Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Do We Worship at the Altar of Technology?
The BP oil spill shows our blind faith in technology – when what the US really needs is behavioural and political change
Though our high priest may be Steve Jobs, the automobile, not the computer or phone, is the icon we venerate with the greatest fervour. The car is the most important, most expensive piece of technology most of us own. It is the technology of this and the past century, and neither BP nor Toyota would be as large and powerful, without our passionate call and response.
Simply walk on a Sunday into one of our houses of worship, an auto showroom, or drop some coins in the basket and enter, on a high holiday, one of the cathedrals that are the Detroit, New York, or Los Angeles auto shows. Witness the evangelists gazing at the gleaming new vehicles, snapping cell phone pics of spectacular concept cars so they can spread the good news.
Of course, corporations don't see this as their first mission, operating as they do on cost containment and profit maximisation, not cutting-edge technology as an end in itself. But their customer base has been convinced that each time they buy a new car, they are buying the future and lucky that the world's smartest geologists and engineers are helping fuel their experience of it. Never mind that the technology they are largely buying is media and telecom gadgetry, not the electric or more environmentally sustainable power technologies that headline auto shows or attract, like the not-yet-for-sale Nissan Leaf, tens of thousands of Facebook followers. (In fact, less than 1% of all new vehicles bought worldwide over the next five years are estimated to be electric or electric-hybrid).
Our response to BP and Toyota's failures expose the danger in our faith. Deep anxiety aroused by the deaths in the water and on the interstates is calmed by the ameliorating belief that technology will save us, and if not now, soon. After all, the promise of technology is in the better life to come. A readable black box or failsafe brake override resolves Toyota's snafu, reassuring us that there can be such a thing as a safe car. An engineered capping and better blow-out preventers promise to restore confidence in our ability to tap into fossil fuels wherever they may be.
We haven't quite realised that the idea that technology will save us from the problems that technology has created has been sold to us by people with a deep interest in our treating each of their disasters as an isolated "accident", soon and easily solved. Don't worry. Go back to driving – maybe some other make for a few years, stopping at a gas station under another sign for a while – but get back to driving into the bright, new and improved car future.
BP and Toyota also share a public perception in the US as "foreign", to the good fortune of American multinationals like ExxonMobil and Ford. But this exceptionalism will not serve us well. BP may have recently made poorer choices than other oil companies, but serious threats to our way of life are endemic to the practice of drilling (especially in the peak-oil period as it becomes increasingly hard to access and new techno-fixes are developed to get us to the dwindling supplies). Toyota may have produced too many cars too fast, but 1.2 million people are killed globally each year in car crashes, and likely would be whether they were fuelled by gas, electricity, or hydrogen.
Simply put, technological progress alone is not a strategy for a sustainable future, and finally capping the Deepwater Horizon still leaves technological faith the source of the devastation that will live on for decades. America is in dire need of behavioural and political change in areas ranging from public leadership to corporate responsibility to the individual choice to drive and consume less. Only a hard turn in this direction can avert the slow-motion, head-on collision coming between America's love of technology and a quality of life for the world's future generations.
- Posted in
274 Comments so far
Show Allwe worship because we have no land...
I don't know about that.
Most landowners I know are pretty conservative, religious, and they most definitely like everything and anything with an big IC engine in it.
People aren't the only victims of automobile culture: countless nonhuman beings are run over, crippled, maimed, left to die, etc, including mothers with young back home,or mates.
That the human species is insane: Our species has accepted the conclusion that the benefits of owning motor vehicles outweigh the value of life and limb, to themselves, to passengers, to pedestrians, to innocent nonhuman beings (including the poor chicken who wanted to cross the road), to children, etc.
Even a little thought about the most efficient way for provide people with day-to-day transportation leads one to conclude that, aside from rural areas, the personal automobile is practcally an insane way to do the job.
One could replace the many millions-fleet of private automobiles with a system of electric trolleys at 1 minute headways on every street and highway within a 5 minute or less walk of 95% of homes - even in most suburban areas - and still use a tiny fraction of the natural resources, energy, and cost of all those private cars, and, it would provide vastly more convienienece than a car - no maintenace, parking, scraping windshields and shoveling snow.
So much for "free markets" always coming up with the most efficient use of resources.
