In Today’s world, Men’s home is not his castle, it’s a cage of foreign thoughts .

In recent posts, I talked about how our physical environment is being polluted by economic forces. Imagine a loud vacuum running all day long. The neighbors would definitely complain, right? But when we walk the street and we pass a store which uses some very loud speakers, this “sale screaming,” isn’t considered noise pollution. In Japan, when I go to a particular supermarket, a constant speaker is working. When you go to lively areas, huge screens, speakers and people that hand out things will welcome you. But we consider that reasonable.

But imagine that those people who stand in the street corner, or beside the crossroad, trying desperately to enter their bar, would stand in your living room. Be with you in your car. Be in the coffee shop and follow you around. Well, they are. I read the same thing in Marcuse “One dimensional-man” and in Allan Bloom’s “the closing of the American mind”. TV, Media Radio, follow us everytwhere and they pollute our individual thought process. In Japan, most cars have a navigation system with a screen. This screen can also be a TV set, so a lot of Japanese people watch TV while driving (the screen suppose to disappear while they are not standing still). They get up, open the TV, and they close it just to reopen it in the car. When they go to a small neighborhood coffee house, they might have a TV screen on the counter. In the supermarket, if you buy something to eat and want to eat in the “dining corner,” a TV set will wait for you there. When you wait in the doctor’s waiting room, a TV will ease your boredom. In big junctures, TV screens will be present. My wife and her mother are used to falling asleep while watching (passively) the TV. Sometimes I wake up in the early morning just to realize that the TV was on the whole night.

Commercial breaks are very often; They are short but very frequent. They always put them in the “right spot” when an answer or a big thing is gonna happen. Some programs have sponsors and “product placement.” They go to shops that I guess strike some kind of a deal with the TV channel to shoot at their place. It gives me the idea that the TV is lacking  any meaningful information. The problem is much deeper. “If man’s home is his castle” it’s not the case anymore, it is of foreign influence. When we watch the news, someone decides for us what the “agenda of the day” is. We are controlled and forced to think about issues THEY decide for us. Not WHAT to believe, but ABOUT WHAT to think. If the media is an extension of society, society is in our living room, on our phones, and our streets. We are constantly connected to it. Is it bad? Well yes.

Marcuse says that oppression is not something that started with TV and the mass media. It began when the distinction between our inner world and the outer world (society) became blurry. Our private sphere, the only place that we could Be independent and isolated from any foreign influence, is dead. He says that this is the only place, that we can discover our true selves, and can be independent of society and thoughts that are dictated by someone else.

While working with teenagers, I often discovered the extent of which they lack any capacities to write complicated notes. It means that their inner thoughts are not complicated either. They are by no means stupid. They just have hard time to create elaborate ideas by themselves. I trained them to be well prepared for the army. One day when some of them already enlisted, they asked me how can they deal with 4-8 hours of guarding duty without any phones or books. Meaning, anything that they can stimulate them while they consume it passively. I told them him that they need to “connect to their inner worlds.” It was before I read Marcuse’s argument, and Alan Bloom’s argument about the TV and radio didn’t resonate well enough in me. Then one guy asked a question which I was not prepared for. He asked me what does “inner world” means. I was amazed. I’ve never thought about that. After I thought about it for a while, I told him “the world of content we create from within yourselves, without anything external that stimulate us.” Meaning, a world of concepts, thoughts, and emotions you and only you create, in your private inner sphere, without anything dictating you what to think. It appears that young people don’t have this skill anymore. We are also (adults and more grownups) losing this. Whenever I step into a line, my head reaches into my pocket to take out the phone. I feel that I cannot ride the train without my phone.

You can argue that it can be just turned off. But can we? Can you say to an alcoholic or addicted person “just stop?” I don’t think so. Can we recreate this inner sphere, which Is our purest form of thought? Where are WE in the most basic and most authentic form?

Marcuse says that the forces that control our society have no interest in letting us recreate this sphere, and they want to pollute it and shrink it down, as they cut forests in favor of industry. This way we cannot be isolated and create our own needs and wishes, and rethink our existence and way of life. In this way, our true selves disappear or will never be created in the first place. Our wishes and craves are created for us through the mass-production society. Our wishes become consumption for the sake of identity. Can we take hold of our thoughts and make them our own? Can we think independently and not as a part society? Where is our REAL individual resides? That is separated from society’s values and thought processes.

