Technology And The Coming Global Totalitarianism
Richard B. Wilcox
October, 2005
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
1.1 Foundations
Of Power
1.2 The Dragon
Eating Its Tail
1.3 Pandora's Box
2. Critical
Perspectives On Science And Technology
2.1 The
Scientific Mission: Order And Power
2.2 The Market
Mechanism
2.3 Loss Of
Knowledge And Nature: Return To
Sumud
3. The Expanding
Technosphere: Uses And Abuses
3.1 Power And
Control
3.2 The World
Expo
3.3 Emerging
Technologies
3.4 Surveillance
3.5 Consumerism
3.6 The Weapons
Industry And The Science Of Killing
4. Consequences
For Cultural And Biological Diversity
4.1 Where Are We
Coming From?
4.2 Bulldozing
Biodiversity
4.3 Where Are We
Going?
5. References
Executive Summary
This paper investigates
some aspects of the coming global technological
totalitarianism and the expanding
technosphere.
I argue that this is both a conscious and coincidental
agenda of powerful individuals and institutions carried out
through the process of reification of ideological beliefs
which are transformed into institutions, facilities,
technologies policies and ultimately, culture. I believe
that by ignoring the costs of new technologies, what we lose
in the bargain is immeasurable and potentially catastrophic.
History was not or is not entirely inevitable, but it is
also a question of human values in relation to natural
changes. While there have often been positive effects for
large numbers of people from technological development, in
fact, the creation and use of technology has largely been
abused to further ruling class interests.
1. Introduction
People are so
transfixed by the scientific marvels that parade before
them, that they are frozen in the act of spectating.
-- Michael Hoffman
(2001, p. 11)
People are becoming
more and more like their machines. -- Edward T. Hall (1976,
p. 39)
First I can give you
cancer, then I can profit from your cure. -- sign on giant
mad-scientist Glaxo/Bayer puppet in anti-biotechnology
rally (“Biodevastation,”
2005)
This paper
investigates some aspects of the coming global technological
totalitarianism and the expanding
technosphere.
I argue that this is both a conscious and coincidental
agenda of powerful individuals and institutions carried out
through the process of reification of ideological beliefs
which are transformed into institutions, facilities,
technologies policies and ultimately culture. I suggest
readers consider these open-ended questions while reading
this paper:
1. Is science and
technology inherently destructive, or can it be harnessed to
do good depending on whose interests are involved?
2. Historically, who has
benefited most often from the exploitation of science and
technology, elites or the general public (and non-human
species)?
3. Are advanced forms of
technology (so-called “high technology”) including
computers, cellular phones, videos and televisions etc.,
helpful or harmful toward creating an ecologically
sustainable society? Can we distinguish between one form of
technology and another in order to determine whether it is
“good” or “bad”?
4. What, for example, are
the potential human health/environmental dangers of
increased amounts of electro-magnetic radiation that exceed
amounts humans were exposed to during most of natural
history? What may be the possible benefits or harms caused
by new technologies such as high-speed computer and internet
transmission, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology or
genetic engineering?
As an environmental
social scientist, I believe that by ignoring the costs of
new technologies, what we lose in the bargain: culturally,
socially, politically, ecologically, and as a species, is
immeasurable and potentially catastrophic. History was not
or is not entirely inevitable (i.e., determinism), it is
also a question of human values in relation to natural
changes (i.e., dialectical materialism; the reification of
ruling class imperatives into cultural norms). While there
have often been positive effects for large numbers of people
from technological development (e.g., extended life spans
through improved public sanitation and medical treatments),
in fact, the creation and use of technology has largely been
abused to further ruling class interests (Fotopoulis, 1998;
Noble, 2001; Jensen & Draffan, 2004).
1.1 Foundations
Of Power
In order to maintain
their power, the wealthier among us depend on robbing people
of their lands, waters, dreams and aspirations. To the
extent that we have wealth or status within the economic
system, we all share some blame. Nevertheless, control
through technology is one means whereby the ruling classes
maintain power.
The ruling class is
crucial to the maintenance and development of technological
totalitarianism. It consists of the United States at the hub
of military and economic power. The G8 nations are the first
tier countries supported by the lesser rich OECD countries
at the second tier. Ruling class mechanisms include: the
Bretton Woods institutions including the International
Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade
Organization; the Trilateral Commission; the Business
Roundtable; and the World Economic Forum. In order to serve
their broader economic agenda, foundations such as the Ford
Foundation and financial speculators such as George Soros
fund social programs around the world (Cottin, 2003; Roelofs,
2003). Elite lobbying groups, both domestic and foreign,
play a powerful role in influencing the U.S. congress while
the average citizen who is over-worked, confused by media
misinformation, disaffected from the political process,
absorbed by lifestyle consumerism, or for other cultural
reasons, has largely vanquished her/his role as a
participant in the political process. The array of
mega-corporations, whose assets tower over the collected
wealth of most of the world’s countries, have designated
themselves as the prime architects of U.S. (and increasingly
global) laws and policies. Some observers have noted that
this "global monetocracy" persists in its merciless path
toward planetary destruction due to the complex nature of
our economic system (Madron & Jopling, 2003).
This is a happy
convenience for a system which benefits from increased
social and environmental disruption (e.g., increased health
problems benefit the pharmaceutical and medical industries;
increased pollution benefits the pollution abatement
industry, etc.). The standard economic measurement of gross
domestic product that the United States and other industrial
countries use does not make qualitative judgments about
economic activity (e.g., concerning human and environmental
welfare), it only measures growth (i.e., accumulation of
monetary wealth) for its own sake. In line with the theories
of neo-classical, free-market and neo-liberal economics, the
Limited
Liability Corporation
operates by externalizing costs and accumulating profits.
