In this piece, Langdon Winner talks about the so – called “computer revolution” with its many different names. He talks about how a utopian society is expected in the near future from the new developments of technology. Basically some people think that the computer revolution will cure all illnesses and fix all things wrong with the world. As this idea sounds very pleasant and desirable, a computer revolution can’t fix the world. All problems in the world have been caused over the years and through different events and won’t just disappear.
Inequalities have always been present in the hierarchical pyramid of society. People are usually compared based in their socioeconomic status and the computer revolution can’t fix this injustice. Just because people will all have access to the same information doesn’t mean that all of them will take advantage of that information. People expect for democracy to be created online and encompass everyone in the world under a united cyber democracy type thing but there are many limits to this idea. Limits such as people having different needs, values, and different ways of life and can’t all be represented in one huge government which also seems sort of like a dictatorship.
Back to the computer revolution; Winner writes about mythinformation which is the thought that “a widespread use of computers and communications systems, along with access to electronic information, will automatically produce a better world for humanity.” The possibilities of computers and technology are vast but aiding people against all evil is just too far out there. The computer and internet have definitely made the world a smaller place but social change is many changes away. That’s just what I think as society changes slowly as the world and social norms change every day. Freedom would be restricted in some ways as everyone would live the same and therefore major societal changes would have to take place. To make one group of people happy might make another group mad and therefore and equilibrium of freedom and happiness would have to be compromised upon. The computer revolution may be progressing but a realistic effect should be expected and total world unity because of the revolution shouldn’t be expected any time in the near future. A better world for democracy can be created slowly through many political, economical and societal changes but it shouldn’t depend solely on the computer revolution.
- Gagan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would definitely have to agree with you on these points and I think that most people would agree. It is simply foolish to believe that the entire hierarchical structure of the international society can change with a few technological advances. But I also think that we are setting up somewhat of a strawman argument. It is not necessarily a fault of ours, but people like Winner that take some of the most extreme statements and then simply wail on them because of the ridiculousness of them. Granted the person that stated such things about computers democratizing the world and making everything on a more even playing field was a bit out there, I do not think that citing such evidence is positive for the dystopian argument. If Winner could have cited some more reasonable examples and refuted what those arguments said, then there would be a somewhat stronger base to what he said. I just think the main point that anti-Winner people would make is that technology makes things better; not perfect, as the cited zealots would want people to believe.
ReplyDelete