Can we claim that we are free, when every Inch of our physical reality is part of the advertising machine? can we get a moment of peace? Guess not.

I recently studied the subject of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). It made me aware, even too aware, to language usage around me, mostly on the media. But, because language is not limited to verbal communication, pictures and the physical environment itself catch my attention as well. This made me suffer less when I watch TV because now I find it interesting, not because of the content, but because the way things and notions are delivered, and it is interesting to think about them from a new perspective.

The more I immerse myself in the history of advertisement, the more I get the irritated feeling when I look around me. I start to doubt the notion of freedom. I’m not talking about freedom from a political perspective. I’m referring to something more fundamental, freedom from social institutions that very aggressively try to influence my instincts and conscious, usually the economic institutes. If I’m free, why do I have no choice when choosing or, have a say in the shaping of our physical environment? Most of the noises we encounter in the public sphere, we don’t choose. We cannot choose to see what we want to look at. But more importantly, we cannot decide what NOT to see. As Stuart Even wrote in his book “Captains of consciousness”:

“Today, nearly every moment of human attention is being converted into an occasion for a sales pitch, while notions of the public interest and noncommercial arenas of expression are under assault.” Today this line is even more correct. When we consider pop-ups click baits, social media as an advertiser’s platform, in-app ads and many more instances when our consciousness is being hijacked by people who want us to buy something. When you pay attention, you will see that almost everywhere, when you set your eyes on something, there is information. I’m not talking about information of things that exists, like “this is a tree” or “this is a human being,” I mean information that someone wanted you to understand, to intake and to be aware of. Signs, billboards, slogans, brands, sounds, ads, all those. When I take the subway, train, just walk the street, most of this info has to do with economy, consumption. Someone wants you to know what they sell, and why YOU should buy it. Or at least keep that in mind. We cannot choose to undo it. We cannot force billboards down. Nobody gives us any choice.

During my recent trip to Tokyo, I came across an excellent example of how the whole physical environment is being harnessed into a machine of advertising. Me and my wife went to Odaiba, an artificial island in Tokyo. There we went to Fuji Television’s building. Fuji Television is one of the biggest TV stations in Japan. They have on the 30th (maybe a bit higher) floor an observatory, which gives a lovely view over the whole artificial island and the nearby area. After we paid (of course), and took the elevator, we were welcomed with a very aggressive advertising machine. First, there were three big televisions screens, which continually broadcasted a trailer for the cartoon movie “minions.” Not only that the screens were big, and unavoidable, the sound of the movie trailer was really loud. So the whole room was filled with what they wanted you to hear, the trailer for this movie.

The second thing that they did was to put in the center of the room several stands that created half a circle. They were big and full of merchandise, of course of the “minions.” Even if you just wanted to go to the window to see the view, you had to pass near these stands. They actually force you to prolong the walk to the windows, so you would have to pass by the merchandise and look at it. So again, we could not avoid it. Another thing that they did was to sell food. I don’t have a sense of smell after a surgery I had to undertake, but I’m sure the room was filled with pleasant aroma. The food stands were just under the big screens, and again, we had to walk past them to get to see the view.

After we saw the view, while having to hear the loud noise of the TV screens, I wanted to go to the toilet. They even had Ads inside the bathrooms in places you were most likely to look at. Like above the urinals. We had to go through a maze of ads. Every place I lay my hands, on the walls, on the polls, places that we were most likely to put our eyes on, there was a sticker, something to remind us of the “minions.” Then we went to a “real size” TV studio, of the most popular morning show in Japan. There they just bombarded us with “soon to come” tv programs and dramas, faces of the famous celebs and details about their lives.

My wife doesn’t pay attention to those things because she doesn’t care, and not aware. I, on the other hand, suffered every second of it. It got me angry, not only they charge me with money, they did everything they could to get more money out of my pocket. This is insulting, is this the way they view me? As a target for money extraction? I guess most of the people I come across in my daily life do consider me a target, not as a human being who have free wills that are needed to be considered. But instead as a walking wallet, that my will is something that needs to be changed, bent and manipulated for their profits.

