Slashdot Mirror
Americans and the 21st Century
Technology has become the national conversation since the explosion of networked computing the Net and the Web; a central political and social issue, reality that splits the country into distinct camps: those who look forward to the future, and those who don't.
The subject has become so important that it increasingly plays a dominant role not only in how people feel about machines themselves, but about what lies ahead.
Americans used to be unequivocally upbeat about technology. "If you can dream it, you can do it," was one of Walt Disney's favorite exhortations to his beloved corps of Imagineers.
"When I visited the General Motors Futurama Exhibit at the 1939 New York World's Fair, I believed that I was truly looking at 'The World Of Tomorrow,'" wrote Samuel Florman, the engineer/author, in "The Existential Pleasures of Engineering."
Florman remembers believing that he was literally looking at the "World of Tomorrow" and that it was a better place. "It would have to be," he recalls, "with its superhighways, its sleek cars, and its sparkling cities."
Americans are vastly more sophisticated about technology now, wary and perhaps chastened by the tidal wave of new technologies and their often unforeseen consequences. Superhighways, sleek cars and sparkling cities all came to pass, but so did pollution, congestion, noise crime and enormous social dislocation.
Although the rise of computing suggests worries about technology is a relatively modern concern, it really isn't. Benjamin Franklin was a geek through and through, and he always understood that technology was a mixed blessing, bringing both triumphs and unpleasant surprises.
In more recent times, amateur technologists like Disney were sometimes drawn into Utopianism, convinced that technology alone held the key to a brighter tomorrow.
Judging by the moral outrage and near hysteria about technics in modern politics and media - cracking, Y2K, pornography, perversion, isolation, addiction - it might seem that Americans had completely abandoned the idea that technology could, in fact, herald a brighter future.
That assumption would be wrong.
A recent survey by the Pew Research Center on how Americans feel about the 21st Century shows they are profoundly optimistic about the future, and technology is the primary reason why.
According to Pew's nationwide survey, a staggering 81 per cent of adults are optimistic about what the 21st Century holds for them, and 70 per cent believe the country as a whole will do well. Eight in ten Americans describe themselves as hopeful about the year 2000. A significant majority anticipate that the new millenium will usher in the triumph of science and technology over some of humanity's most enduring plagues and problems, from AIDS and cancer to environmental degradation.
Americans' view of the promise of technology, in fact, is distinctly brighter than their feelings about their fellow human beings. Nearly two-thirds of Americans anticipate a serious terrorist attack on the United States within the next 50 years, and more than half say an epidemic worse than AIDS is likely. Significant numbers expect a major earthquake in California, foresee increased global warming and predict a severe energy crisis by the middle of the 21st century.
What's striking about the survey is that although Americans expect some problems to worsen, their overall outlook about the future remains optimistic. And technology is the reason. Americans believe that science and technology will expand their horizons, create a better future for them, provide longer lives, even allow routine space travel.
Americans, the survey demonstrates, are forming their own views of technology, apart from the moral outrage expressed by so many public figures about a host of techno-driven social plagues, and the cost, inefficiency, intrusiveness of technology in general. Perhaps as a result of their newfound ability to access information and opinions via the Net and Web, Americans are becoming more rational and far-sighted than their elected representatives.
Fewer than half of the respondents now believe a Messiah will return to the Earth in the 21st Century, for instance, but but 81 per cent believe cancer will be cured.
As Florman, a civil engineer, and other writers about technology have pointed out, anti-technology has become something of a national movement among the so-called intelligentsia in American life. Intellectuals often fear that new technologies - from the Internet to cable TV and cell phones - are dumbing down the young, isolating individuals and destroying traditional notions of civilization, literacy and culture.
Some of these attitudes arose during the 60s, when technology got the blame for creating nuclear weapons, napalm and other lethal killing devices, and for de-spoiling the environment. The explosive growth of the Internet - which has freed up so much information and endangers the privileged positions and monopoly over information formerly held by politicians, journalists, stockbrokers and academics - has generated even more unease about technology.
Lawyers worry that the public will access their own legal documents on the Web. Doctors fret about the sudden dissemination of medical information. Journalists worry about who will vouch for the accuracy of information, political scientists fear an anarchic electorate, which votes instantly and without knowledge or deliberation, and academics are traumatized by the notion that slobs in Kansas with computers and modems will get to pass their ideas around, too.
But technology is, in fact, an idea whose time has come. It's no longer the exclusive province of engineers, geeks and nerds either. The Net has brought tens of millions of Americans into very personal contact with technology as a powerful social and economic force and political tool. So far, at least, and despite its many problems and flaws, they like it.