Today, corporations have evolved to the point where they are
virtually exempt from social and environmental
responsibility (Korten, 1995; Keen, 2001; Madron & Jopling,
2003).
1.2 The Dragon
Eating Its Tail
In such a system, the
destruction of the environment is measured as a “good” since
new technologies will be needed to clean up the messes
caused by growth (e.g., urban sprawl, "natural" disasters,
oil spills, air and water pollution) in the form of
pollution abatement equipment, water purifiers, air filters
and hybrid automobiles. Therefore, the same business
interests that create environmental turmoil profit a second
time in their half-hearted efforts to abate the original
problems. Furthermore, one observer noted that the
commodification of drinking water in the form of bottled
water has led to misleading practices whereby corporations
profit billions of dollars even when many bottled waters are
shown to be no safer than the public water supply (Landau,
2005, August 27).
Profiting
from disasters, whether real or imagined, accidental or
manufactured, is a driving force behind industry and
progress. Brain Waves newsletter reports that
[f]ive of the top
ten leading causes of disability worldwide are caused by
problems with the brain and nervous system....The good
news is that new
treatments for those suffering from illnesses such as
Alzheimer's disease, depression and chronic pain are
emerging
quickly. Building on
the success of the Human Genome Project and decades of brain
research, neurotech now holds
the greatest
potential
for major discoveries, commercial success and real
investment opportunities
[emphasis added] (Brain Waves, 2005, March 24).
Pollution dumped into
the biosphere by the chemical companies during the 20th
century led one researcher to note that “there is a mass of
historic evidence that suggests that [polio] is not caused
by a virus but by industrial and agricultural pollution”
(Roberts, 2004, May, p. 35). One can imagine the huge
profits that pharmaceutical giants have made from the
vaccination business alone. As the anthropologist Dubos
(1965) concluded in his study of human evolution and
disease, the war on disease that took place in the 1950s in
the United States by spraying pesticides across the country
failed to consider the complexities of targeting particular
microorganisms. "[A] given pathogen [carrier of disease] is
generally highly destructive in a given population when the
pathogen and population first come into contact, and the
severity of the infectious process tends to decrease...over
several generations." Thus, the chemical industry's
one-size-fits-all approach to disease-control was
economically profitable but ignored less concrete
historical, socio-economic and ecological considerations.
Ever since public
electricity systems began use in 1882, increasing stress on
the human immune system has occurred. Technology researchers
Ashton and Laura (1999) report:
The biological
effects of electricity depend on the magnetic field,
electric field and frequency effects produced in the
electrical
environment....The
frequency of the magnetic fields in our homes produced by
domestic wiring, or in the vicinity of powerlines,
corresponds to the
power generation frequency which is usually 50 or 60 hertz.
A fluctuating magnetic field can induce a current in a
nearby conductor,
whereas a non-fluctuating or constant magnetic field cannot.
This is highly significant when considering the
possible health
impact of magnetic fields, as different frequencies may
produce different biological effects (40 - 41).
Ashton and Laura note
that a number of other everyday modern appliances and
practices are threatening human health. These include mobile
phones, UHF TV microwaves, microwave ovens, computer VDUs
and television screens, processed food, food additives such
as aluminium in food, food irradiation, cadmium toxicity in
the food chain, pesticide residues in food, chlorine and
flouride in public water supplies, as well as the health
effects from air conditioning, artificial lighting and noise
pollution. However, these technological applications are now
accepted by people in industrial society as normal.
The techology that
probably best defines the 20th century is the automobile:
Who has not
experienced the thrill of acceleration at the wheel of a
car? A slight movement of the ball of the foot suffices to
unleash
powers exceeding
those of the driver many times over. This incongruity
between gentle effort and powerful effect, typical of modem
technology, gives
rise to the exhilarating feelings of power and freedom which
accompany the triumphant forward march of
technology. Be it
car or plane, telephone or computer, the specific power of
modern technology lies in its ability to remove limitations
imposed on us by our
bodies, by space and by time (Sachs, 1992).
While bringing
mobility and luxury to many, and great profits to the oil,
tire and rubber and automotive industries, the social
re-organization and disruption caused by car culture and the
environmental destruction caused by the construction of cars
and roads has been immeasurable. According to the World
Carfree Network, a "car causes more pollution before it's
ever driven than in its entire lifetime of driving."
Furthermore, "[e]stimates of road fatalities worldwide vary
massively: anywhere from 500,000 to 880,000 or even 1.17
million people die on the roads every year — 10 million are
estimated to be injured" ("Some statistics," 2005, June 2).
Ironically, while the
technology of mobility and the internal combustion engine is
often blamed for “global warming,” Finch (2002) has
clarified that one of the oldest forms of technology is also
to blame, that being fire, and has renamed global warming to
the more precise term “global burning” as the world’s
forests and vegetation are put to flames to clear land for
industrial agriculture.
1.4 Pandora's Box
Considering the array
of Pandora’s Boxes that have been opened by technological
development, the possibility of human extinction cannot be
omitted. Leslie (1996), a philosopher of science, describes
disasters from genetic engineering, nanotechnology or
computers as potential causes of human extinction. Although
it may sound far-fetched, high energy laboratory experiments
might create a new “Big Bang” or “an all-destroying phase
transition,” whereby, if “the jolt of a high-energy
experiment produced a bubble of ‘true vacuum’, this would
then expand at nearly the speed of light, destroying
everything...” (p.8). When it comes to military research,
nothing can be considered too bizarre or coldly calculating.