Adults might be more resilient to those attempts, but children are the real targets. They want to stimulate the kids with a likable cartoon, put loud noise to force them to watch the big screen. The big screen moves fast and catches their attention. The smell and candy’s catch their nose and tongue. The kids know that in holidays and trips parents tend to be less stressed over money, so they might buy the kids things they won’t otherwise. So this “special” place with the view and big elevator, might make them understand that if they push their parents hard enough, they might get something, and they tend to try their luck. So, parents buy merchandise not because they think it’s good, but they buy some peace and quiet.

Are we free? Can I choose not to see these images? Can I choose not to hear this noise? No. I can maybe put earphones and hear music, but I cannot go with a blindfold. Look around you when you go in the street, when you drive when you enter somewhere. What information do you get the most? What the people who put this information there, wanted you to think when you read\see? Most of it has to do with you and your wallet. We cannot say that we are free, when considering that words, symbols, and pictures carry political, social values, and notions about the “right” way of life. It is everywhere, and It is impossible to escape it. Why are billboards ok? Why do I have to see them? Because somebody paid money to someone, for the right to catch my attention? Nobody came to me and asked me if I agree. I don’t want to surrender my attention. Can I choose not to look at the billboard? With the right techniques, I’m cannot. I will HAVE to look at it, even for a second, many times this second is enough to make me understand the things that somebody wanted me to understand. Think about years of indoctrination, and the lack of awareness and critical thinking about these issues. That is how we get influenced, meaning we don’t have much of a free choice.

Walking Wallets, FB and The Opportunities That Might Never Come.

While reading the book “23 things they don’t tell you about capitalism” by Ha-Joon Chang, I felt that the fifth chapter “Assume the worst about people, and you get the worst” was a revelation. This chapter gave my vague and scattered thoughts a clear voice. Assume that everyone is out for themselves and their self-interests, that what you will get. If we act believing that to be true, it will become a force that will shape our social world to become this “a man is a wolf to another man” kind of a world.

But, that title is not entirely accurate. As market values become the hegemonic system of value in our social world, money’s power Become even greater. What was once above the laws of the markets, becomes its subject with a price tag. I talked about the possibility of buying love, but how that thinking shapes the use of social media?

When we walk down the street, go on a bus, drive our car, we are bombarded with information. If you look closely, you will see that most of this info is ads. Every piece of clothing today has a brand on it. Ads are everywhere you look. Even in places, you cannot run away like bar’s toilets. We are being forced to watch\read those ads because in many cases, business relies on Ads to become profitable. Radio stations, TV channels, internet sites, all need ads to stay “free” while profiting money.

Considering that, my paraphrase to the title I gave earlier will be this: assume that everyone is a wallet, and treat other human beings only as business opportunities, and you will get only superficial relationships that revolve solely on money.

We are being treated as wallets. Everywhere we go, someone, somewhere, in many various ways tries to sell us something. The word “to sell” means to convince us. To change our perceptions and priorities that we will incline to buy this particular thing. We can look at it as a power struggle, which people try to improve their position in the social world (through getting more money) on other’s account. That is why we are suspicious of everyone. When someone offers us help we begin to wonder “what will he or she get out of it?”, “where is the catch?”, “what will be the price tag?” So when we are being treated as a walking wallet, we start to become cynical about our relationship with other people.

So this is the reason many of us don’t delete FB. I can’t found my claims with empirical data, but FB today is not what it used to be. Today can barely see anyone sharing something of personal value. I see “likes” on pages, trending stuff, and mostly ads in disguise. So I lost the reason to use it.

So why I keep using it? Fear. Fear of losing opportunities. When you Look back at the age before the internet, you meet someone, and your ways go to a separate way. You either send letters, or you just had to give up and accept that partings from others is just a part of life. You had to invest real effort to maintain friendships. Now you can just be friends on FB. But with how many out of those hundreds of friends do we talk to regularly? Even on FB’s chat? How many out of those so-called friends do we even want to speak to, assuming we had the chance? The sad thing is that we have the opportunity all the time, but we don’t use it. Why? Because we are not close. We don’t want to get close, and we don’t care. So why are we “friends” on FB?

Because of the thinking that maybe, just maybe, we will need something from them. Perhaps they will be in a position later in life, that could help us out. Maybe they will look for a person with my set of skills. This FOMO (fear of missing out) keeps us in check, meaning using FB. This is an example of how we treat others as “walking wallets,” as an insurance for the future. And when we talk about the “future” we usually mean money. Because this is the main thing that keeps us alive.

