From: Weslake, Brad BG (Weslake.Brad.BG@bhp.com.au)
Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 19:49:39 MST
Here's what I ended up submitting. The original was fully referenced and
footnoted - if anyone wants a copy email me and I'll send you a Word 6.0
document.
I'd be interested in any comments (and, I expect, criticisms).
Topic
Why do you think the image of modern technology being 'out of control'
has such a strong appeal? In what ways does technology appear difficult
to control? For some of the problems you identify, explore their
implications for government policy-makers. Provide examples for your
arguments.
Abstract
The essay examines several explanations for the prevalence of the view
that technology is 'out of control'. Possible types of control are
considered and analogies drawn with technology itself. Factors which
have determined the public perception of technology and they way in
which it appears 'out of control' are examined through issues such as
the image of machines in the entertainment industry and mass media,
historical views of technology, human emotions and resistance to change,
the increasingly specialised nature of technology, the perception of
individual technologies as 'out of control', and ethical considerations.
Difficulties for policy makers in a capitalist democratic society are
investigated in light of the increasingly esoteric nature of technology,
the disparity between ethics and technological development, and the fact
that the end result of technological progress depends on the people
using the technologies as much as the technologies themselves.
Content
Humanity has long aspired to mould nature in it's image, to force nature
to conform to human desires, to control nature. The universe was
perceived by early humans to be volitional, and early religion speaks
testimony of this anthropomorphic world view. The development of the
deterministic paradigm upon which the modern artifacts of science and
technology stand is therefore one of many places where a line separating
primitive from modern man may be drawn, as it is this insight into the
universe which began to allow humans to predict, explain, and - most
importantly - affect the workings of nature. Nevertheless, a new dilemma
has arisen - that of the control of technology itself.
It has been said that whoever controls technology controls the future. A
view which has become prevalent in modern society is that technology is
'out of control' - and therefore that the future is out of human hands.
The reasons for this view are numerous and in the majority erroneous.
The intuitive or common notion of the word control involves a
centralised directing or restraining force; in this sense technology is
'out of control', for there is no single agency or regulatory power
which exercises authority over technological development. Furthermore,
there is no person or collective which can lay claim to understanding
all existing technology. An alternate form of control, with it's origins
in robotics and computer science, is termed distributed control , or
bottom-up control, where overall order is obtained through the smaller
scale independent management of component parts of a system. A breakdown
in this analogy is that in robotics component parts are designed with a
goal in mind; and there is not necessarily an "equivalent selective
force in society as a whole that will cause the techno-societal system
to tend toward homeostasis" . These models, however, do not take into
account the social framework within which technological development
operates.
Interestingly, the 'out of control' image is not primarily the result of
an awareness of these broad issues; rather, it results largely from the
interplay of various other determining factors.
The manner in which society presents technology through the arts and the
media has been a significant factor in the perception of technology as
'out of control'. In science fiction especially "the view of technology
as a violent, animal force is widespread and, in popular culture at
least, no longer needs justification". The Terminator movies, which
portray a world in which machines have overtaken humans, are one
example. Adding to this negative image of technology is the mass media,
renowned for focusing primarily on bad news. This emphasis on negative
connotations results in the public perception that either technologists
are inhuman, or the effects of technology itself are out of control.
Additionally responsible for the 'out of control' image are residual
historical attitudes to technological development. Anti-technology
sentiments most likely originated with the Industrial Revolution of the
late 18th Century, which saw the machine become viewed as a displacer of
humans and inherently evil. The public perception of the progression of
technology since that time period has passed through and now
incorporates attitudes of infatuation and blind acceptance of results -
"Can we?", ethical considerations due to the possibility of undesirable
results - "Should we?", and the current dilemma of control - "Can we
manage it?" However the inherent issue of control "is not, as some
historians and philosophers would have us imagine, that of man versus
machine. It is the much older conflict of man versus man" Technology
does not simply arise from nothing - rather, it is the result of human
desire to extend our ability to control nature, and to improve the
convenience of life.
