farmer. Vicious circle.

Orwell wasn't as wrong as the article would have us believe. Technology as used by the capitalist system did enable social control, but not in the way Orwell thought.

-asreal