So, we don’t care much about connecting with “people,” because we don’t use FB to communicate with the ones we really care for. And we don’t use FB to talk to those “friends”. So FB is just… just in case. We don’t really need it, but the fear of losing those “connections” keep us at bay.

This is how a market economy is shaping our perception of social media. It is to connect with other people, but not as human beings, but rather as an insurance for the future.

Society Treats Silicon Valley in The Opposite Manner To The Saying “Don’t Throw The Baby with The Bathwater”.

In this article, by Ted Chiang claims that Silicon Valley has become its own worst nightmare. When people talk about the future, A.I. is one keynote in that harmony. The idea that machines could learn, adapt and come up with ideas that us, humans, just could not, is appealing as much as it’s frightening. To give a clear “face” to this problem, Chiang give the example that Elon Musk gave. An A.I. machine that its purpose is to pick strawberries. Then he argued that the AI might conclude that to maximize its output, it needs to destroy our civilization and kill all the humans, thus converting the entire earth into a strawberry farm.

Chiang argues that Silicon Valley is behaving as that imaginative A.I. Chiang argues that these companies will do whatever they can to increase market share, and even use scorched-earth like techniques to achieve that in the “no-holds-barred Capitalism” struggle. That these companies and people are lacking “Insight”, meaning they cannot reflect on their doings and stop to think about the consequences of their deeds, “Taking a step back and ask whether their doing Is a good idea”. But, as Chiang argues, that this step won’t be rewarded in the market economy, because it’s against the main idea of it, more profits.

He argues that more government regulation is needed, and that the idea to “disrupt” entire economics and eco-systems (of economics) is considered to be a good thing. But by doing it, as Facebook slogan was, “Move fast and break things”, they are violently destroy good things, and replace them with things that are not quite better. So the A.I’s thinking that the goal justifies the means, will be just an inheritance from those who planned it.

It was a good read, but lacking some insight from a broader perspective. Well, it’s not only Silicon Valley. Let’s look about terminology that is the base for Capitalism. Competition is a good thing, it drives humanity to new heights and business will grow and become better to survive in the market. We could use our selfishness to become better off, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”. Shares are like dominance. Market dominance by big corporations. Consumers are good. To consume is a frequent verb as well. “the market forces”, big players and so on.

Those are words that are also used in other places, like war and sports. From those keywords we can see that It’s a power game that People and companies need to win, and they will do it by any means, legal, and sometimes, not legal. There is not a single company that will say “we are big enough so let’s let other to take over the rest of the market”. “Grow or die”. Well, it is a competition, and this is the underline of it all. If it’s a good idea? I’m not sure. When Capitalism was in its raw form, we saw slavery, colonialism by private companies like the East India Company, Child labor and many more distorted realities. We got rid of those bad systems of oppression, but we still have sweat shops nad we still can’t regulate financial markets, well because they are the “experts” and they want freedom, to do… profit. And the hell with the economy (2008). But this is not their fault, it is the incentives of the system. The socialization process that forces you to become a competitor, or else you will “die” economically, which sometimes is the same.

We worship people with wealth that will do almost anything to achieve it. “The Wolf Of Wallstreet” is a good example for the romanticism of this notions. People worship Steve Jobs, though he had personalities issues. In the documentary “the financial brain of the London City”, the main argument that to succeed in the financial trade, you have to become a psychopath. Not MAD but “characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits”.

While this may sound extreme, when you look carefully at the lexical terms and the terminology that is the basis for the values and aspired behaviors in the neo-liberalism world,the picture is clear. When the most underline rational idea is competition, struggle and survival, it becomes reasonable to become a Psychopath. This is the best way to survive and gain money – meaning assure your survival in the world that one of its most important aspects is capital.

Through capital we can gain access to social capital, education, status, fame and access to all sort of other places and get certain services we could not otherwise. Just by opening the newspaper the socialization begins. Celebrities are news headlines and they are tied tightly to money. They serve as a major axis to this culture. If someone of them dies, or do something outrageous, it becomes the talk of the day. We (society) look at the “glamour” on the red carpet with sparking eyes. We agree for paparazzi to hunt down celebrities to see only a glimpse to how they live their lives. People go out of their way just to shake hands with them, or stand in front of the crowd in a concert. Those behavior s help us to understand how much we respect money. This is why part of artists evaluation is the question “who makes more money”. Money is a way to measure success, even in art. How much a paint costs and so on. Money is the global way to value stuff. And this way omits great and important things out of the equation, like morality, eco-friendliness and many more.