Of course, with compact, walkable, old-fashioned urban design, you also get rid of even most of the trolleys in the above scheme.
Then again, maybe I recognize the insanity of the private automobile becasue I was a member of a lucky USAn minority to have lived, for a while, in an area where I didn't need a car, and even came to regard it as an inconvienience. Unfortunately, with massive public transit service cuts having occurred or likely, the situation is changing fast.
"So much for "free markets" always coming up with the most efficient use of resources."
That's efficient "allocation", not "use".
jakenewton , even the efficient "allocation" can be challenged easily by demanding a definition for "efficiency" and where the boundaries are drawn.
Efficiency cannot be defined without saying what the desired output is and where the boundaries are drawn for the system. And then making sure there's NO fudging of numbers - such as by externalizing certain costs such as environmental pollution. When you do this, efficiency simply means a ratio of the desired output to the amount of input it takes. Output will always be less than the input, and the difference is termed as "losses" that cannot be recovered.
"Free market" as it exists today ONLY maximizes the profits for the owners, while externalizing various costs on to the society and nature.
Viewed from a societal point of view, that is, treating the society as the system instead of an individual corporation, the current version of "free market" is sucking resources out of the larger system - resources that can be put to better use under a different way of thinking or a different set up (I'm just saying "different - it doesn't automatically mean communism - so you can save your breath there :)
Take healthcare and health insurance. If you define the "desired output" as a certain type of healthcare for all citizens, the health insurance premium is the input. In the absence of shareholder profits, a system can be operated where the people who work for the system can get their salaries, and the people get their healthcare. Premium rates can be adjusted based on costs and various risk models. The moment you introduce profit, it actually represents a "loss" for the person taking out the insurance policy - because the profits taken out of the system can be used to lower the insurance premium. Lowering the input increases efficiency. Shareholder profits are "losses" for the people, because it is not a legitimate expense - since there are obviously systems working elsewhere where profits are not taken out of the system.
I wasn't arguing that the concept is correct, and I accept your concern around definitions. I was simply correcting SaboCat, there is no concept of allocation of "use" as was stated.
""Free market" as it exists today ONLY maximizes the profits for the owners, while externalizing various costs on to the society and nature."
"Free Market" simply means that two parties agree to a transaction, nothing more. Even when distorted by taxes, etc.
And I think you profitless model ignores human nature, which is that people wish to better themselves. Why do you think people are motivated to produce things of value to society?
"Why do you think people are motivated to produce things of value to society?"
Because they are homeless, otherwise, due to the privatization of property?
"Because they are homeless, otherwise, due to the privatization of property?"
Private property is not the cause of homelessness. Should certain hard cases get a hand of some kind? Maybe. Otherwise, on the average. people are motivated by being able to do better for themselves and their families.
"Lack of private property is certainly the cause of homelessness then,"
Non Sequitur. You miss the obvious correct choice: The mere existence of private property is *irrelevant* to homelessness. There are numerous other choices that would apply.
No, my profitless model does not ignore human nature. All the humans who work in this system - from doctors, healthcare professionals to administrative staff, accountants, risk assessors, pharmaceutical companies, etc., - will still get paid for their work, products and services, and they can still better themselves. It's only those that were making money off of a con game have to find other ways to "better themselves".
"No, my profitless model does not ignore human nature."
Semms to, see below.
" All the humans who work in this system - from doctors, healthcare professionals to administrative staff, accountants, risk assessors, pharmaceutical companies, etc., - will still get paid for their work, products and services, and they can still better themselves."
They'll get paid *how much*? Google Buyer's Monopoly aka Monosopy. With a single payer at work dictating terms in a full 1/6 segment of the economy, and with the ostensible increase in the amount of people to be covered under such a system, you can't imagine that some of these people who would provide the said service might not pick something that pays better instead?
Think a second time.
>>jakenewton wrote: With a single payer at work dictating terms in a full 1/6 segment of the economy, and with the ostensible increase in the amount of people to be covered under such a system, you can't imagine that some of these people who would provide the said service might not pick something that pays better instead?
What determines the salary of firefighters and cops? Now there's a buyers monopoly there, isn't it?