The point is: even though a technology may be beneficial to humanity, there will always be opposition to it at first. It's not a modern phenomenon! The first time the English introduced the longbow during the Hundred Year War, the English knights were outraged that commoners would strike the first blow in battle. Then, as time goes on, they realise it's a really useful technology, and acceptance spreads.
Ditto with computers and most modern technologies. At first, we're all scared that the future will be ruled by robots or something like that. But now, society accepts and embraces the potential of modern technology.
It's never gonna change, and in a way it's a blessing. It's that sort of distrust of innovation that prevents us from using technology without thinking on its consequences. In that respect, scifi writers are our watchdogs, warning us long in advance of the risks, but also the rewards, of a possible innovation.
Sorry, but not everybody is into the materialistic lifestyle. I believe that capitalism is a great human invention that makes it possible to sidestep the constant neo-malthusian cries of doom, doooooom that that ring throughout western academia and punditry.
But materialism is not a necessary outflow of capitalism. I want to be able to assure good medical treatment if my family gets sick, I don't ever want to see my children hungry, but the 40" TV can stay in the store, thank you very much. Capitalism gives you the capacity to make the consequences of your moral choices be powerful. Materialism means that you are making stupid moral choices.
I'm a believer in free trade because I think that people produce more than they consume when they don't have governments stealing most of the product of their labor. In the real world this has been the case (go ahead, post a real world case where I'm wrong, I dare you). Don't you have any compassion for the poor? Don't you want to let them live in dignity by their own labor instead of getting 1st world handouts with condoms a higher priority than antibiotics?
NAFTA and the WTO have problems because of their slow pace, not because they are going too fast.
DB
Your definition of technology is too narrow. Why are computers technology, but an ox cart isn't? The obvious answer is that both are technology. One is a well understood, well developed, and frankly obsolete technology, and the other is a brand new, still immature technology.
Also, implied in your article is the expectation that technology will somehow lead to a "brave new world" where we all ain't gonna study war no war.
Permit me my cynicism.
The same thing was thought when the horse harness was invented in the first millenia AD: it was much more efficient than the traditional yoke, and I remember reading a quote from an early churchman who thought that this would mean the end of hunger. He went on to pontificate (maybe literally: I think he was a pope at some point) that the increased efficiency of agriculture would lead to a world free of hunger. Since hunger was in his opinion a primary cause of war, this technological advance was expected to lead to the celestial kingdom, where lion would lay with lamb etc.
I think my point is made: technology is not going to save us from ourselves.
B.F. Skinner, when he wasn't busy training butterflies to flutter or something, made the observation that any of the great classical philosophers (Plato, Aristotle) were still admitted as current in all our philosophical coursework. That, in 2500 years, the human state had changed so little that Plato could still speak to us, that Socrates was still current for many. Both Plato and Aristotle had been proved wrong (or at least incomplete) in science, but not in the study of humanity.
Skinner goes on to say that what is needed is a technology of the mind, which will form the nuclues of a new world order based in psychology. I can hardly agree with that: most attempts of this type have led to repression and misery.
What solution do I offer? None, or at least none you'll accept. But I do think we need to recognize the fruitlessness of all technology based approaches to societal and human problems.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Well I certainly disagree.
You are not going to see a huge stock market collapse of any sort. Certainly, there are a few industry's that are way over-valued... and to my dismay, they are still climbing. But we are actually going through right now, what a lot of people call a Stealth Bear Market Sure the S & P 500, the Dow and the Nasdaq are at all time highs right now... but this is only because of a small, eclectic group of stocks have enjoyed an incredible bull market. In the meantime, a majority of the high flying blue chips have really been crashing. Buy breaking it down... leads to a suprising find, which I will illustrate for you:
For year 1999:
NYSE
61% of stocks have declined by 20% or more
34% have dropped by 30% or more
NASDAQ
83% of stocks have eroded by 20% or more
63% have declined in excess of 30%
This would seem to imply something very different from what the surface tells us.
I agree that there will be a time when many of the bubbles formed (these are bubbles, there is no arguing that) will burst. It happened in 1972... remember the "Nifty 50"? This group of stocks (mainly consisting of tech stocks) lead the market to incredible highs... but in 1972, their incredible valuations were finally realized and the market stagnated for an entire decade. Well, things really were not that bad... because the market is not composed entirely of tech in reality. While tech stocks floundered, other industries flourished and there was still a lot of money to be made. Lesson learned: Do not buy at crazy valuation levels. Lesson for now: Do not buy at crazy valuation levels.