Snow reports that the U.S. military is involved in weather
warfare.
Adherents of weather
warfare prefer to call it 'environmental modification' – or
ENMOD. The corporate media has reported almost
nothing about these
aerospace and defense programs, or the technologies
involved....World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell
today confirms that
“US military scientists...are working on weather systems as
a potential weapon. The methods include the
enhancing of storms
and the diverting of vapor-rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere
to produce targeted droughts or floods"
(Snow, 2003, March).
The rash of recent
wars waged by the United States and its allies such as
Britain are accompanied with vague talk about a “war on
terrorism” against “Islamic extremists” who were trained and
funded by the CIA (Blum, 2000). Meanwhile, policing
personnel, surveillance equipment and other tools of the
Police
State are
being expanded and procured. The erosion of civil liberties
is justified as serving the public when in fact the main
benefits accrue to the web of interests in weaponry, prison,
mass media and related industries. Buisnesses that profit
from government contracts from the building and maintenance
of the system have no desire to slow its growth. An
illustrative case is "Halliburton, the Houston, Texas-based
oil services conglomerate, which has made billions from the
war [in Iraq] even in the face of charges of massive
overbilling, shoddy work, official bribery and political
influence-peddling" (St. Clair, 2005, July 14). Given these
trends, concern over the uses and abuses of technology and
the coming global totalitarianism is long overdue.
2. Critical
Perspectives On Science And Technology
Historically, who has
benefited most often from the exploitation of science and
technology, elites or the general public (and non-human
species)? By looking at some of the foundational truths of
Western science and the subsequent transformation of culture
and nature, we can gain greater insight into this question.
2.1 The
Scientific Mission: Order And Power
In her classic
critique of the origins of Western science at the time of
the enlightenment, Merchant (1980) identified main
tendencies of the "scientific revolution."
The brilliant
achievement of mechanism as a world view [in the 16th
century] was its reordering of reality around two
fundamental
constituents of
human experience--order and power. Order was attained
through an emphasis on the motion of indivisible parts
subject to
mathematical laws and the rejection of unpredictable
animistic sources of change. Power was achieved through
immediate
active intervention
in a secularized world. The Baconian method [derived from
the “Father of Science,” Francis Bacon] advocated
power over nature
through manual manipulation, technology, and experiment (p.
216).
The birth of the
scientific method whereby reality could be understood in
terms of verifiable facts coincided with the consolidation
of power in the hands of a secularized technocracy. This led
to what Aronowitz, a philosopher of science, has described
as the modern scientific paradigm and the concomitant loss
of spiritual or non-quantifiable meaning:
Science is founded
on the idea that the results of its methods—which are very
specific mathematical and experimental methods—are
equivalent to what
we mean by truth. The mythology holds that science describes
physical reality, that science is truth. And if science
is truth, instead of
merely one form of truth, then all other forms of truth-all
philosophical truth, all ethical truth, all emotional,
spiritual,
relational, experiential truths-are devalued (Jensen and
Draffan, 2004, October).
As all "experiential
truths are devalued," the logical inconsistencies of science
are quietly swept under the rug. Categorizing academic
knowledge into "departments," "schools" or "fields" is
understandable given the need to focus attention and energy,
yet also allows gate-keepers to dismiss holistic or
cross-disciplinary thinking as unwieldy or irrelevant.
Speaking of the “blind reverence to science” that its
proponents adhere to, Collins (2005, February) notes that
“biases and presuppositions pervade the very fabric of the
elite's epistemic autocracy. Academia itself has become the
official church for this cult of epistemological
selectivity.” The Christian philosopher, Zacharias, in an
informal meeting with scientists discovered “prejudicial
hurdles of scientism.”
1. Zacharias: "If the Big
Bang were indeed where it all began, may I ask what preceded
the Big Bang?" The scientist's answer was that "the universe
was shrunk down to a singularity." Zacharias responded,
"[b]ut isn't it correct that a singularity as defined by
science is a point at which all the laws of physics break
down?" One scientist responded, "[t]hat is correct," which
led Zacharias to conclude that "technically," the
scientist's "starting point is not scientific either." The
scientist could not disagree.
2. Zacharias asked if the
scientists "agreed that when a mechanistic view of the
universe had held sway, thinkers like Hume had chided
philosophers for taking the principle of causality and
applying it to a philosophical argument for the existence of
God. Causality, he warned, could not be extrapolated from
science to philosophy." Zacharias points out the
contradiction. "[W]hen quantum theory holds sway, randomness
in the subatomic world is made a basis for randomness in
life." Aren't scientists "making the very same
extrapolation" that they "warned us against?" One scientist
replied that "[w]e scientists do seem to retain selective
sovereignty over what we allow to be transferred to
philosophy and what we don't," making a slight admission of
the illogic of science (Collins, 2005, February).
Another rupture in
scientific logic is shown by the philosopher of ecology,
Goldsmith (1998), who asserts that the "progress" associated
with science and technology is actually "anti-evolutionary"
since it is destructive to natural processes.
In terms of the
world-view of modernism and of the associated paradigm of
science--the changes brought to the ecosphere in the
name of progress by
modern man, with the aid of science, technology and
industry--are part and parcel of the evolutionary process.
No distinction is
made between the process which leads to the development of
the world of living things, or the ecosphere, and that
which leads instead
to the development of the technosphere....On the contrary,
these two obviously very different and indeed
conflicting
processes are seen as one and the same. If they differ at
all, it is only insofar as one type of evolution is seen as
“endosomatic,” in
that it involves the modification of organs and behavior;
while the other, referred to as technical or “exosomatic”
evolution, proceeds
largely by the making of new “organs” outside of the
organism (p. 418).
Amazingly, industrial
and technological innovation, even if it calls for replacing
humans with robots (or turning humans into machines with new
"organs") and replacing nature with artificial surroundings
is seen as scientific progress. On a sociological level, the
environmental writers Jensen & Draffan (2004) elaborate on
the idea of science as a tool of domination. Science leads
to monotony, loss of individual freedom, loss of innate
spontaneity and curiosity with the ultimate goal of
replacing nature and humans with an automated "society."
What does science
do? It calls for everything to be measured. It calls for
everything that cannot be measured to be ignored or
destroyed, and
everything that can be measured to be analyzed (according to
the rules of science)....What is science for? To analyze.
Why? To predict.
Why? To reduce risk for those doing calculations (and their
masters) and to control those about whom these
predictions are
made. Why do they do this? So those performing these
analyses and predictions can rule over everything they can
analyze (and destroy
everything they cannot)....Under this rubric, what is power?
It is the ability to control outcomes. What then, is a
bureaucracy? It is
administration of rules, efficiency and quantification. It
is the administration of control. What, then is a culture
administered by a
bureaucracy? It is a machine (p. 73.)
2.2 The Market
Mechanism
Though the former
Soviet Union, under communisim, used a centralized economic
system which relied on the scientific paradigm, the market
system has exploited technology with more intensity. The
political philosopher Fotopoulis (1998) provides a critical
explanation:
Technology has never
been ‘neutral’ with respect to the logic of the dynamics of
the market economy. Still, not only socialist statists
but
environmentalists as well, explicitly, or usually
implicitly, assume that technology is socially neutral...In
a market
society...technology
embodies concrete relations of production, its hierarchical
organization and, of course, its primary aim...[is] the
maximisation of
economic growth and efficiency for profit purposes (p. 60).
The "improvements"
prescribed by the so-called market economy are leading to
technology dependence and an erosion of humanism,
spirituality and cultural safe-guards against greed. While
most products are made today by lowly paid laborers in the
Third World, we can witness a trend where many goods or
services that used to be
hand-led
by humans are now
operated
by computers and robots. This "primary aim" for "economic
growth" does not necessarily serve the best interests of
humanity. Sachs (1992, June), a sociologist and
environmental thinker states the problem from a cultural
perspective:
There are two
entirely different principles which can shape a society’s
image of itself. Either a person-to-person or a
person-to-things
relationship
predominates. In the first case, events are examined in the
light of their significance with regard to neighbours or
relatives, ancestors
or gods; whereas, in the second, all circumstances in the
life of society are judged according to what they
contribute to the
acquisition and ownership of things. The modem epoch, whose
thoughts and aspirations revolve mainly around
property, production
and distribution, devotes itself to the cult of things; the
use of technology is thus its beatifying ritual.
Economics exploits
those aspects of life which involve pleasure, convenience
and security. Once established cultural systems are eroded
and religious restrictions removed, with the aid of the
market mechanism, the group is fragmented and individuals
must fend for themselves. The message of modern society is
that life affirming norms are to be dispensed and
unrestrained individualism encouraged in spite of the costs
incurred by society. Thus, advertisers target children who
are the most vulnerable and open to suggestion and most
likely to become consumer predators.
Fear of emptiness
and discomfort lead to greed. Greed leads to an obsession
with getting what you want, which leads to putting
acquisition and
production above everything else. Frustrated greed leads to
aggresssion, and the willingness to ignore others’
feelings....How do
you maximize production? Through making everyone efficient,
that is, through getting rid of barriers to production.
One barrier to
production is diversity. People, resources, machine parts
must be interchangeable. High technology is a tool of
industrial
production. Neither more nor less. Bureaucracy is the
administration of production and efficiency. It is nothing
less than
this, but it is
more. Bureaucracy is the administrative means to eliminate
feelings, ambivalence, and anything else that might
interfere with
production. A lack of bureaucracy leads to a lack of
efficiency. A lack of efficiency leads to production not
being
maximized. With
production not maximized, the (neurotic) need to avoid
discomfort through control is foiled. Fear returns.
(Jensen & Draffan,
2004, p. 78).
The old adage goes:
salesmanship is the practice of selling something for more
than it's worth to someone who does not need it. But as
culture loses its human and natural bases, people are more
inclined to buy snake
oil to soothe
the discomfort and fear that accompanies modern life.
2.3 Loss Of
Knowledge And Nature: Return To
Sumud
Most urbanized humans
are so dependent on technology that they would be helpless
within a few hours without electricity and running water.
Apartment buildings themselves are machines, granting every
amenity in order for their inhabitants to survive. And
machines need energy. Critic of science, Keith, notes that
since energy fuels the scientific paradigm, the public must
be kept ignorant of its jargon, internal logic and workings.
Energy is recognized
as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the
study of the sources and control of natural energy, and
social science,
theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the
sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping
systems. Mathematics
is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be
king if the public can be kept ignorant of the
methodology of the
bookkeeping. All science is merely a means to an end. The
means is knowledge. The end is control
(Collins, 2005,
February).
The world's immensely
wealthy oil-oligarchy is an example of the way energy is
used to impose a unified energy regime on society while
ignoring the environmental dangers of a fossil fuel energy
policy. For example, it has often been argued that oil
companies manipulate oil prices for their own financial gain
regardless of the suffering this inflicts on many sectors of
the population (Chen, 2005, August 22). Since people are
kept uneducated to the complex matters of oil geology and
economics and alternative energy sources, they easily fall
prey to the monolithic system.