That is why I said "there are obviously systems working elsewhere where profits are not taken out of the system". I haven't heard of a shortage of professionals **due to** any kind of monopoly in those countries. Even in Canada where there is a shortage of doctors in some places, it's not **due to** the single payer system, but it's because their medical council has a system that restricts the number of interns entering the system every year.
I do not see a logical need for a for-profit medical insurance company. AT ALL. The only thing this industry does is to increase costs and decrease coverage - because they need their profits. As simple as that.
What they can do, can be done by a not-for-profit system. Even keeping everything else the same - the salaries paid to all the professionals, the price of procurement of medicines, etc., premiums will still go down if you eliminate profits. And where there is room to negotiate with the pharma companies, it would be foolish not to. Because THEY will be negotiating with THEIR suppliers all the time.
"What determines the salary of firefighters and cops? Now there's a buyers monopoly there, isn't it?"
Yup, albiet with the obvious seller's monopoly of the unions associated with those services. The political implications are well known.
"I haven't heard of a shortage of professionals **due to** any kind of monopoly "
Doesn't matter what you have "heard" in this regard. The question remains around good people deciding to enter or stay in that industry.
"What they can do, can be done by a not-for-profit system."
Theoretically possible. Yet the laws of economics remain as with the laws of nature. You cannot break them, but you might be broken upon them. You do not address the idea that those who might work in this system may instead choose something in another economic sector that might pay better.
Ever heard of circular logic and clutching at straws, jakenewton?
YOU told me to Google Buyer's Monopoly. And I cite the examples of firefighters and cops - because it would be foolish to allow a market-based system there - just as in the case of health insurance, and now you call them "seller's monopoly of the unions"?
And you go on to say "The political implications are well known". No, actually I don't know the political implications of having cops and firefighters as public employees.
>>You do not address the idea that those **who might work** in this system **may instead choose something** in another economic sector that might pay better.
You call a single payer system that HAS BEEN working in other countries as "theoretically possible", but want me to address a hypothetical situation where you MAY NOT get enough professionals if such a system were to be adopted in the USA? Really? What's there to address? Just pay whatever the marketplace demands. As simple as that.
In fact, I would like people to take it up as a marketplace challenge and expose the monopolies, the oligopolies and the cartels in the healthcare field. And form a non-profit or co-operative system that can take on the for-profit system head on. It is eminently doable. But it would require exposing the real obstacles to competition. Then we wouldn't be having this fruitless debate.
"No, actually I don't know the political implications of having cops and firefighters as public employees."
REALLY!?!?!?!?!?!? You have never heard of *UNIONS*!?!?!?!?!?!? Like they were politically *BENIGN*!?!?!?!?
"a single payer system that HAS BEEN working in other countries "
As if there were no economic cost to such a system!?!?
There are no natural laws of economics! It's all made up!
Take for example Alcyon's analysis of profit. Profit is not inevitable, as is the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Both represent a loss to the system, that must be made up by increasing inputs to receive a certain output. But profit is not inevitable or necessary. You can reduce it to zero and the system still works, albeit with less interest - pun intended? to the investors. But the system can still be developed and maintained in the exact same way.
It is this idea, that economics follow some natural laws, that leads to specious thinking. Such as cutting taxes on the wealthy leads to job creation. It doesn't seem to, it might, but, in fact, it is not necesarry that it does. Extra income, from reduced taxes, can be, and seems definitely to be, invested into private gambling concerns callled the stock and commidities market.
It is actually mnoney taken out of the game, because the gov't MUST spend that money while the rich can do whatever they want with it. Rich people seem to really just redistribute it amongst themselves, in a sort of private poker game off in the corner.
Then, when some inevitably take a loss in relation to the others, who "win", the gov't increases the money supply, raising prices for those not in the private poker game, and covers the gamblers' losses.
This is what the 2008 bailout did. The Feds raided all the bookies, and when they saw how much the bookies still had outstanding in future bets, the gov't, instead of shutting down the game and throwing the bookies in jail, decided to cover the bookies' future bets. With more of our money!
The fallacy of supply-side economics that Hoover didn't understand and Reagan didn't understand and Bush the Stupider probably did understand, is that you can give the rich more money, but they don't have to invest it in anything of use to society. They can just go off and shoot craps in their own private gamne with it.
