welcome to multiple strands

a place to converse, virtually, on a variety of topics, bringing together multiple strands to encourage, question, challenge, ponder, and edify. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart. (Eccl. 4.12)

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Neil Postman. Informing Ourselves to Death

This is a fascinating article (excerpts below), delivered as a speech in 1990.  It is self-indicting since I am an “Information Architect”, and this is the world I live in on a daily basis, and promote professionally.  However, it is good to step back for a critical consideration of what it is I, and we, are doing to ourselves and our neighbor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The great English playwright and social philosopher George Bernard Shaw once remarked that all professions are conspiracies against the common folk.  He meant that those who belong to elite trades -physicians, lawyers, teachers, and scientists - protect their special status by creating vocabularies that are incomprehensible to the general public. …

I have heard many experts in computer technology speak about the advantages that computers will bring. With [few] exception ... I have never heard anyone speak seriously and comprehensively about the disadvantages of computer technology, which strikes me as odd, and makes me wonder if the profession is hiding something important. That is to say, what seems to be lacking among computer experts is a sense of technological modesty.  …

In the case of computer technology, there can be no disputing that the computer has increased the power of large-scale organizations like military establishments or airline companies or banks or tax collecting agencies. And it is equally clear that the computer is now indispensable to high-level researchers in physics and other natural sciences. But to what extent has computer technology been an advantage to the masses of people? …These people have had their private matters made more accessible to powerful institutions.  They are more easily tracked and controlled; they are subjected to more examinations, and are increasingly mystified by the decisions made about them. They are more often reduced to mere numerical objects. They are being buried by junk mail. They are easy targets for advertising agencies and political organizations. The schools teach their children to operate computerized systems instead of teaching things that are more valuable to children. In a word, almost nothing happens to the losers that they need, which is why they are losers.  …

Technology always has unforeseen consequences, and it is not always clear, at the beginning, who or what will win, and who or what will lose.  But what started out as a liberating stream has turned into a deluge of chaos.  If I may take my own country as an example, here is what we are faced with: In America, there are 260,000 billboards; 11,520 newspapers; 11,556 periodicals; 27,000 video outlets for renting tapes; 362 million TV sets; and over 400 million radios. There are 40,000 new book titles published every year (300,000 world-wide) and every day in America 41 million photographs are taken, and just for the record, over 60 billion pieces of advertising junk mail come into our mail boxes every year. Everything from telegraphy and photography in the 19th century to the silicon chip in the twentieth has amplified the din of information, until matters have reached such proportions today that for the average person, information no longer has any relation to the solution of problems.

The tie between information and action has been severed. Information is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it.

And there are two reasons we do not know what to do with it. First, … we no longer have a coherent conception of ourselves, and our universe, and our relation to one another and our world. We no longer know, as the Middle Ages did, where we come from, and where we are going, or why. That is, we don't know what information is relevant, and what information is irrelevant to our lives. Second, we have directed all of our energies and intelligence to inventing machinery that does nothing but increase the supply of information.  As a consequence, our defenses against information glut have broken down; our information immune system is inoperable. We don't know how to filter it out; we don't know how to reduce it; we don't know to use it. …

Through the computer, the heralds say, we will make education better, religion better, politics better, our minds better - best of all, ourselves better. This is, of course, nonsense, and only the young or the ignorant or the foolish could believe it.  I said a moment ago that computers are not to blame for this. And that is true, at least in the sense that we do not blame an elephant for its huge appetite or a stone for being hard or a cloud for hiding the sun.  That is their nature, and we expect nothing different from them. But the computer has a nature, as well. True, it is only a machine but a machinedesigned to manipulate and generate information. That is what computers do, and therefore they have an agenda and an unmistakable message.

The message is that through more and more information, more conveniently packaged, more swiftly delivered, we will find solutions to our problems.  …

Here is what Henry David Thoreau told us: “All our inventions are but improved means to an unimproved end.”  Here is what Goethe told us: “One should, each day, try to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if possible, speak a few reasonable words.”  And here is what Socrates told us: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”  And here is what the prophet Micah told us: “What does the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God?”… There is no escaping ourselves.  The human dilemma is as it has always been, and we solve nothing fundamental by cloaking ourselves in technological glory.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From the text of a speech delivered to the  German Informatics Society, 11 Oct 1990 in Stuttgart  https://w2.eff.org/Net_culture/Criticisms/informing_ourselves_to_death.paper

Dec 08 1990 interview on the same topic is available here:  http://vimeo.com/19897055

No comments: