First of all, I just want to point out
that the recent protests and other actions in relation to the issue
of SOPA/PIPA (bolstered by varying degrees of blackouts on websites
like Reddit,
Wikipedia,
and Google)
quite likely amounted to the most politically active day in the
history of the world -- in terms of people discussing legislation,
issues of free speech, and governmental corruption. Furthermore, we
are quite likely to see evermore people championing the cause of free
speech (and challenging legal restrictions upon it through loopholes
like copyright and trademark). These are very hopeful developments.
However, what I find particularly
noteworthy is the kind of information that the government is looking
to restrict... namely, access to art. On it's face, there are
specious arguments about protecting artists and the profits of the
movie and recording industry. These arguments have already been
thoroughly dismantled
by others -- in terms of artists thriving because of their works
being spread and because artists created and thrived before any
copyright laws existed. But the underlying issue isn't really about
protecting artists -- or even corporatized industries profiting off
of them. Rather, I feel, the issue is about the plain censorship of
political dissent.
Art, and particularly pop art, has
often been used (perhaps counter-intuitively) to draw attention to
various political movements and ideas. One might very well argue
that putting an artistic work in such political context changes it
into a different and unique form which should be protected regardless
of what the original purpose might have been for the creation of any
particular piece. Even more fundamental is the
question of why observing any particular piece of art should be
restricted to those who can only pay for access to it. Along
these lines, powerfully inspirational and uplifting works of art
become restricted in a historically unique manner according to class.
What is even more noteworthy, in my
opinion, is why the government is not attempting to restrict the
information which could truly be dangerous to humanity. It might be
argued that any effort put into restricting access to a
Justin Bieber song is effort not being used to prevent the spread
of dangerous technologies. I wouldn't trust the government with the
responsibility to control either, but the fact that it is so
aggressively working to stop the spread of art and not, instead,
using those same resources to stop the spread of weapons
technology... is revealing. A lot of resources are being used to
prevent poor people from downloading a song or film which may be very
relevant to their lives, but those resources can not then be used to
prevent the spread of information about how to make genetically
engineered plagues or other dangerous weapons that are becoming more
efficiently manufactured all the time.
Now, I realize it's a slippery slope in
terms of censorship, but if a
dangerous weaponized technology could be simply manufactured by
using an innovative new method... I'd be opposed to that method being
broadly distributed (and quite likely opposed to it being distributed
at all). Along these lines, I'd go so far as to say that some ideas,
some technological techniques, are potentially not safe in anyone's
hands -- much less if it's readily available through some worldwide
information network. So... when I hear people use the hacker's credo
that "information wants to be free," and/or by default that
it "should" be free, I feel that they are not considering
the truly dangerous potential of certain technological information.
Rather, it seems, they are thinking only in terms of art or seemingly
helpful technological innovation. This could potentially be a
dangerously naive oversight.
This is where the philosophical rub
begins... and I hope you will hear me out even if you disagree with
me -- because these ideas are evermore rare, and are arguably
censored by default due to the nature of the critique they present.
This critique is one which is often dismissed out of hand without any
further consideration. This critique is, bluntly, a broader critique
of technology and the technocracy we live in. You can possibly
imagine how such ideas are evermore rare as society becomes more
evermore technologically centered and the means of communication are
evermore more centered around advanced technological systems. The
bias against the critique is inherent in the fact that it is
examining our regular personal experience regarding interaction with
technology. Psychologically, it presents a situation in which we
don't want to acknowledge our own oversights and complicity with a
flawed or dangerous idea. So do, please, try to bear with me.
Privately, which is to say off-line, I
predicted SOPA would fail and not pass. This is largely because I am
familiar with the ideas of Jacques
Ellul & Herbert
Marcuse. One reason why works of art distributed by computer
technology cannot be easily censored in this modern age is because
the nature of technology is such that... if art were censored on the
internet then that would lessen people's attraction to the Internet
overall and thus lead to less progress being made on Internet
communications -- and that, in turn, would hinder the development of
other technological endeavors. It is the underlying and implicit
logic of the technological system which works to prevent the
so-called cutting edge from being blunted in any real way.
The nature of the technological system
is to snowball in terms of constantly building upon itself and even
merging previously unrelated fields. Simultaneously, the mass of
humanity becomes evermore reliant on the technological systems being
maintained. For example, genetic
engineering and chemistry
now play a huge role in agriculture which previously might have been
unimagined and, at the same time, the masses become evermore
dependent upon agriculture. The issue however, the real problem with
this perpetuation, is that technology has started to become
perpetuated and advanced for it's own sake -- rather than for the
sake of humanity. It might even be argued that the reason the human
population has become so large is for the purpose of advancing
technology. And, thereby, the system we have created has trapped us
and is now in control. The bigger problem, ironically, is that
increasing numbers of technological creations potentially threaten
human existence.