The effect of this tax cut/deficit spending in this scenario is that the rich invest in the gov't, at interest, again on our dime - through the Fed Res. buying T-Bills - instead of paying that money in taxes.
Wouldn't you love to "pay" your income tax by getting treasury bonds at 7% interest, instead of pissing it away on wars the rich start, in order to waste excess capacity, in order to protect their investment?
"There are no natural laws of economics! It's all made up!"
We might agree on this, but I think you have way over simplified. I think there are economic laws, but they are tough to prove, and economists are necessarily tainted by personal philosophy as they go about their business.
"Profit is not inevitable, as is the 2nd Law of thermodynamics."
Your mistake is obvious. Thermodynamics stems from *hard* science. Economics is a *social* science. There is no one worth listening to who would equate economics with hard science. But you could bet for sure that, generally speaking, people are motivated by a desire to better themselves in an economic sense, at least in part.
"But profit is not inevitable or necessary. You can reduce it to zero "
And the first big question is how?
"and the system still works,"
And the second question at this point is how do people *react* to whatever the answer to the first question was? Does it still “work” in just the same way as people adjust their behaviour?
"It is this idea, that economics follow some natural laws,"
Oh there are laws alright. There may be disagreement about them and they may be squishy. But if you think that by mandating certain things, such as single payer health care say, that people will not *react* to that somehow, than you just aren't following through intellectually. Think a second time. Ask yourself "*then* what?".
"Rich people seem to really just redistribute it amongst themselves, in a sort of private poker game off in the corner."
This is profoundly simplistic and unsophisticated thinking. Make a comprehensive list of all the things a "rich person" might do with his money, then we can talk some more.
You really do argue both sies of the same counterfeit coin.
And you have the gall to call me "simplistic". If I made it any more complicated, you would have a cerebral hemorrhage. Be thankful I'm not viscious.
Yes, it's simplistic to characterize "the rich" as being in their own card game. I guess you don't have the chops to argue with me, so you offer this as a substitute. My points stand. Have a nice day!
Look around, Mr Nweton. The rich just got bailed out to the tune of a few trillion of our dollars. Unless your a banker, how much of that has trickled down to you? It certainly hasn't rained gold bars on the head of the 20% of us, that is 1 in 5 to you mathematically-challenged, that are unemployed.
Sorry, Sir, I don't have to prove the sky is blue and water is wet.
"The rich just got bailed out"
Some did and some went out of business. I wasn't talking about that though, so what?
"Sorry, Sir, I don't have to prove the sky is blue and water is wet."
No, but you ought to learn how to stick to the topic. That topic included whether or not people are motivated by the prospect of bettering their economic situation. That's what I was talking about at the time, and you chose to respond to it.
Lehman Bros went "out of business", Goldman-Sachs is still going strong. Most of the rest were bought up by the "well-bailed out." Last I heard "Walk-over-ya" changed its name to "Wells-Fargo".
The only people "out-of-business" is the working class.
You can't really alter history as well as you think you can.
*I* am not interested in the bail outs. My point was the motivation of individuals, such as those who may or may not work in a "profitless" industry. Why are you talking about the bailout?
What do you think epitomizes this "private game", the essence of your vaulted free market; that the game is rigged? Bailing out gambling bankers for their short-sighted bets that went south. That was a "tax cut" of monumental proportions, and where is it? What did we get for covering their bets? Did the bankers invest it in providing new jobs?
The only "growth" has been in their personal compensation and their "winnings" as indicated in rising stock prices. I don't see any of it being invested in infrastructure. We are even borrowing more to cover their wars.
Gee, we can now borrow more of our own money, at interest, if only our cerdit ratings would go up over 700. But the unemployed are not a very good bet, unless your on the short side.
Ain't that invisible hand a bitch when it slaps your working class ass upside the head.
"Bailing out"
Will someone please talk to phineas about the bail out? He would really like that I think.
Did Einstean, or Salk, only do what they did because they wanted to get rich?
The idea that people are only motivated to contribute to their society if it gets them rich is a dreadful lie that most poeple outside the USA would find bizarre.
Do billionaires who run the corporations produce anything of value to society? No. they don't. The workers do.
"Did Einstean, or Salk, only do what they did because they wanted to get rich?"
Same with Van Gogh and his paintings. So what? You are arguing from one extreme.
