Slashdot Mirror
Deus Ex Writer Discusses 'Dangerous Technology'
Dan Weaver writes "One of the writers for the exceptionally good action RPG Deus Ex has authored a rather thought-provoking Salon article on the Bill-Joy theme of dangers posed by emergent technologies and the difficulties that police states (both pleasant and not-so-pleasant) encounter in dealing with them. In the light of revelations about China's tardiness and confusion in addressing the SARS epidemic, this article is particularly timely."
What's a pleasant police state?
Here's a question that I'm mulling over as a result of reading the synopsis of this article. With all the literary and cinematic works that have been made which deal with a Big Brother-like state [for lack of a shorter term], why is it that the governments of the world are still able to move in the directions outlined in those works? It seems like no matter how embedded in our culture the idea that certain traits of governments are bad and that we must rally against them, these traits continue to crop up. Consider this, has the U.S. become more or less like the vision of 1984 since publication?
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Mankind has been producing dangerous technology since we first learned to bang sticks and stones together. Responsible usage and control have worked for us so far.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
No.
You are almost saying that because he writes fiction he can't think about the state of the world. That seems a very limited view. I mean, what special knowledge MUST one have to be able to criticize or comment on something? The author, it seems, has made a life studying technology, its ramifications, and plausible futures. So, when commenting on said technology, I would actually not take his comments "with a grain of salt" but rather as an educated opinion of the state of the world's technology.
I can't think of a better background for a person to have to comment on the things that he is commenting on.
Stopping the access to the technology would require such things as destroying the internet and other worldwide mass-communications. Essentially, the technology won't go away. Police states are never 100% effective, which means that as soon as a technology like, say, bioweapons or antimatter ends up in the hands of average people, if someone has a motivation to use it, they will.
The only way to stop this threat is to stop the motivation. Secure people generally do not commit crimes. If you have nothing to fear (poverty, hate crimes, etc) then you will be less likely to do these things. As the ability of individuals to secure weapons of mass destruction increases, we have to start thinking about making our society more content.
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
If that isn't a police state, I don't know what is...
Laws enacted, and in the process of being enacted since 9-11, have and are turning America toward police-statehood.
Detention without trial; without access to lawyers. Mass surveillance measures being created. The "Material Witness" laws being subverted...
And America is not alone, The UK is also undergoing it's own particular form of Big Brother transformation.
Just don't kid yourself it's not happening.
Little by little, it is.
One of the defining characteristics of a police state (though I'm no expert on the subject, by any means) to my mind, is the mass surveillance, monitoring, cataloging and tracking of the citizenry, for no real good reason.
The Stazi used this means extensively, and the emergence of it in the US, UK, and elsewhere, seems to indicate (to me at least) that the people in charge, are moist in their underwear at the thought of being able to know who you are, where you are, where you've been, where you're going, who you know, who you've associated with, who you've talked to, what you've read/listened to/viewed, who your relatives are, who you care about, what you care about, etc. (the etc. might be a little redundant at this point.)
I don't care what they need it for, whether to stop terrorists/crime/benefit fraud or whtever, on a personal level, that makes anyone who opposes me in any way, in any kind of dispute, whether because I'm fighting the building of houses on allotments, or the re-development of public land, or some bogus council activity, right up to fighting the government in court, a much greater threat than they have any right to be in a society that is not a police state.
That gives them the power to lean on me in ways that they could not, if they minded their own business, and got on with what they are supposed to be doing: representing my own and other common people's interests.
It gives them immense power over the populace that they are supposed to serve.
It isn't fully formed yet, but the Big brother Beast is growing in the womb; limbs and features, already visible.
Police State?
Maybe not today, but someday, soon, and perhaps for the rest of your life.
On a side note, two things: The US has banned the burning of crosses [in public at least] as constituting racial harassment (the term used was somewhat different, but I forget, just having heard it on the radio.) maybe the Nazi/Jew thing will be dealt with in the same manner, in the future.
And, Pharmboy, you said, "Perhaps if other countries would simply rise up and kill their own butcherous leaders, we wouldnt have to."
I know it's like shooting fish in a barrel, and a pretty easy riposte, but...
...maybe they wouldn't have to rise up, if the US (and other developed, Northern Bloc countries) didn't enable, arm and support their butcherous leaders in the bloody first place!
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Anyone who thinks the US is a true "police state" is automatically an intellectually devoid overreactionary.
Well now, that depends on what you think the minimum qualifications for a police state are.
Right now the government can come and kidnap you, then imprison you indefinitely without any recourse to the court system and in complete violation of the U.S. Constitution. I use the word 'kidnap' because they don't even have to arrest you; all they have to do is declare that you're a 'material witness' to some unspecified crime.
That's it. Piss someone off in power and away you go, with no chance of regaining your freedom until those in power choose to let you go.
How anyone can see this as anything but a characteristic of a police state is beyond me. Guess your definition of 'freedom' allows you to overlook those kinds of abuses - so long as they don't happen to you, eh?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?