Not only is humanity threatened by
technological advancement in very direct ways (both overtly by means
of modern weaponry and more subtly by the accompanying environmental
degradation), but our psychological bias, and our philosophical
conditioning, readily prevents us from truly acknowledging these
threats and working to stem their advancement. Furthermore, we fail
to see the dangers presented by cross-disciplines working together in
previously unimagined ways. In this manner even seemingly innocuous
research can often end up working for overtly dangerous technological
advancement. Albert Einstein himself is a good example in this
regard because his seemingly benign research could never have
originally been predicted to lead us into the dangers of the nuclear
age. And yet... that's precisely what use his research was put to.
I often find it telling that the most intelligent people in our
modern technological society are often considered to be the rocket
scientists, or nuclear physicists, or genetic engineers. And yet...
these are the very people who arguably put us in the most danger as a
species and actually threaten our continued existence.
Bringing things back to the
government's attempts at censoring Internet communications, these
attempts are not necessarily sincere -- although that may seem
counter-intuitive. As politicians in the United States are
effectively technocrats (insomuch as they generally sponsor and
promote technological advancements) this supposed threat to the
Internet is actually just another way for them to be rewarded by the
system which they otherwise incessantly promote. The threat garners
them more incentives from lobbyists to change their supposed
positions. Or, in terms of the technological system reifying itself,
it might be seen that these attempts at hindering Internet
technologies actually produce more staunch proponents of it within
the broader masses. In either of these potential scenarios the
technological system actually ends up stronger -- by either rewarding
its true proponents, creating a broader base of proponents, or both.
Also possibly counter-intuitive is the
fact that the virtual protest, with various sites shutting down or
blacking out in some manner, should inspire this critique of the very
system which the proponents of the protest strongly support. Maybe
that's just ironic, but I feel those sites being down naturally
inspires some of us to generally to think more deeply about what
those sites are for and to what ends they exist.
It should be noted that while the
online protest against censorship was about freedom of speech, but
the threats posed by technology, including computer technologies,
threaten a more fundamental freedom -- the freedom to exist. That
may sound like hyperbole to those in denial, but much in the process
of creating the Internet is environmentally destructive. The
Internet also serves to largely perpetuate broader consumerism and it
makes convenient the development of other technologies without
discretion -- regardless of the dangers they may present. A lot of
the supposed good enabled by the Internet might be trumped if it
facilitates enough consumeristic destruction or if it enables
destructive individuals to create highly destructive weapons. (To
those who still may not acknowledge the environmental devastation
brought about by consumerism, I feel obliged to point out that many
of the materials we use in the modern world are manufactured with
toxic methods, perhaps after some strip-mining, and often end up in
the landfills or the
pacific garbage gyre. And, indeed, the power needed to
manufacture and operate many of our devices relies overwhelmingly on
fossil fuels or the production of nuclear waste. But even so-called
"sustainable" energy sources merely maintain the other
destructive aspects of the consumeristic process.)
Another possibility to consider is that
concepts of human freedom have become so seemingly intertwined with
the freedom of technology that a threat to the latter is a threat to
both (at least to some degree in some instances). This might be
considered a more tech-positive position, on the face of it, but it
might behoove us to look at the further implications of this angle.
That is to say... just because we are dependent upon technology does
not mean that it is developing into areas that truly meet our needs.
Some level of technology is undoubtedly needed to maintain the
current human population, but to the extent that it subtly and
effectively works to increase our population to unsustainable levels,
or to the extent that it presents evermore existential threats, when
do we consider stemming any aspects of technological progress
(so-called)? And, if Pandora's box must be closed at all, must it
not realistically be closed completely lest the underlying potential
of disaster remain?
When it comes down to it, we may find
that the net effect of our technological system, generally and
overall, is to our detriment. And, while that presents a daunting
problem, the bigger risk may not be in the consequences of stemming
technological progress (even by what might be deemed censorship in
some cases), but, rather, what the final consequences will be if our
technological society is allowed to continue in even seemingly benign
ways. As it is, however, our society continues to stand behind
general technological advancement with little real consideration of
the repercussions. And while we defend our human rights to spread
information freely, we are inclined to ignore any negative
repercussions of that process.
I know these ideas will prove
distasteful and controversial to some. But I am merely raising the
issues and presenting a potential paradox. I am not sure what can
effectively be done in regard to these issues. Any sort of Luddism
these days is largely relegated to science
fiction or fringe
actions which often only deal with one technological aspect. The
roots of any problems humanity may have in connection with a
technological mindset will undoubtedly prove to run deep. In all
likelihood, I expect that the technological system will simply eat
itself and some large portion of humanity will go along with it. And
I am not inclined to believe that any of us will necessarily survive
like the characters in some post-apocalyptic film which the movie
industry wants to limit access to.
No comments:
Post a Comment