One means of
controlling the public is through the mystification of
knowledge in order to discourage people from attempting to
understand the world. If understanding is beyond reach, then
action to change injustices is futile. As another familiar
saying goes: the more things change, the more they stay the
same. But the reason they stay so is because the power
structure that determines public policy has remained in
place for so long. Thus, some modern schools do not
emphasize critical or heterodox approaches to thinking and
problem solving but mainly teach social skills to children
and act as a holding-tank and job-sorter for teens (McVeigh,
2002). Without the intellectual capacity to penetrate the
complex power structure upon which society is built, people
easily accept modern forms of mysticism (as promoted through
the mass media).
As Jensen and Draffan
(2004, October) note, “[O]ur culture today is not secular,
but just as religious (in the pejorative sense of
superstitious, unconscious, assumed) as ever. Only today,
science is the religion, experts are the priests,
bureaucrats are the gatekeepers, and research and
development institutions are the cathedrals.” Rich (1994)
notes in his authoritative study of the World Bank's
disastrous policies on the Third World that bureaucratic
systems take on a life and logic which deny their own
failings.
[A]n original
bureaucratic decision may appear with hindsight erroneous,
harmful, pernicious, and irrational in terms of
organizations
substantive values
and goals, not to speak of reasonable ethical norms. But
once a sequence of actions is launched, the formal
rationality of the
organization takes over, and each intermediate decision
appears eminently rational in terms of the situation that
immediately preceded
it. With each incremental action, the original decision is
ratified (p. 235).
What applies to
bureaucracies can also apply to human applications of
technology. As indigenous or "folk" knowledge is usurped by
corporate advertising, critical thinking among citizens is
weakened and dependency on industrialized products is
enhanced. The
techonocratic
vision as championed by the World Bank and other financial
institutions (i.e., the global monetocracy) has led to the
replacement of natural life forms with artificial ones and
what Goldsmith (1998) and his colleagues at
The Ecologist
magazine have documented in detail for over thirty five
years, namely, massive environmental disruption. Humanity
has appropriated approximately half of the biosphere’s
(i.e., the living layer of the planet) “terrestrial net
primary production” capacity for its own purposes. This has
affected the basic climatological, hydrological and
terrestrial life support functions of the planet. Goldsmith
accuses the scientific community of “almost total
indifference” to the environmental crises they have helped
create through the reworking of the biosphere toward the
goals of furthering the scientific paradigm.
Many of our fears
today are rooted in our placelessness, loss of sense of
values, and the desacralization and devalorization of
natural experience. Unraveling the myth of value-free
science, the historian of science, Proctor (1991), traces
the transition in Western society from the religious
foundation and order of things as they had previously been
understood from Aristotle to Aquinas, up to the age of the
enlightenment. The changes in perspective brought about by
the discoveries of Galileo, such as that the Earth was not
the center of the universe, threatened the social structure
(e.g., the Church) and its values:
The scientific
revolution is a revolution in our views of value, not just
our views of nature. Value in the modern world is a human
creation--the
product of human arts and labors. The natural order is no
longer a moral one; the cosmos is indifferent to the plight
of
humans. Things may
be good or bad, but only in relation to humans or their
actions. Something is good if it pleases us or may be put
to use. Value is no
longer etched in the nature of things; “Being,” in the
expression of Koyre, has been “devalorized" (p. 41).
In a devalorized world
we are discouraged to find a sense of belonging in nature
while the mass media encourages images of rape and murder as
normal events. Technology critic, Roszak (2000), notes that
[a]t the
psychological level, rape stems from a distinct state of
mind that is the same whether the victim is a woman or a
rainforest.
Rape begins by
denying the victim her dignity, autonomy and feeling.
Psychologists now call this “objectifying” the victim. When
it is
another human being
who is being so objectified, everybody (except perhaps the
rapist) can clearly see the act as a crime. But when
we objectify the
natural world [with “nature” clearly being metaphor for
“woman,” according to Roszak], turning it into a dead or
stupid thing, we
have another word for that. Science (p. 97).
Roszak's
interpretation relates to Easlea's feminist perspective
(1983), a former nuclear physicist who turned to a critical
investigation of the nuclear arms race.
[M]odern science is
predominantly a 'masculine philosophy' that has a concealed
if mutilated 'feminine' aspect. Just as masculine men
attempt to conceal
and continue to repress the feminine within themselves, so
masculine practitioners of science eliminate the 'soft'
content of what they
practise and analyse (p. 174).
Francis Bacon's 16th
century masculine science also fed into the social and
political sciences which sought justification for the
tendency of humans to colonize lands and peoples. Writing
about events in the Middle East, the journalist and
historian Shamir (2005) illustrates this in his essay
Sumud and Flux,
noting that "[t]he Palestinians call their adherence to
soil, to the particular and unique piece of land they choose
to live in, by word Sumud” (p. 77). However, “Flux is the
most general form of free movement, whether by liberal
economic measures as in the Open Society of Popper and von
Hayek, or by brutal force as in Zionism, or by revolutionary
measures of Trotskyism, or by American military intervention
as by Neo-Cons...” (p. 79). According to Shamir's
reaffirming world view, we have traveled too far down the
road of technological and financial empowerment (flux) and
need to return to our human roots planted in the land,
family, community, and spirituality (sumud).