Money is powerful. This is why people want it, and look up to people who have a lot of it, to the point they forget that theese people are sometimes mentally sick. If I would be addicted to drugs, I would be called a drug addict. If I were to be addicted to alcohol I’d become an alcoholic. But if I’m addicted to money and my job, and I have so much money that I couldn’t even spend it all, but I keep wanting more and more how will you call me? I will become a “productive citizen”. I will become important, a genius. People will worship me. They won’t worship an alcoholic, they will say that he or she needs help. Money addicts don’t need help, we envy them.

Maybe silicon valley masks it up, maybe they do think they are important. Well many inventions are good, no argue about it. But some might not be, and we keep forgetting that. It’s like the opposite to the saying “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater”. We want the baby so bad, that we keep the dirty waters to ourselves. Maybe if smartphones were to be clinically tested as new drugs do, people would have found that it’s addictive as drugs, and would advise to change the product to counter that addictiveness. But in market value, addictiveness is a good thing, more profits because it keeps the product relevant.

 

Conquering Nature, as We Conquer ourselves

Nature as I’ve spoken about in recent posts, is something that is considered being the opposition of modernity. One will be on the account of the other. If we build big cities and use cars, we have little place for nature, and we need to expand while pushing it back. Thus, we get huge metropolises. I remember when I went on The Tower of Tokyo, Even when I was in such a high place, the city spread as far as the eye could see. We have parks and “green lungs” inside the cities, but as I told before, this is not nature, because we engineer it, we tame and organize it. A park is not a forest.

So the belief is that humanity using technology to conquer nature. While tech is something we are using to make our life easier safer and more efficient. But as we use this, we advance but drift apart from nature. We say that we have escaped from the clutches of evolution (though some argue against it), and we do this by curing diseases, and reducing death rate of born babies. When we will start to manipulate our genes or use robotics to modify the human body, we will no longer be at the mercy of biological evolution, but a technological one. But nature’s evolution is fair. Technological one is not.

The moment prosthetics arms will be better than normal arms, and people with prosthetics will be better off, and could find better employment, let’s say the police recruiting people and write in small letter “prosthetics are an advantage”, people will cut their biological arms and plant prosthetics instead. Though it’s sound extreme, but it won’t sound like that when people could lift 500 Kg with those hands.

The feeling I get is that we drive to the future within a vehicle that has no driver, no breaks and no steering. Nobody stops and think about things people do or come up with. While new drugs have to go through many tests and trials, new phones and new technology often doesn’t. We leave It to the invisible hand. If people would have done clinical tests to smartphones, maybe they would have said that it is highly addictive, and force companies to change things in those devices and apps to be less addictive.

But as I claimed in the last post, that technology solution has a divisive influence on society, it does something worse. In his book, “The Abolition of Man”, C. S Lewis argue that the more we, humanity, conquering nature with tech, we are not becoming powerful, but slaves. He argued something like this: Those who buy the tickets for a flight are not powerful. This power is in the hands of a few and they can deny us that power, put us in the black list. We have social media and many more wonders, but the more they become a daily part of our lives, we build a social world that use that as a necessity. Are we powerful? No. Because again, those things can be taken away from us. We can be easily banned. We don’t have control over them. Our feed is biased (for the higher bidder). It might shape our thinking and view of the world. It shows us a distorted reality by the algorithm.

So, technology can be chains, can make us weak. As in the last post I argued that only some countries could apply technological solutions to deal with global warming, most of us don’t hold the power in the technology we own. I recommend to read this book “The Abolition of Man”. While it came out in 1943, it only became more relevant and thought provoking.

 

 

From Space Borders Are Invisible, But Borders Are The Reason Why We Cannot Do Anything To Stop Global Warming.

