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."

Comments

Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

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?

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Angry White Guy]

It is because the people who are the most at risk are usually working too much to do anything about it, living from paycheque to paycheque. When you have your own problems, who cares if the government is picking on the immigrants. Who cares that e-mail's getting bugged? Who cares if some crack addict got the living sh*t kicked out of him for speeding in California. The other side of the coin is the guy who has enough money to live like a king, has influence in the community. Are they going to upset the boat? No, because its these laws that help keep them where they are. The balance of power is just that, a balance. You take too much, and the people have nothing. When they have nothing, then they have nothing to lose, and that's when civil revolt occurs. Read Macheiovelli's 'The Prince' for a much better understanding of what's going on in the world, and what has gone on in the world since we started walking upright.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Iguanaphobic]

The subject of this article will care. And all of his cousins who've lost mothers and sisters will care too. The US response to this will be... PATRIOT2, more draconian legislation to take away more of the citizens "rights". The current administration has guaranteed an endless supply of Bin Ladens. One of them will get through and then...

I saw this in another thread last night. Someone posted it AC and I can't find a Google for it. It hits the nail right on the head though.

One constant throughout human history has been the struggle between the "haves" and the "have nots." For the purpose of this discussion, I will refer to the "haves" as "the elite" and will call the "have nots" "the rabble." I am doing this to emphasize the fact that the rabble, while comprising most of the population, is almost always pitifully weak and disorganized, thanks to constant manipulation by the elite. "Divide and conquer" has always been the name of the game here; it has always been easy for the elite to manipulate public opinion and keep the rabble squabbling among each other.

The elite, though comprising only 1% of the population (the exact percentages are arguable, though the figures I am using are in the right ballpark), control most of the wealth. (In modern America, one has to be worth at least $100 million to be a serious player.) The elite don't have to work per se; they spend their time making deals, which, although stressful at times, is much too stimulating to fall into the realm of institutionalized drudgery which people commonly refer to as "work."
Falling below the elite in status and power are what could be called "elite wannabes," "lackeys of the elite," or "wealthy rabble." These people are very wealthy by rabble standards.

Power and status are hardwired into human behavior. Before the rise of agriculture, when humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers, it was difficult to accumulate power and status, since possessions were limited by what people could carry with them. There were probably powerful lineages that got passed through the generations, but the gap between the powerful and everybody else was limited due to the nature of their lifestyle.

All this changed with the rise of agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago. For the first time, people became sedentary, and they produced surpluses of grain which had to be defended. These surpluses meant unprecedented power for whoever was able to control them, and the first elite was born. For the first time, organized war became possible.

Howard Zinn's "A Peoples' History of America" describes the real dynamics at work behind the American Revolution. Rather than some idealistic "liberty and justice for all," the American Revolution was actually fomented by the American elite, who chafed under the British royalty.

It has been pointed out that by fighting an enemy, one takes on many of the characteristics of that enemy. Interestingly, it was World War 2 when America became a fascist power. By fascism, I am referring to Mussolini's definition: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

By 1945, state and corporate power in America had merged into what was later termed the "military-industrial complex," even though it wasn't until 1961 that Dwight Eisenhower gave his famous speech warning America about a system that had already been in place for 15 years.

Even though America had become fascist by 1945, there remained a vast amount of consolidation to do: there still remained the rabble and their pesky vote (an archaic carryover from the Revolutionary War era). The rabble had recently suffered two major traumas -- the Great Depression and World War Two, and had reached an unprecedented level of solidarity. The rabble had become dangerous, and it was necessary to manipulate them back into their customary position of helplessness, while at the same time enhancing the power of t

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[James_Duncan8181]

Umm...Iceland had a functioning democracy with a constitution about 800 years before the founding of the US...

Dangerous Technology?

[stanmann]

There is not any such thing as technology that is inherently Dangerous.

Guns --designed to "kill"... When used correctly allow an 80 year old woman to be safe in her home(if used properly; which for an 80 year old woman means shooting first fast and accurately)
Cloning-- can be abused to build "organ farms" and can also allow(someday) those who cannot have children "normally" and have the legitimate "selfish" desire to have a child of their own genetic makeup to do just that.

Surveilance Technology-- goes hand in hand with communication technology... allowing those being watched to organize to fight the abuses of that same tech.

So what

[Timesprout]

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.

SARS and Chinese timeliness

[squashed]

SARS is the Chernobyl of the Chinese government. Chernobyl taught the Russian people, and the world, the unprecedented dangers of a closed society in a highly technological era. Another aspect of the modern era is globalization and international mobility. Again, we see that a closed society is no longer tenable. SARS' underreporting and denials by the Chinese authorities, like Chernobyl, will bring severe, lasting political consequences for the regime, and may be an impetus that finally takes toward replacing the totalitarian political system.

Re:Fictional Writer

[L7_]

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.