The world is better
presented not as the Manicaean battlefield of good and evil,
but as the Taoist arena of eternal struggle of opposing
forces, of Energy
and Entropy, of Diversity and Uniformity, or of Sumud and
Flux. Both are needed, but total victory of one of the
forces should be
prevented, if mankind is to survive.
Diversity, i.e.
thousands of tribes, cultural traditions, languages, beliefs
is the Paradise Lost of mankind. It is the spiritual
equivalent
of oil supply, as
well, for Diversity is the source of energy. When Diversity,
the huge battery full of energy, is being discharged, Energy
is released and
Uniformity, or Entropy increase as ‘the fee’ for the Energy
released. Multi-culturalism is false Diversity, just a brief
stop
before the
Uniformity, and death.
Flux discharges
‘the battery’ of Diversity. In a balanced state, the
released energy should create Art and Faith, but it could be
redirected into
utilitarian usefulness. Mammon, this personification of
greed worship, competes with God (Art and Faith) for the
release energy; or,
as the Gospel puts it, ‘One can’t serve God and Mammon’. (p.
80).
Mankind had a
very long run of Flux. It gave us more personal freedom than
we could have otherwise. But it was not a free lunch.
We lost much of
precious Diversity. When it will run out, we shall be
spiritually dead. In order to survive, we should turn to
Sumud
(p. 81).
For Shamir, when
multi-culturalism is used in its politically correct usage
it is a code for Western cultural and political hegemony,
which results in homogenization and ultimate destruction.
Just as sustainable forms of technology should not empower
any group or individual over one another, or over-burden the
Earth's ecology, true multi-culturalism
re-valorizes
the cultural and biological diversity that was destroyed by
colonialism and imperialism, and respects and reaffirms the
autonomy and sovereignty of diverse peoples.
3. The Expanding
Technosphere: Uses And Abuses
While the awesome
power to do good through the rational use of technology is
constantly trumpeted by technophiles and leaders of
industry, many observers of science and technology have
warned that the pace of change has outstripped the human
ability to use technology wisely, efficiently and safely.
3.1 Power And
Control
Sachs' study (1992,
June) of the effects of technology on Third World countries
found that the North (i.e., the "rich" world), led by the
United States, imposed a straight jacket solution to
"poverty" in the South (i.e., the "poor" world) that
involved the foisting of an inappropriate industrial
infrastructure on cultures with different histories,
geographies and environments.
Take the example of
an electric mixer. Whirring and slightly vibrating, it makes
juice from solid fruit in next to no time. A wonderful
tool! So it seems.
But a quick look at cord and wall-socket reveals that what
we have before us is rather the domestic terminal of a
national, indeed
worldwide, system: the electricity arrives via a network of
cables and overhead utility lines which are fed by power
stations that depend
on water pressures, pipelines or tanker consignments, which
in turn require dams, offshore platforms or derricks
in distant deserts.
The whole chain only guarantees an adequate and prompt
delivery if every one of its parts is overseen by armies of
engineers, planners
and financial experts, who themselves can fall back on
administrations, universities, indeed entire industries (and
sometimes even the
military).
Therein lies the trap
of technology: while individual items of technology are
marketed for reasons of luxury, convenience and necessity,
acceptance of even one appliance can indebt one to the
system. Technological advancement entails having a job,
renting or buying a dwellling, owning a car, using a credit
card and so on. Sachs points out that “[a]s with a car, a
pill, a computer or a television,” there are
“interconnected systems of organization and production.”
[T]he use of simple
techniques and that of modem equipment lies the
reorganization of a whole society....[I]t is probably no
exaggeration to say
that the deep structures of perception are changing with the
massive invasion of technology....[N]ature is viewed
in mechanical terms,
space is seen as geometrically homogeneous and time as
linear....[H]uman beings are not the same as they used
to be - and they
feel increasingly unable to treat technologies like tools by
laying them down.
3.2 The World
Expo
One way that we are
encouraged to adopt new tools is evident in the World
Exposition system which began in the mid 19th century during
the peak of the industrial revolution ("World' Fair," 2005,
August 27). The most recent World Expo was hosted by Japan
with the theme ''Nature's Wisdom'' and the “intention of
promoting economic development in harmony with nature”
(Kakuchi, 2005, March 24). It was reported that the "event's
theme was chosen to emphasise sustainable development over
the current global trend of mass consumption that is blamed
for destroying the environment and causing global warming
and desertification." However, the examples organizers
choose to illustrate how "sustainable development" might
stop current trends of "mass consumption" revealed more
about a concern for promoting technology than environmental
sustainability. For example,
[T]he Chinese
pavilion represent[s] harmony between nature and urban areas
achieved through technology. The site includes a video
room with
lotus-shaped seats where visitors can watch a circular
plasma screen displaying traditional calligraphy and
paintings....The
Russian pavilion
features a life-size model of a leisure spaceship.
Japan's pavilion even
featured robots that would be able to replace human workers:
[T]he special
attractions of the Japanese exhibit are 63 prototype robots,
including live-looking and life-size humanoid robots that
could
one day play the
role of caregivers for children or the elderly -- the latter
being a rapidly growing proportion of the country's
population (Kakuchi,
2005, March 24).
Organizers did not
comment on the irony of replacing able bodied human workers
with robots in a country where homelessness (presumably due
to unemployment in most cases) is a noticable problem.
Indeed, as one neighborhood organizer told me about the
Toshima ward of Tokyo where we both live, the Japanese
government is presently closing down its community centers
because of "lack of budget" even as they heavily invest in
military technology (Wilcox, p. 72, 2005, April).