In the Last post, I gave examples of how we influence nature. I also said that the only way to solve these problems is through politics, and not through more (of the same) scientific ideas. If we rely only on science to resolve these matters, we might need to resort to living in huge domes before we could fix all these problems. The domes themselves might be this solution while abandoning the outside world to its fate. It is easy to imagine which societies could build those enormous domes, and which societies couldn’t. Technology solutions have this dividing effect. It divides nations and segments of society to those who can afford it, and those who can’t, making the gap between first and third worlds not only to be unfair but detrimental to the poor, meaning annihilation.

We divide our social structure into first vs. third world. The western world vs. the non-western world. This is lunatic. We divide the planet into different “worlds” which is not only wrong, but dangerous. Many astronauts said we could not see borders from outer space, well this is because borders are socially constructed social phenomenon, meaning they are real as long as we believe in them.

This notion that earth looks peaceful from space is a good allegory to the reality that our international system cannot solve and cope with global issues. The United state’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement is a testimony to this problem.

Not that the United States isn’t aware of the problem, but as the second most significant polluter, they have to slow the rotation of their economic grinding wheels to cut the co2 emissions. It means fewer factories, fewer jobs, more regulation and investing capital into turning the economy green. Which president wants to deal with an angry mob of people who lost their jobs because he tried to deal with this vague problem that is hardly felt in people daily lives (yet).

More so the conventional thinking might claim that to turn green will harm America’s military production. Economic power is crucial for security because fund are needed to fund big armies. No one in their “right minds” will stick a stick into their wheels and jeopardize their safety just because someone came with the idea that we need to cut emissions. Especially with China is rising in power and challenge the American dominance in south-east Asia.

It’s costly to change the economy to be environmentally friendly, not only because time, money and energy are needed to actually transform the economy, but also that the new ways might be less efficient and more expensive to produce heat and power. It will also take time to switch engines and turbines. Time is money. Tech is costly. Reducing emissions means producing less in the short term.

No one wants to pay the price, which “others” won’t. This case is like the situation when two people point a gun at each other and arguing who will drop his gun first. It’s called the “prisoner’s dilemma”. The prisoner dilemma argues that even if all sides in a dispute will act rationally, they won’t be able to get the best results to solve a problem. The story is like this.

Two people get arrested for robbery. The police isolate them so they could not talk to each other. Then they said to the two of them while separated the following. If you “snitch” on your friend and he will admit, we will release you, and your friend will get ten years in prison. If he will snitch on you, and you will admit, you will get ten years, and he will be released. If you both blame each other, you will get five years each. If you both deny you will get three years each. They cannot take the chance that the other guy will blame them while they admit. So the safest thing to do, and the rational,  from the individual point of view, is to blame the other. Because they will both likely blame each other, they will get five years. This is how a less than optimum result can be achieved even if both players are rational.

This rational behavior seems to be self-preservation. “If I will lower the gun when the other side won’t I’ll be dead. Because the other guy thinks the same thing, neither will drop their weapon. So America doesn’t want to hinder its economy while China and other states won’t do it.

With this being said, another factor that might explain why states act selfishly. If we look at short-Term vs. long-term threats we might “understand” selfish acts. For the U.S, China might be conceived as a short-term threat that needs immediate attention (and resources), while Global Warming is a long-term problem that can wait. America prioritizes economic and security problems over environmental issues. They hope that science will come up with a solution before the problem will get out of hands. This is another divisive way of tech, who funds it, who controls its application and execution. Those are politicians or people with enormous power, which have little incentive in terms of the economic market to act on behalf of the greater good. The market economy is not the right way to gauge happiness and hope for remedies. If we will look at health, (of us and the planet) the more we are sick, the more we spend money on medicines, the better the economy.

The free-rider dilemma is also a crucial aspect of the global warming problem. The free-rider dilemma deals with public goods, which no one can restrict access to them, like air, water and national parks. If only the U.S cuts their emissions, it won’t change a thing, because others will continue to pollute the air as much as they like. Unless every country reduces their CO2 emissions at the same time, the problem won’t be solved. So, until other’s will act, I won’t be the only “sucker” that hurts his own economy. It is similar to the situation that people leave their trash at a park while you pick yours. You feel that even if you pickup your junk, it won’t turn the park into a clean one, so sometimes people just give up and leave their trash as well.

I think environmental problems are not solvable by technology and technocrats but through political acts, this is why Humanities and Social science matter. Technocrats usually give solutions that are not necessarily the moral ones.

