Technology and loss of freedom

Hi,

I have a thesis that it is the development of technology that has, over
the last 100 years, eroded the basis for and appreciation of human
freedom.  Technology has also done precious little for advancing human
freedoms (although cryptography may be an exception).

Let's first define freedom as the ability of people to do things without
forceful interference from the government. This is an arbitrary
definition, but it appears to be useful for the analysis below.

First of all, 200 years ago it was very hard for lone people to endanger
lives of themselves and many others. For example, the only weapons that
were available were single shot and double shot rifles that were very
slow to reload. Similarly, people did not have fast moving vehicles and
any traffic did not present serious danger for innocent bystanders.

Poison gases were not available, and the explosives technology
was far less advanced. Even if it was possible to set up a large
explosion, limitations in building construction made them useless.

"Hard drugs" also became available only in the recent past [please 
correct me] due to advancements in chemistry and medicine.

You can well imagine that airline terrorism could not appear before 
airlines.

No doubt that I only touched upon a very small percentage of newly
existent dangers that are created by the technology.

At the same time, developments in technology made it easy to spy on and
brainwash citizens. TV, which is the ultimate brainwashing machine, came
in play only very recently. The wiretapping is new also. It is the
remoteness feature of "bugs" that made spying so much cheaper than
hiring "stukachi" -- snitches.

If you ride a horse, there is no perceived need for an airbag or a
mandatory horse insurance. If all houses are 1 story tall, nobody is afraid
of an OK City type explosion.

With the advent of technology, the balance of perceived social needs and
government capabilities shifted radically, and it shifted away from the
great freedoms of the past. The public perception of freedom now is that
freedom is inherently dangerous and is a threat to the public itself.

Is that an evil CoNspiRaCY of purebred sovoks and Zion agents or it is a
natural consequence of inventions that dramatically changed the place of
the man in the world? I am not sure.

	- Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> I have a thesis that it is the development of technology that has, over
> the last 100 years, eroded the basis for and appreciation of human
> freedom.  Technology has also done precious little for advancing human
> freedoms (although cryptography may be an exception).
> Let's first define freedom as the ability of people to do things without
> forceful interference from the government. This is an arbitrary
> definition, but it appears to be useful for the analysis below.
[snip]
> Is that an evil CoNspiRaCY of purebred sovoks and Zion agents or it is a
> natural consequence of inventions that dramatically changed the place of
> the man in the world? I am not sure.

I'd argue that the worst thing was probably television, since now
people don't go outdoors a lot and talk to their neighbors like
they used to.  Today, in most cities, you don't even know the
neighbors unless they blocked your parking space.

There are tradeoffs between the old and new - in the old society,
say, the USA circa late 1800's to early 1900's, we were much more
violent.  The big stir about shooting 4 students at Kent State
would be severly dwarfed by the mass killing of 1200 in one day
in New York city in the anti-draft riots of the mid-1860's, and
the bombings of the MOVE neighborhood in Philly circa 1985 and
WACO circa 1993 would be insignificant compared to what happened
to the American Indians.

Personal (non-government) violence was rampant long ago - men and
women as parents routinely called up the Bible verse "spare the rod
and spoil the child" to beat the living crap out of their kids.
Persons who were grown up in the 1940's and 1950's will recall the
days when parents would beat their kids in public when "necessary",
and when at home, beat kids so badly that you could hear the scream-
ing a block away.  Don't even ask about the violence against women.

This is only one example of the horrors of living in the "good old
days" - if necessary, I could catalogue some other examples.

Dale Thorn wrote:
> I'd argue that the worst thing was probably television, since now
> people don't go outdoors a lot and talk to their neighbors like
> they used to.  Today, in most cities, you don't even know the
> neighbors unless they blocked your parking space.

Yes, TV is bad. I personally do not watch TV at all, my TV set
is packed in a box.

> There are tradeoffs between the old and new - in the old society,
> say, the USA circa late 1800's to early 1900's, we were much more
> violent.  The big stir about shooting 4 students at Kent State
> would be severly dwarfed by the mass killing of 1200 in one day
> in New York city in the anti-draft riots of the mid-1860's, and
> the bombings of the MOVE neighborhood in Philly circa 1985 and
> WACO circa 1993 would be insignificant compared to what happened
> to the American Indians.

Could it be due to excess of men?

Or lack of education?

> Personal (non-government) violence was rampant long ago - men and
> women as parents routinely called up the Bible verse "spare the rod
> and spoil the child" to beat the living crap out of their kids.
> Persons who were grown up in the 1940's and 1950's will recall the
> days when parents would beat their kids in public when "necessary",
> and when at home, beat kids so badly that you could hear the scream-
> ing a block away.  Don't even ask about the violence against women.