Nevertheless, Japanese organizers of the Expo stated that
rather than being a
showcase for advanced Japanese technology, the Expo in Aichi
serves as a platform to emphasise the country's
commitment to the
global environment....Aichi is a landmark for Japan because
it carries the message that we can play the role of
being the centre in
solving the world's environmental problems (Kakuchi, 2005,
March 24).
This promise was
contradicted in part by the content of the exhibits which
emphasized robotics versus fulfillment found through human
endevour, video learning versus human interactions with one
another, and space-ships over basic human and environmental
needs. The construction of the Expo site infringed upon
native forests and "the already endangered nesting goshawk,
a bird species native to the local ecosystem.” No mention
is made by Expo organizers of Japan's record of destruction
to global forests, wildlife and fisheries and how technology
could be used, if at all, to repair damage caused by
unlimited economic growth and rampant consumerism (Wilcox,
2001; 2000; 1999). While some pavillions from Third World
countries attempted to use the event in a counterhegemonic
way by promoting the environmentally friendly technologies
of peasants and indigenous peoples (Kakuchi, 2005, March
24), this was secondary to the emphasis on an ever-expanding
technosphere.
3.3 Emerging
Technologies
Biotechnology is one
of the most controversial technologies in use today. Many
critics charge that corporately managed biotech science aims
to control or own life forms thereby denying access to lands
and natural resources to the world's people. Most well known
are the battles over genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
namely foods (i.e., GM foods), where consumers from around
the world have opposed plans to introduce GM foods from the
United States in their countries. Monsanto corporation has
been one the biggest producers and promoters of such biotech
products (Cohen, 2001).
Biotechnology covers a
wide range of ethical, legal, economic, political,
ecological and human health issues. For example, Rifkin
(2005, March 27), a noted critic of biotech pointed out that
the latest applications could have disturbing results:
Some researchers are
speculating about human-chimpanzee chimeras?– creating a
humanzee. A humanzee would be the ideal
laboratory research
animal because chimpanzees are so closely related to human
beings. Fusing a human and chimpanzee
embryo could produce
a creature so human that questions regarding its moral and
legal status would throw 4,000 years of
ethics into utter
chaos. If the purpose of creating this hybrid is to perform
medical experiments, could those experiments possibly
be morally
permissible?
It seems there are no
boundries remaining to protect the sacredness of life, as
humans evolve from ape to human and then back again, the
circle nearly complete! Other key aspects of biotechnology
include the corporate patenting and ownership of seeds (and
other organisms) thereby attempting to monopolize the
world's food supply; the misapplication of GMOs to increase
nutrition and food intake in the Third World; potential as
well as documented dangers to human health, wildlife and the
environment from GM crops; ethical concerns about eugenics,
designer babies, cloning, xenotransplantation (i.e., using
animal parts in humans), and political profiling through
genetic stereotyping based on false science; as well as the
misapplication of biotechnology to solve diseases. In
addition, throughout the Third World, indigenous peoples and
biodiversity are intruded upon as their genes are "mined" by
pharmaceutical and biotech companies
(Tokar, Ed., 2001). In
the case of biological pollution from GMOs, Tokar ( March
25, 2005), a long-time anti-GMO writer and activist found
that:
The problem of
transgenic contamination of organic and other non-engineered
crops has become increasingly widespread. In
Canada, farmers have
detected varieties of canola that are simultaneously
resistant to three different chemical herbicides, as a
result of cross-
pollination of different varieties genetically manipulated
to be herbicide tolerant. These have come to be viewed as
"superweeds,"requiring increasingly virulent weed killers to
remove them.
In Mexico,
small amounts of genetically engineered feed corn imported
from the U.S. have been planted experimentally by
some farmers,
leading to the widespread contamination of indigenous corn
varieties with transgenic DNA in nine Mexican states. A
2004 study by the
Union of Concerned Scientists showed detectable genetic
contamination of several popular varieties of corn and
soybeans sold as
non-GMO seed for commercial planting.
And in Britain, the
Independent newspaper reports that
[o]fficial policy is
portrayed as being neutral and based simply on scientific
advice....Yet another nail was hammered into the coffin of
the GM food
industry...when the final trial of a four-year series of
experiments found, once more, that genetically modified
crops can be
harmful to
wildlife....They showed the ultra-powerful weedkillers that
the crops are engineered to tolerate would bring about
further
damage to a
countryside already devastated by intensive farming.The
fourth and final mass experiment involving GM crops has
found
that they caused
significant harm to wild flowers, butterflies, bees and
probably songbirds. Results of the farm-scale trial of
winter-sown
oilseed rape raised
further doubts about whether GM crops can ever be grown in
Britain without causing further damage to the nation's
wildlife (Connor,
2005).
In the United States
and Canada the biotech industry appears to have greater
political power due to their long lasting relationship with
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This has led to the
absurd situation where a farmer in Canada, Percy Schmeiser,
who did not want to use genetically modified seeds, was sued
by Monsanto corporation because his crops were contaminated
by GM seeds which had accidentally fallen into his field and
grew up as GM crops. Monsanto claimed he stole their
patented product and sued him in court. Schmeiser concluded
that “[i]ntellectual property rights (the new patent laws)
now have precedence over private property law, the interests
of the biotechnology companies now have precedence over
those of the natural environment, and profits have
precedence over food production, food quality and public
health” ("Percy Schmeiser," 2004, May). Luckily for
Schmeiser--a rare case where a farmer with the money,
patience, courage and worldwide support to stand up to the
corporate bullies--did not lose his farm to Monsanto. His
website recently stated that
[t]he Supreme Court
issued their decision in May 2004 and one can view the
decision as a draw. The Court determined that
Monsanto's patent is
valid, but Schmeiser is not forced to pay Monsanto anything
as he did not profit from the presence of Roundup
Ready canola in his
fields ("Monsanto vs Schmeiser," 2005, September 9).