 

 

Tech and Dicipline

One of the reasons why Humanities and Social sciences are important is because they are the only tools humanity has in order to reflect on social issues, and look at them critically. Most of us condemn Trump’s tweets, but most of us don’t reflect for a moment about social media and the new age of Data. The promises blind us to the dangers. While some of us can see those, my fear is that we couldn’t do anything about them, because of the way our society is structured.

Soon we won’t have to worry about most of the troubles we face today. Most of our choices will be done automatically. The alarm clock will be synchronized with our schedule, and it will wake us up using our biological clock, so we won’t have to get up tired at all. An hour before we will wake up in the cold winter, the house will warm itself, so by the time we go out of bed, we won’t feel the cold. The coffee will be ready by the time we got out of the shower. It will be with the right amount of sugar because the coffee machine will “speak” to our smart-phone, that will speak with the chip we have, that monitor our sugar rate in the blood.

Some people might look at this utopian dream and feel excited. We now have IoT (Internet of Things), Connected Cars, autonomous cars, the Physical web with beacons and so on that will make this utopia into reality. Those technologies are being developed around the clock with tremendous zeal as we speak. Someone said to me “Google is taking over the world, I think that is a good thing”. I tend to disagree with him. While the automatic breakfast sounds appealing for most of us, it will come with a cost.

This cost won’t be forced on us explicitly. It won’t happen in a violent way with a gun pointed at our skulls. It will be in the disguise of a choice. “It’s OK not to put the dongle in your car sir, but if you won’t put it, we can’t sell you the insurance”. Today in most countries it is illegal to drive without at least a minimum coverage in case of a third party injury. In gangster movies, they might say “Let’s do business”, but we all know that they don’t ask, they demand.

We might struggle to keep our privacy, but it will be in vain. I heard this sentence a few times “if you care about your privacy, don’t upload anything to the web, or to your computer, want photos? Make a hard copy in an album”. Is this an option for us? To abandon everything? If we think about the email, can we handle online activities without one? Will we start sending letters written by hand again?

Today, diabetes patients can use a chip to help them monitor their sugar rates. That chip is attached to their skin, and in a fixed time it checks their sugar rates. It is connected to their mobile phone, so they can get notifications if their sugar rate is too high or too low. It helps them a lot. Now think about the new trend in medicine. Instead of reactionary treatment, there is a shift towards preventive treatment. It means that instead of fixing a problem, it’s better to prevent it from happening altogether.

What will happen when national health cares and private companies will see that they can use this chip for other uses in order to prevent medical problems? And that will save them tons money? They might force us to put this chip under our skin. They will say that it’s for our own good but will make it impossible to refuse. They will say that we can decline if we are worried about our privacy issues, but by doing so we will lose our right to health care insurance. Most people won’t be able to pay the high costs in case of a big and unexpected problem, so they will reluctantly comply.

Foucault talks about discipline and punishment within our society. We are not as free as we tend to think. A lot of the “social technology” we have is developed in order to monitor and discipline us. Look at our schools and Jails. The fence around the school is not only to keep stranger out, but it is also in order to keep the children in. Both Jail and school has a yard that can be seen from afar. In both the time is predetermined, so the kids go to the yard at the exact same time (so are the prisoners). They both suffer sanctions if they are late or don’t follow their duties. They both have uniforms and so on. I’m not saying that Schools are bad, But I do say that Jails, schools, hospitals, workplaces are all using the same social technologies in order to put us in our place and force us to conform, be it for the good or the bad. We can claim that we live in a free society, the truth is far from it. We cannot see what we want, we cannot stroll the streets aimlessly. We can’t just ride the same train over and over again, just for fun. Because eventually, someone will approach us and ask “can I help you?” (meaning what are you doing). We cannot go to our head of state and see him work, though he works for US. The way our screens are being monitored at work is like the assembly line, that the shift manager is in a position that he or she can monitor all the workers and catch those who are slacking.

The notion that we are not responsible and need to be guided by some external factors, and needed to be disciplined and controlled is not new at all. That is why we have rules, leaders, and social structures. We can’t be sure that without sanctions people will keep their word. The best picture of the lack of leadership and rule is the natural state of humankind which was depicted by Thomas Hobbes in his book “Leviathan”. There he share with us a world without sovereignty or rules:

“In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

We could see in the next post when I will talk about the “The abolition of man”, social media and the connection to “free will”.