So the market is not as high as you think it is.
Some valuations are what I would call artificially high as well. Many of the larger companies out there have gone WAY over-budget in becoming Y2K compliant (this does not merely involve preparing software and the like, but in prepearing people and services for whatever might happen). Well, this is an expense, and that figures into their profits. But, this is a true case of a one-time expense if I have ever seen it, and we will find many valuations come down to a more reasonable level.
Also, people are not going to stop putting money into company sponsered profit sharing plans, 401k's and 403b's. They might stop their fooling around on E-Trade however.
We may see a recession soon... I am sure we will see one in the future. But another depression? That is far more unlikely (though certainly possible).
If anyone wants some help in figuring some of this out... go ahead and email me.
Werd
Capitalism may sound unfair at first inspection. However, long experience has taught us that anything else is simply worse. You can say whatever you wish about Marx; every implimentation of his teachings have failed miserably. Capitalism, for all it's flaws, works.
It never ceases to amaze me how academics such as yourself, can claim that it's just the many implimentations that are wrong. It never seems occur to you, that, perhaps the blue prints themselves are flawed. Others yet, will say that man is simply too greedy. Yet little attention is paid to the fact that central allocation of resources causes inevitable failure, it always has. Not just in communism, but in all other forms of government.
You can populate your socialist country with people just as benevolent as Mother Theresa, with just as many resources (e.g., minerals, man power, intelligence, etc.), and it will never be able to compete with capitalism. Let us assume that you have finite resources, 50 projects and only enough for a small percentage of those. Do you expect some stuffed shirt behind a desk to know the value of each project, the technical merits, etc.? Or would you put faith in the academics? Well you simply can't do that. It doesn't work. The free markets have a way of working such problems out. Yes, some fail. But those who have a pattern of success tend to get more resources. In Capitalism, money tends to find its way into the hands of capable individuals. Products that are desired, tend to be brought to market. Socialism? It pretends to know what the people want. Yet it doesn't ask. It is this static state, assuming that everything can be administered from a far that does great damage to the people. How many risk takers do we see in socialist systems?
Ignoring even the efficiency issues in Socialism/Marxism/Communism, it presumes that the greatest good, is when everything is "equal". That some may have different needs and desires completely escapes them. You might be happy only working 40 hours a week and taking home 50k a year. But to me, I'd rather work 80 hours a week or merely working harder, and take home 200k a year. It shows no understanding of risk aversion. You may call this Cookie cutter society "right", but I call it "wrong". If you ever had the benefit of traveling to a communist country, you might know what i'm talking about. There is a certain grey lifelessness--a simple lack of vitality and all things that bring pleasure. It is not just about the money either. I've travelled through Mexico, and other equally poor areas, and the people, though poor, are atleast VITAL.
Anyways, regarding "theft" in capitalism. My father emmigrated from Germany after WWII with hardly a penny to his name. Though he enjoyed a partial education at the Gymnasium, his education was not complete. He put himself through engineering school, became the one of the best in his field, if not the best, and eventually made millions. He did not benefit from these arisocrat rents that you liberals love to speak of. He went out on a limb, embraced RISK, and frankly, worked his ass off. Is the hourly employee making 10 dollars an hour, punching the clock at exactly 4:00 necessarily entitled to his "fair" share of the profits he made in his company? No, he did not share in the risk. He demands pay, he would choose to forgo any risk (while my father in much in the same position embraced it). Did my father give stock options and the like to his employees? Yes, they did profit from his sucess. The problem is, that when you use law, an ackward tool by its very nature, to decide how much of that pie should be cut and restributed, you begin to interfere with the process.
There are so many quantitative and qualitative factors that go into starting up a company and developing a truely innovative product, that I simply can't name them all here. I can assume that you have never witnessed the entreprenurial process like I have, since you seem to have so little appreciation for the things I've described--that which makes our country great. Do a rare few enjoy these 'aristocratic rents'? Perhaps they do. Is this the majority? I think not. Does capitalism necessarily imply it? Certainly not. Is capitalism zero-sum? No, definetly not. I am a firm believer in Pareto optimatlity. That is to say, that when the rich get richer, poor are no poorer, and perhaps ever even richer. This has been shown empirically in capitalism. Whereas with Marxism, no matter how benevolent the intentions (highly debatable), everyone is poorer (well except the few thugs in power).