If this is the case, and it is certainly logical that technology is
fashioned in the human interest, why does the 'out of control' image
persist? The answer lies partly in the collective human psyche - for
"how we try and control technology has a great deal to do with how we
feel about it." Technological progress means change, and technophobia is
often a part of a larger state of neophobia, the aversion to all things
new. This is not only due to the fact that change is occurring but,
increasingly, because of the extreme rapidity of technological
development. The multitude of decisions which are forced members of a
technological society result in feelings of bewilderment, resentment and
mistrust of established authority. Additionally - and this may sound
frivolous - people tend to attach inordinate value to superseded
technology. Some would suggest that this romantic posture is more than
trifling in it's influence on the general resistance to technological
change. This reluctance of people to take control of new technology
contributes to the overall 'out of control' image.
On a slightly different note, new technology by it's very nature is
increasingly esoteric, and the 'out of control' image is partly fuelled
by a general inability to understand it. The nature of technological
progress itself means that "while we have more knowledge, we have less
understanding" - and this is also true of the technologists at the
fringes of technological development. Couple this with the increasing
integration of and reliance on technology in every day life and the
question of whether technology actually controls us appears to become
more valid. This polar view of technology is not rational when the
origins of technology itself are considered, however - more accurate is
the statement that humans control or limit themselves through
technology.
The 'out of control' image is also partly due to the relaxation of
direct control on individual technologies themselves. Current machine
technology is becoming increasingly biological and directly
anthropomorphic, while technology is also delving into genetic
engineering and other biological realms. It is being realised that to
fully reap the benefits of technology some element of decision making
and independence must be incorporated into machines, which means that
"the creator must share control, and his destiny, with his creations."
This does not mean, however, that humans have resigned control - we
merely control the level of control given to machines, as it were.
The transfer of previously human functions to machines obviously raises
challenges to traditional beliefs, morals and ethics - indeed, some
would say that it promotes unwanted values: "Technology has caused
softening, dependency, degradation, disengagement and escapism -- all of
which impart a loss of meaning." And this is not the only area in which
technology infringes on untrodden ethical walkways, as the current human
cloning debate highlights. Of course, the 'out of control' image is
further added to by such ethical dilemma, but the issues really are
separate - in the case of cloning the technology is under control but
the ethics are lagging. As Paul Schmitt notes, "We have to get our
theology and philosophy and legislation all sort of thought through in
light of this extraordinary new set of circumstances." Thus government
policy is given the task of adapting to the new technology of cloning
and ensuring the public interest is upheld.
It can be seen that the perception of modern technology as 'out of
control' has resulted from a large number of influences. In modern
democratic society it is the responsibility of government to manage
both the public perception and the public interest. Under a capitalist
society individuals and companies try to manipulate technology for their
own personal advantage - innovation forced by competition. Every
technology can deliver unexpected risks, however, and so the government
must responsibly manage the risks of technological development. For even
in a capitalist society, "The grand issues of our time are settled by
public policy decisions more than by market forces". The difficulty for
policy makers is that it is hard to establish ensure beforehand
responsibility and accountability as the overall success of policy
(together with blame and liability) can only really be determined long
after the fact. Moreover, every technological choice raises ethical
questions, and so the end results are determined as much by the morals
and ethics of policy makers as by the technical content. This is
juxtaposed with the 'out of control' image of modern technology, and it
can be seen that steering technology is inherently a political act which
may be sufficient to provide the corrective forces necessary for
effective distributed control.
The social nature of technology indicates that technological development
is not necessarily unidirectional and blindly deterministic, and that
policy based on prevailing values actually affect the direction which it
takes. The major problem for government then is unpredictability, and
technological complexity - "our social evolution has fallen behind the
technical", and it is a problem which must be faced, as progress is
inevitable on the long term. Modern technology is not 'out of control',
but the end result of technology is determined as much by the nature of
the tool user as by the nature of the tool itself. The implication of
this is that ensuring a positive direction for technology must involve
maintaining a broadly technically literate populace who are at ease with
change, while maintaining close relations with those at the
technological forefront; and if technology appears to be 'out of
control' it is the social structure which is at fault - not technology
itself.
Brad Weslake
BHP IT Tin Mill Development
email weslake.brad.bg@bhp.com.au
ph +61 2 4275 5311
fax +61 2 4275 5215
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:35 MST