May
1996
Is
High Technology Killing Us?
By Philip Goff
|
|
|
In a two part series, Philip Goff looks at our increasing
dependence on computer technology. In next month’s issue of Satya,
he will analyze computers, the environment, and corporate power. In
the first part, he offers a critique of computer culture and the information
superhighway.
As I sit in the New York Public Library watching a young woman browse
through the computer "card catalog," my mind drifts towards
thoughts of the communications revolution. It is easy to praise an emerging
technology that allows people to locate books and other vital pieces
of information in a fraction of the time it would have taken 10 or 20
years ago. Many of you surely would agree, and are probably living lives
that require the help of a computer in some way, whether you are a writer,
a graphic artist, or even a waiter or waitress. In the past five years
we have been barraged with news, information and propaganda promoting
and glorifying the computer revolution. As is typical with most new
forms of technology, an open-minded analysis of the true ramifications
of this revolution has not been undertaken by the media, government,
or the general populace. Instead, the focus is on the gathering of an
increased volume of information at greater speeds, the unlimited possibilities
for virtual communities, and the impact of computers on education.
Proponents of the computer age should familiarize themselves with the
fifth of the ten recommended attitudes towards technology in Jerry Mander’s
In the Absence of the Sacred: "Never judge technology by the way
it benefits you personally, seek a holistic view of its impacts."
Anyone who takes this seriously will soon discover the multitude of
insidious impacts that computer technology is beginning to have on human
culture and the environment. My intent here is not to convince readers
to stop using computers or the Internet; I aim only to begin an honest
discussion of the effects of the nearly unstoppable computer age. The
efficacy of activists and educators is paramount, and, if that requires
the use of computers, then so be it. But that does not excuse us from
failing to understand the profound ramifications of computers on the
world.
Obsession and Dependency
Our reliance on and obsession with computer technology is having major
effects on the human psyche. Most profoundly, we are becoming more and
more dependent on machines and computers, and less and less on human
ingenuity and community support. As we become more dependent on computers
to function in the workplace, go shopping, get to work, find a book
in the library, and entertain ourselves, our fallibility becomes exposed
and our sense of helplessness escalates when any computer system breaks
down. This co-dependency with machines is denying individuals their
freedom. True freedom means controlling one’s destiny and the
crucial issues of one’s existence — such as food, clothing,
shelter, and defense. All of these are easily threatened when we rely
too heavily on modern technology to control our lives.
How truly free are we when technology changes society in such radical
ways that we are eventually forced to use it? Consider someone who grew
up in a once compact small town in New England before World War II who,
by the 1960s, was virtually forced into owning an automobile. In that
particular case, modern technology, left unchecked, began the decentralization
of cities and towns, encouraged the creation of a massive network of
roads, and coerced nearly everyone into buying cars. As we embrace each
new technological advancement, we must keep in mind that we can never
go back. If the pernicious effects of computers become too great, we
can never return to typewriters and file cabinets, just as we could
never go back to traveling by horse and buggy. As the information superhighway
stretches out farther and farther, there become, unfortunately, fewer
and fewer exits.
As computer dependence burgeons, society is gradually coming to understand
the natural and cultural world only in terms with which computers can
describe it. The real world of flesh and blood, air, water, soil, plants,
and animals is being transformed into organized data and information.
This is affecting the way people are interacting. There is much talk
of "virtual" communities and cyberspace communication, the
ultimate results of a dehumanized culture losing its social skills.
Proponents of "virtual" communities proclaim that they will
be an adequate replacement for real communities, which have been so
fragmented as to be nearly destroyed. This, of course, treats only the
symptoms and not the disease.
Community via computer hookups discourages us from attempting to rebuild
and reintegrate existing communities. Since much of our culture is already
engaged in a dysfunctional relationship with both nature and other human
beings, why retreat into virtual communities based on entertainment
and escapism as opposed to confronting the real-world problems of life,
human relationships, and ecology?
"Virtual" Communities
"Virtual" communities pose a potential threat to urbanized
living. If, as some claim, interactive computer technology obviates
the need for centralization — making cities obsolete — it
will allow our automobile-obsessed citizens to live further out in the
"country." The influx of home offices reduces the need for
centralized human habitation, an environmentally benign system when
compared to sparsely populated high-tech rural communities. Cities grew
because the proximity of business, government, and food distribution
was vital. All communication was done face to face. With the influx
of telecommunications, the need for proximity may become greatly reduced.
Thus, a law firm can locate in a suburban office park, and its staff,
with the proper modem hook-up, can live further and further from the
home office, expediting the destruction of farms, forests, and wildlands.
By promoting a global economy, our computerized, post-industrial society
encourages organizations with far less connection, both financially
and culturally, to local communities. Professionals who work on the
global network, rather than in a physical place — Jeremy Rifkin’s
"high-tech nomadic tribe" — can more easily shrink from
civic responsibility and further engulf themselves in a cyber-lifestyle
of telecommuting, entertainment, and the commodification of cultures
and bio-regions worldwide.
Computer technology stratifies society into the computer "haves"
and "have nots." Some, through class standing and education,
will be more functional in our emerging virtual society, while others
will be too poor to own computers, not educated sufficiently to understand
them, or will by choice decide not to use them. The "have nots"
will be left out in the cold, economically and culturally, if our society
continues to embrace the ascending computer technology without at least
questioning it or providing alternatives.
The Next Generation
The blossoming of the computer revolution raises an especially important
question when it comes to raising children. Conventional wisdom currently
says that children at an ever younger age must learn how to use computers
or they will "fall behind" in learning and, subsequently,
in the job market. It has somehow escaped the proponents of this pedagogy
that none of today’s computer users, teachers, engineers, or technicians
were trained at a young age, yet somehow they learned and became proficient
at using them.
As younger children become more computer literate, they reduce their
ability to make choices about how to live their lives. Their freedom,
then, is reduced to being led down a single road, a road of utter dependence
upon machines. Their futures are being "locked in" to modern
technology and consumer culture. The more time children put into learning
computer technology, the less time they will have to learn the rudiments
of childhood: coloring with crayons, building with blocks, or fixing
and maintaining their bicycles. These are things traditionally associated
with the healthy development of children, and are more difficult to
learn as an adult. Computer use, on the other hand, is quite feasible
to learn as an adult.
Children who overuse computers are learning about life through an ersatz
world based specifically on raw info translated onto a 2-D screen, rather
than through multi-sensory, real-world experiences. According to Sandy
Irvine in the quarterly Wild Earth, computers in the classroom will
create "a new banality of learning, in which things might be learned,
as by rote, from the computer screen, but with little deep understanding
and even less diversity of thought." Additionally, we have yet
to know the effects on the brains or eyes of someone using a computer
for 50 or 60 years.
Ultimately, computers and telecommunications technology will replace
some teachers in the classroom. Machines have taken over most aspects
of industry and manufacturing, so it is inevitable that they take over
the classroom as well. Improved software will make human teachers increasingly
redundant, and administrators will be more than happy to cut costs by
eliminating teachers. The need to cut costs, so often discussed these
days, puts into question the entire concept of funding for computer
infrastructure, which not only is expensive to install and maintain,
but has a very high rate of obsolescence. President Clinton has recently
promised to have all public schools quickly "on-line" and
with updated computers, yet thousands of schools still need asbestos
insulation removal, new playgrounds, or new structures altogether. In
our technology-worshipping culture, the government seems intent on embarking
on a project for public schools that, arguably, the children do not
even need.
Philip Goff is a graduate student in urban planning
and an eco-activist. He would like to thank Kathy Roberts for her superb
copy editing.
 |
|
|
 |
