Fr Robert Ballecer, SJ Mike Elgan I 'd like to hear your thoughts on the following

[G+_George Kozi]

Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ Mike Elgan  I'd like to hear your thoughts on the following.

 

From the very start of the Industrial Revolution, technology has helped us advance in tremendous ways. Humanity has a lot to be thankful for. But from the very beginning, the benefits that came with Technology had a price. People found themselves put in a situation where their way of life, their trusted and tested methods of putting bread on the family table were not working anymore.

 

In the last few decades, this process has accelerated immensely, because the development and availability of technology has

exploded. There is a disparity between the speed at which societies can adapt, and the speed at which technology makes old ways obsolete. Societies adapt in increments dictated by generational change, technology transforms itself on almost a yearly basis.

 

Today having a University education is no guarantee for finding a job, nor is experience, because experienced workers cost more. Also, fewer people are needed to produce more things than ever before.

 

Here is the question: What needs to happen in society, how does society need to transform in order to cope with all this, without tearing itself to pieces?

[G+_Dave Trautman]

George Kozi, I'll take this one.

 

The industrial revolution has, as you say, changed everything at once. But this also happened during the Renaissance. It also happened at the start and end of the Roman Empire. So, what we are seeing now is very similar to what has gone before.

 

What does 'society' need to do to accommodate this rapidly changing cultural and social environment? We all need to understand the nature of the environment(s) we are living in. We need to seek to understand. My understanding of the technology-environment-media-information continuum is derived from the work of Marshall McLuhan. He was describing the current situation in presentations and conversations he was invited to have in 1968. He's not around today to ask where he thinks this is all going, but he gave us some pretty accurate instructions on how to interpret what is happening and how to adapt to it quickly. But one should also know he did not have much faith in everyone getting through this change together.

 

If you think of each technological advancement - created by humans - as producing another "environment" in which humans live then you get one of the best clues about what is happening and how to interpret it. Central heating changed the way we built our houses. In Europe this is clearly evident. In North America, not so much. Electric Light changed everything about work and life and farming and allowed humans to separate themselves from the daily rhythms of the sun. The invention of the alphabet allows humans to transcribe what they have learned so future humans can find this knowledge without it being forgotten by those who have passed on. Books, and linear writing, have defined our culture and allowed us to develop a scientific method of discovery and proof. It has also contributed to the "specialization" of knowledge and the establishment of divided labour and individualized effort along an assembly-line model.

 

To bring me to the present day we see the "externalization" of human thought. We see the impact of engendering narscissisic behaviour by constructing entertainments which are merely a mirror of ourselves projected back to us. Social media are meant to create audiences who will follow or promote or like what we put out there. The smart phone has become merely a hand-mirror into which we constantly stare to see our lives reflected by the responses of others.

 

It is actually enough for us to only recognize this is happening. It is enough for us to be asking these questions. It is not the least we do when we challenge our assumptions about all the environments we have created and live within. The communications environment may be very complex, but the principles by which it operates are fundamentally the same as the market bazaar of ancient days. Knowing how we immerse ourselves into our many technical bubbles helps us distinguish this behaviour from our authentic selves. Merely driving a car is to participate in a collective behaviour guided by agreed upon rules and utilizing the social conventions arising from our common history. I don't need to elaborate on how much the automobile has changed the world. But I can add to this how much the automobile has changed us as humans. One only need to commute by other means (public or self-propelled) to encounter people with a different world view on transportation technologies, energy extraction, and climate sustainability.

 

So, I have come to believe there is always a two-way relationship when it comes to technological environments. The telegraph/telephone environment is far faster than the written word. The speed at which information may travel produced a host of secondary effects and raised expectations in society for accuracy, accountability, and participation in the political sphere. The whole idea of "news" is embedded in an environment constructed to contain communications media. What is essentially true about all technological environments is how we are changed by them as we change them. Each time humans come up with yet another advancement they must learn to expect that it will change their relationship with the planet, each other, and themselves as much as it will "improve" their lives.

 

In North America it is quite clear how much the railroad produced our large urban cities. In Europe the location and size of cities is more related to shipping and trade than to rail connections, but the efficiency and reliability of rail in Europe is a lynch-pin for its economy — unlike the new world where the automobile reigns supreme. We may find the future will dictate new locations for the nexus of data exchanges. Where the economy of a region is reliant less on the making of material goods and more on the production of knowledge and the processing of information.

 

Your question(s) reflected a concern for the "working person" and what the future may hold for the nature of "work" and the creation of wealth. Along these lines we can seek to understand which technologies currently sustain the creation (and sharing) of knowledge and which are simply idle pursuits. People have expressed a fear for humanity's future at different times of human history and today is likely just another step along the way. Steam power, internal combustion, sewage treatment, metallurgy, antibiotics, digital networks, and nuclear weapons have all had a catastrophic potential right along with their obvious beneficial intentions. Today's wired world will have consequences for both society and the individual. Each time this happens we worry whether humans are capable of dealing with it psychologically, emotionally, socially, and politically. But somehow we manage to work out ways of integrating ourselves into this new environment and decorating it to our particular tastes. The wired environment seems frightening in many respects, but it also represents an immense opportunity to move humans closer together and for them to work more in harmony. We just have to want to understand how this new environment works and the rest will come naturally to us. Our brains are hard wired for pattern recognition. We are built this way. The right patterns will eventually emerge and become the guiding principles for our agreed regulation and new social norms. What McLuhan was most worried about with any new technology was how each one had the capacity to separate us from each other. The only way to overcome this detrimental effect is for humans to actively seek each other out and make new connections to overcome the isolating (and ultimately damaging psychological effects) and narcissist tendencies of everyday people.

 

There is no right answer for this question. There is only the answer which is right for you. Each of us is engaged in a search for our authentic self and the journey we are on puts us in contact with others who may be able to provide some clues which reveal ourselves to us. I personally believe our new mobile digital information environment gives us much more contact with other ideas than at any other time in human history. Not all those ideas will be good ones. But together, as we seek to understand our technological environments, the patterns will slowly emerge until we can see what is 'obviously' happening to us. Then we will know what the right answer is for us.

 

I hope this helps.

[G+_George Kozi]

see, this is why I like G+. 

Dave Trautman thank you for your response. I have to think about all those aspects you touched on.