nettime: closing of the human mind

[John Horvath <h8801joh@ella.hu> (by way of Pit Schultz <pit@contrib.de>) (by way of Pit Schultz <pit@contrib.de>)]

The Closing of the Human Mind
by John Horvath


Since 1984 futurology has changed. Prior to that year, everyone was
looking with intent interest and expectation at how much our society was
becoming like Orwell's prediction. And it was not just Orwell: Bradley
and Huxley had their versions as well, and people were always on the
watch for the tell-tale signs that the worlds of these visionaries were
upon us.

More than a decade on, such apocalyptic visions of tomorrow are no
longer in vogue. Fears of a police state -- a police world -- have faded
to the background. With the end of the cold war the romanticism of
cloak-and-dagger intrigue had died.

Perhaps. But 1984 is an important year nonetheless, for it marks the
approximate start of a process that has changed the world in such a way
that it will never be the same again. It was at that time that
computers, i.e. the PC (Personal Computer), began to enter the market
aimed at household users. Since then, computers have become a part of
everyday life -- at work, school, and home.

While PCs were making their impact on the market, there were some who
warned against them. The biggest fear of computers was that it would
result in job loss by making those jobs considered "routine" redundant.
Clearly, there had been some cause for concern, but the expected massive
layoffs never happened. Indeed, some would argue, new jobs were created
due to the changing needs brought about by the technological revolution.

On the other hand, what has happened is a process that can be termed as
"the deintellectualization" (how's that for a word!) of computer users.
The danger is apparent: as the number of users continue to grow daily,
it is only a matter of time before Man, as an intellectual and social
being, shall cease to exist.

At present, there are three generations of computer users: early
explorers, PC pioneers, and GUI (Graphic User Interface) people. The
first generation, the early explorers, were those studying computers
before the technological explosion of the eighties. In those days,
knowledge of computers required a sound understanding of mathematics and
logic. The principles of how a computer works were just as important
than actually using one.

As PCs were eventually introduced on the market, those courageous enough
(and who had enough money) began what can be referred to as the second
generation of users, the PC pioneers. These were people who had to learn
the basics in computer language (such as BASIC) and were content with
limited functions and very primitive graphics. Computers were used
mainly for what they were intended: speeding up routine tasks. Word
processors and spreadsheets were the most common programs running at the
time.

Finally we enter the present-day period and the third generation, or the
GUI people. Today, users don't need to understand how computers work. In
fact, most them don't. Also, programs have to be pleasing to the eye and
not only the brain. Most commands are executed with merely the click of
a button.

At this stage in the evolutionary process, everyone expects everything
on the computer to be automatic and "user-friendly". The basics behind
computer technology have either been forgotten or ignored, so users have
to rely on a technocratic elite, usually those of the first generation
(and some of the second as well).

This process of technological evolution is nothing new, but
characteristic of capitalistic product development. As a product
develops (or evolves) its workings becomes increasingly complex so that
ordinary people using ordinary tools are no longer able to repair
anything themselves. Instead, they have to rely on the service of
"specialists". Eventually, a product becomes irreparable so that the
only solution is to buy a new product or a replacement for the defective
part. Some may call this progress; however, it's no more than an
elaborate form of conspicuous consumption.

At this point, defenders of the free market will cry foul and go into a
lengthy dialogue defending "progress" and how this process represents
the advancement of humankind; without such an "invisible hand" type
process, it is argued, we would still be living in caves.

Well, maybe I would still prefer to live in a cave rather than worry
about the environmental woes that this "progress" has been plaguing us
with. Nevertheless, the problem is not with technology per se. Rather,
it is that we do not take time to consolidate the advances that are made
in technology, thinking that there is no cost to technological
advancement. A prime example is the case of nuclear power. Fifty years
ago nuclear power held out the promise of abundant and cheap energy. We
all know now what kind of a nightmare it is to live in a place like
Chernyobl.

There is no such thing as cost-free technology. Technology has a cost,
and by not taking the time to explore or evaluate the costs involved we
are moving headlong into disaster. One of the costs of computer
technology is that we have raised our requirements of what computers are
for to the point that it runs our lives. Worse than that, it is our
life.

Computers were originally designed as machines to help in the routine
tasks of mathematical computation, in the same way that a vacuum cleaner
eased our job of removing dust from a carpet. The problem began when
capitalism saw the unlimited market potential for the new technology.
Not only are computers useful as fancy adding machines and devices to
control automation processes, but are indispensable as new forms of
entertainment and ultimately escaping from the burdens of reality.

Though Microsoft et al can undoubtedly find "experts" to point out the
psychological value of, say, virtual sex on the millions of lonely men
and women worldwide, the fact remains that we have become addicted to
this virtual drug. And like all narcotics, alienation becomes
inevitable. We can't stand to be away from our computer: it is our life,
our being -- it is us.

While this may seem to be another gloom and doom prophecy, just look
around corporate America today. People in occupations where computers
play a part of everyday business (and this percentage is growing) are
finding they have less time on their hands. Fifty years ago it was
predicted that machines were going to reduce the work week; instead, we
see it increasing.

And the problem is only getting worse. "Commuting", that is, doing your
work at home via a computer hookup, is becoming a popular alternative to
working in an office. Ad-men, those trumpeters of nothingness employed
to keep our reason null and void, have already jumped on the bandwagon:
"no more traffic jams", "work in the comfort of your own home", and so
on. What they fail to mention is that now your home is an office.
Actually, you have just lost your home. If you think you will have more
time and comfort doing your work there, think again: you will have less.

Again, this is not because of the technology itself but because of the
way in which the economy works in a capitalist society. Don't forget,
growth and progress, along with competition, are the cornerstones of
this philosophy. Thus, as companies continually strive to increase their
profits, workers are forced to increase their output. What computers
have done is not make the work less but more. Since tasks can be
completed faster compared to conventional ways, more tasks are now given
that have to be completed in the same amount of time in order to "get an
edge" on the competition.

Therefore, commuting will not ease the problems of working in an office
but will require the same amount of work, stress, etc. -- but in the
comfort of your own home. But don't expect too much privacy. And don't
expect too much comfort; the baby crying in the next room will only get
on your nerves.

Finally, it is not only the way we work that has been affected. Even our
language is changing to the point where we will all end up expressing
our myriad thoughts within the narrow confines of "compuspeak". Already,
over 200 new words have entered the English language thanks to computer
jargon. Pretty soon the most popular pick up line will be: "So baby,
tell me, how are you at interfacing?"

The mistake that Orwell, Bradley, and Huxley made in their visions of
the future was the role of the individual in bringing about the world
that they lived in. In all three cases, it wasn't the individual but an
all-encompassing "Big Brother" that had taken control of their lives.

What has happened with us is that we are willingly doing this to
ourselves. We want the telescreens in our rooms: not so Big Brother can
watch us, but so we can watch Big Brother and have him tell us what to
do.





--
*  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
*  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
*  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
*  more info: majordomo@is.in-berlin.de and "info nettime" in the msg body
*  URL: http://www.desk.nl/nettime/  contact: nettime-owner@is.in-berlin.de