"The idea that people are only motivated to contribute to their society if it gets them rich "
I never made that claim. OTOH, if you think that the *average* person isn't in it for personal gain then you are naive.
"Do billionaires who run the corporations produce anything of value to society? No. they don't. The workers do."
Please show me an example of where significant numbers of workers are able to regularly produce something without the involvement of investors, i.e. "rich" people, as you would likely put it.
BTW, the vast majority of corporations are what you would call Mom and Pop shops.
And you argue the other extreme: that only the desire and expectation of profit motivates anyone.
If that were the case, what for all the social workers, research ecologists, non-profits organizations, pro-bono lawyers. These people are not getting rich, have no ability within their profession to get rich, and the smartest could take their brains and get rich as, I dunno, investment bankers, venture capitalists, Gordon Gekkos. Warren Buffet is certainly not doing anythng near useful for the actual daily economy or for the sake of the planet, by any stretch. Especially in realation to social workers and environmental scientists or grunt engineers, who, if they are lucky, can profit to the tune of a whole $30,000/yr net income, after taxes. But only if you assume their actual time is inherently worthless. After expenses they probably barely break even.
So you can't have it both ways. Are we all frustrated Warren Buffets and Ken Lays or are we mostly people who want our efforts to mean more than a paycheck, a 401K or an investment portfolio large enough to choke an economy?
The only really interesting thing about both Adam Smith and Ayn Rand is they were both wrong.
"And you argue the other extreme: that only the desire and expectation of profit motivates anyone."
I disagree, I think my argument comes from the middle. See below:
"social workers, research ecologists, non-profits organizations, pro-bono lawyers"
In these examples, they are not just donating their services for free. They are getting paid at a rate that allows a reasonable living. The "one extreme" would be if these people were to be donating their services and were impoverished as a result. They are not doing that though, they have instead struck a balance in their minds as to material returns and emotional satisfaction. That's pretty much what everyone does, and that balance is decided in the mind of each. OTOH, the "other extreme" would be the one who uses income or net worth as a relentless scorecard, persuing that exclusively in it's own right, without any regard for their own free time even. I have never met anyone like that.
"The only really interesting thing about both Adam Smith and Ayn Rand is they were both wrong."
What would be interesting to me is what author you would think is right?
Get paid at a reasonable rate... is NOT PROFIT. Or you have to beleive a person's time is inherently worth zero.
"Get paid at a reasonable rate... is NOT PROFIT. "
What the hell are you talking about? You said you thought that I only think that people are motivated by the prospect of economic gain. It should be clear in my previous post that I don't think that to be the sole motivation. This is your only respose?
"Or you have to beleive a person's time is inherently worth zero."
A persons time is only worth what that person values it to be. It is up to them alone to decide whether or how they will trade it for money or other things.
"And I think you[sic] profitless model ignores human nature, which is that people wish to better themselves. Why do you think people are motivated to produce things of value to society?" - jakenewton.
I didn't say it, you did. Or are you unaware of the implications of your own words.
You equate right there, a PROFITLESS model ignores the human nature to better oneself. You equate bettering oneself with profit. That people are motivated to produce value for a society, to better oneself, which a profitless model doesn't acknowledge.
Its a tricky thing, these interwebs. Better get a hang of it. You can't hope everyone forgets the drunken stupidity you exhibited in the bar the night before.
"[sic]"
Gesundheit.
"I didn't say it, you did."
Yes, I said "you profitless model ignores human nature, which is that people wish to better themselves."
"Or are you unaware of the implications of your own words."
I seem to be more aware than you are.
"You equate right there, a PROFITLESS model ignores the human nature to better oneself."
I didn't equate anything. I stated it to be so and stand by it. You have not touched it.
"Its a tricky thing, these interwebs. Better get a hang of it. You can't hope everyone forgets the drunken stupidity you exhibited in the bar the night before."
This is the thanks I get for letting slide all of your spelling and grammar errors and inability to follow the subject, like when you went off about the bailout which I mostly agree with you on. But it had nothing to do with what motivates people to provide goods and services that society values. That's what I was talking about and you tried responding to that but got right off track. If you are going to post, it would be well to figure out whet the discussion is about.