What did they do with the poor women?

> This is only one example of the horrors of living in the "good old
> days" - if necessary, I could catalogue some other examples.
> 

That would be interesting, at least to me.

	- Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> Dale Thorn wrote:
> > There are tradeoffs between the old and new - in the old society,
> > say, the USA circa late 1800's to early 1900's, we were much more
> > violent.  The big stir about shooting 4 students at Kent State
> > would be severly dwarfed by the mass killing of 1200 in one day
> > in New York city in the anti-draft riots of the mid-1860's,

> Could it be due to excess of men?  Or lack of education?

Today we have to be much more subtle to drag the kids off to kill
and die, hence the Ken Burns-style poster at the U.S. Post Offices
which says "A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do", i.e., one of
the first lessons in logic courses is the unspoken lie in the quote.

In the old days, they didn't have to be so subtle - they could call
up all manner of demonic images of the enemy, or claim that God had
called them to slay the infidels, which was rampant as late as the
"Civil" War circa 1865.  There's a song "The Battle Hymn Of The
Republic", which was crafted to crank up the emotion to kill the
Southerners.  (It never occurred to king schmucko Ken Burns that
slavery wasn't against the law until 1863).

It actually surprises me (how naive, you say) that they could get
away with the Incubator Baby Scam in Congress circa 1991.  Funny
thing is, one of my young charges visited the Museum Of Tolerance
in Los Angeles recently, and there was an eerily similar account
of Hitler's men throwing Jewish babies out of the hospitals....

> > Personal (non-government) violence was rampant long ago - men and
> > women as parents routinely called up the Bible verse "spare the rod
> > and spoil the child" to beat the living crap out of their kids.
> > Don't even ask about the violence against women.

> > What did they do with the poor women?

Women would disappear for weeks at a time, from time to time,
generally to fix some "female problem" at the hospital (no need
for the kids to visit, better to have fun visiting aunts and uncles,
or have a nanny over for a couple of weeks) until the "problem"
was taken care of.

If you could allow me to use the freeways as a model for potential
violence, when there is a very stressful situation at hand, and
people are allowed to do things that they would never do outside
of the confines (and protection) of their cars, it is this:

At home in the old days, with a wife and several kids (families
were mostly larger then), you often had a boiling bot for stress,
and the (effectively) legal act of beating one's wife severely
would be covered up by the "family, friends, neighbors, and church".
Especially the church, the good old Christian church (my experience)
where God is a terrible God and the punishment for even raising an
eyebrow to His Agent on Earth (daddy) might be a body damaged for
life in some way.  The power and the temptations inherent in the
sovereignty of a man's home were too much for most people to
manage honestly and fairly, hence the heavy reliance on Bible
verses to cover up/justify the excesses.

This BTW is one of my most important reasons to distrust Libertarians
and other Right-Wingers, i.e., the sovereignty of the home principle.
It cuts both ways, you see...

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

-> Technology has also done precious little for advancing human
-> freedoms (although cryptography may be an exception).

I would disagree.  Technology has done an incredible ammount for advancing
human freedom.

Communication is a prime example.  The printing press has resulted in 
widespread education, which is a great facilitator of freedom when its not
a purely socializing force.  It has also facilitated insurrections and 
revolutions (the Revolutionary War here in the States is a good example).
This, though not always leading to 'democracy', is a self determining act,
and thus a free one.

Technology has also made travel easier.  This, combined with communication
has led, and is leading, to greater cosmopolitanism.  The result of this
cosmopolitanism is the loosening of the bonds of tradition and taboo in
any particular culture.  It also promotes greater understanding and peace,
perhaps following an initial isolationist reaction.

Science, the mother of technology, has led to freedom from stifling
religious dogma (perhaps substituting some of it's own dogma, of course).

Medical technological advancement has resulted in a longer life span,
which increases the opportunities alloted to man within his lifetime.
This also translates to an increase in freedom of action.


Whether people use this freedom or not, is a seperate issue.


I am also not unaware of the detractions of technology, and how it has
been used to curtail freedom.  It has many other detractions as well.
In fact, I am of the oppinion that we have indeed paid too dear a price 
for such rapidity of technological advancement.  The fire that has been 
stolen from the gods is burning our house down.


 ............................................................................
 . Sergey Goldgaber <sergey@el.net>      System Administrator        el Net .
 ............................................................................
 .   To him who does not know the world is on fire, I have nothing to say   .
 .                                                      - Bertholt Brecht   .
 ............................................................................