Despite the odds
against Schmeiser, his efforts show that the biotech food
industry continues to run into opposition from concerned
farmers, consumers and citizens. However, biotech research
continues apace in corporate laboratories as genetics,
nanotechnology and robotics (GNR) merge into a new
technology that critics warn could result in large-scale
accidents or be used for intentionally destructive purposes
("The revolution," 2003, August). The Action Group on
Erosion, Technology and Concentration reports a lack of
government oversight in industrialized countries.
Nanotechnologists are literally altering life at the atomic
level. This will change the way we live and what we consume
in order to survive. As the ETC Group reports:
Over the next two
decades, the impacts of nano-scale convergence on farmers
and food will exceed that of farm mechanisation or of
the Green
Revolution. No government has developed a regulatory regime
that addresses the nano-scale or the societal impacts of the
invisibly small. A
handful of food and nutrition products containing invisible
and unregulated nano-scale additives are already
commercially
available. Likewise, a number of pesticides formulated at
the nano-scale are on the market and have been released in
the environment
("Down on the farm," 2004, November 23).
Whether or not the
nano-tech and food companies will be able to fulfill their
grandiose claims of a nano-particle super-food, thereby
delivering plentiful and nutritious food to consumers more
efficiently than standard farming methods, they are
presently investing billions of dollars toward that aim. The
proof is in the nano-pudding. Undoubtedly, given an option
most people would prefer not to eat such techno-gunk.
However, with the increasing corporate monopolization of the
food supply consumers may no longer have a choice ("Food
sovereignty," 2002, June 14). Most processed and "fast"
foods (i.e., "junk food" as opposed to "whole food") are
already full of unhealthy ingredients even as the U.S.
government fails to hold food manufacturers accountable
("MSG," 2005, September 12).
3.4 Consumerism
There is a sinister
aspect to the information technology (IT) boom that most
users of its hardware are only dimly aware of. Africa has
long supplied the rest of the world with precious
commodities. Over the centuries these have included human
slaves, elephant ivory, oil, timber, animal parts, cash
crops and valuable minerals such as diamonds. Today, the
newest hot-commodity is coltan which is used mainly in cell
phones and in other high tech products. As reported in the
political journal, The Handstand ("Congo," 2005, May):
Coltan is made of
the minerals columbium and tantalite, or Coltan for short.
Tantalite is a rare, hard and dense metal, very resistant to
corrosion and high
temperatures and is an excellent electricity and heat
conductor. It is used in the microchips of cell phone
batteries
to prolong duration
of the charge, making this business flourish.
[T]he prime
producer of Coltan on a world level...is in Africa where 80%
of the world reserves are to be found. Within this
continent,
the Democratic
Republic of Congo concentrates over 80% of the deposits,
where 10,000 miners toil daily in the province of Kivu
(eastern Congo), a
territory that has been occupied since 1998 by the armies of
Rwanda and Uganda.
Unbeknownst to most
cell phone users, "cell phones and children's video games
are tainted with the blood of 3.2 million deaths since 1998"
while "other mega-technologies contribute to forest
depredation and spoliation of the rich natural resources of
paradoxically impoverished peoples." High mortality is
brought on by warring factions and the contamination of
civilian miners and their families at mining sites. Several
companies "associated to large transnational capital, local
governments and military forces (both state and
'guerrilla')" have colonized the region and grapple for the
mining rights to extract coltan and other minerals. African
journalist Kofi Akosah-Sarpong states that "[c]oltan in
general terms is not helping the local people....In fact, it
is the curse of the Congo."
There is an additional
health crisis occurring at the user-end of the cell phone.
Worthington (2005, February) reports that “[s]ome people
appear to have an almost pathological emotional attachment
to their cell phones.” In major cities around the world
people regularly talk, read, play games and send text
messages while using cell phones, often oblivious to their
surroundings as they walk incognizant of the crowds of
people and traffic that surrounds them. Most users are
unaware that a
cell phone is a
microwave transmitter....Microwave energy oscillates at
millions to billions of cycles per second. The Journal of
Cellular
Biochemistry reports
that these frequencies cause cancer and other diseases by
interfering with cellular DNA and its repair
mechanisms.
Cell phones promote
cell shrinkage, "rapid cell aging" and cancerous cells to
"grow aggressively.” In addition, “[c]ordless phones...emit
the same dangerous microwave radiation as cell phones.”
Worthington reports that medical researcher Dr. Henry Lai
found that "brain cells are clearly damaged by microwave
levels far below the U.S. government's" safety guidelines
which critics believe do not adequately protect users and
others within range of the phones and microwave transmitter
towers. Worthington cites additional research that claims
that "government agencies and cell phone manufacturers KNEW
YEARS AGO that cell phone radiation at present exposure
levels is dangerous to human health" [emphasis in original].
Yet, according to Lai's findings,
even tiny doses of
radio frequency can cumulate over time and lead to harmful
effects...cell phones can also leak huge amounts of
radiation from the
keypad and mouthpiece. This radiation deeply penetrates
brain, ear and eye tissues, which are especially susceptible
to microwave damage
(Worthington, 2005, February).
Ashton & Laura's
research (1999) on the carcinogenic effects of
electromagnetic field (EMF) ex