You know, if all you can pull out of your butt is spelling and grammar mistakes, you not only didn't win, place or show, you were scratched.
And trying to alter what you think you meant isn't winning any points either.
But go ahead, write another inane response insisting you didn't say with you said, I'll let you have the last word. It's already late Wednesday and 1984 was 26 yrs ago.
"You know, if all you can pull out of your butt is spelling and grammar mistakes"
You were the one who started it with your recent [sic].
"insisting you didn't say with you said"
What I've said is there for anyone to read. So are all your spelling mistakes and distractions from the the subject matter.
"sic" is a common editorial notation to indicate the quote is correct as presented,; that the editor didn't make the mistake. I didn't accuse your opinions of being worthless because if it. That stands on its own two crutches.
""sic" is a common editorial notation to indicate the quote is correct as presented,;"
But that's not why you used it. You used it to call attention to a minor error I made so as to distract from the central theme. Same for constantly talking about bail outs when that is not the subject. And hurling insults, same thing. The problem is that when you do these things the argument is still there. The interwebs are funny this way, where it's there for all to see and you can't do anything about it except to double back and make an honest effort. Hope this helps!
You really can't maximize both efficiency of use/allocation and profit margin.
There are no technological solutions to growth of resource use in a finite system.
Or to put it in terms you might understand:
"Them dirty effing hippies were right."
"We haven't quite realised that the idea that technology will save us from the problems that technology has created ......"
I thought 'God' was created to save us??
I haven't been long in this kind of thinking but I feel sure that what is touted as 'new technological' discoveries are pure bunkum and fool's gold. The only thing about it all is that nearly all of it is just some different way of not having to do something, as in carry a cell phone, blackberry or ipod or what not and what is the real difference? Shape, colour, size or ring tones. WOW! Some technology.
Now days I find any of this garbage, is mostly worthless, even this apple computer I type this on, sort of, but I do find a trade off with the computer for now, I totally dissed tv completely 11 years ago. This is my basic communication box which is still tied into my land line. Gave up the cell phone about 4 years ago because I could not justify paying $700.00 a year for something I only used for about 300 or 400 minutes worth and those rollover minutes, surprise surprise surprise, those start rolling off after so many build up; like throwing dollars off a dam and watching them land in the water and float off to wherever.
Worse loss from the 'great' world of technology, it the loss of touch with nature and people will miss that once technology kills it off.
Harnessing technology is what kept us from being just another meal for the local alpha predator. Once we figured that out, we were hooked and have been hooked ever since.
Technology in and of itself offers great value in improving security and quality of life. However, technology mixed with capitalism, either directly or indirectly through a non-capitalist state rapidly developing technologies to avoid being dominated and crushed by a competing capitalist state, is a toxic brew.
We worship at the altar of technology because Thomas Friedman tells us to. Of course he also told us to invade Iraq, and that taking it over and coming home again would be quick and easy...
And don't forget the technology of the MIC. The evil is always in the application, not the technological science or principles it is based upon. Improved efficiency can be used for good or ill.
You need to read Ann Jones' recent article on the asymmetry between a technologically advanced military viz a grass-roots military (guess which one is winning?):
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/02
I recall here one of her quotes:
"Afghans out there fighting in their cotton pajamas take Western reliance on heavy armor as a measure of our fear -- not to mention the inferiority of our gods on whose protection we appear unwilling to rely."
Yes, otherwise known as a slaughter-fest. Ironic that we sometimes call the warriors cowards because the fight from the shadows. Makes me wonder who the real 'cowards' are.
In 1805 the price for a "slave" in the United States dropped to about 10 dollars US. There was talk that slavery as an institution would end as it was not profitable.
Then the Cotton Gin was invented. This technological marvel allowed one laborer to do the work of 20 when seperating Cotton fibre from the seeds.
Prior to this Cotton was so expensive little was used to make clothing. Most dressed in wool. A Cotton outfit would cost a person the equivalent of 6000$$.
The use of Cotton exploded in Britain and Europe and the growing of cotton exploded across the Southern US.
With this the price of slaves increased exponentially to over 5000$$ in a decades time. All talk of slavery ending in the USA ended.
This not to suggest "Technological" advances an evil thing. It only to help show consequences that can not be accounted for in this so "imperfect" world.