Discomfort And Joy - Bill Joy and vision of the future

Ecologist, The, Oct, 2000 by Zac Goldsmith

But interestingly, and maybe surprisingly, his critique of technology does not encapsulate that society which pursues technotopia. I bring to his attention a number of recent studies on the effects of the Internet on users. The Stanford University Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society, for instance, recently found that the Internet 'was creating a brand-new wave of social isolation in the US, raising the spectre of an atomised world,' where people spend more time 'home, alone, anonymous'. I ask him for his views on Clinton's recent pledge to spend $150 billion taxpayer dollars on equipping every school classroom with up-to-date computers. 'Computers in schools,' he says simply, 'are overrated.'

It is as though his computer world, indeed his life, has suddenly been thrown into question by his discovery of the problems surrounding technology. 'There is no doubt we are interfering in systems that we don't understand, and we will surely be responsible for large parts of the environment breaking down,' he acknowledges, casually, 'but I'm attempting to focus my energy on a more narrow problem -- one which I understand.'

WHAT TO DO?

If the problem is as dire as he says it is, and the timescale as short, what action does he propose we take? I suggest that multinational corporations are out of control, and that government is both unwilling and unable to take responsible action.

'I don't believe we will do the right thing unless we are honest about the problem,' he says, 'and it's not in many people's interests to be honest about the problem. It's not even in government's interest to face the problem because of how the political system works. The problem with politicians, and politics in general, using the example of genetic engineering, is that there is always a very powerful small interest that would be seriously affected economically if a ban were implemented, whereas lots of people stand to lose in a smaller way if biotech products were allowed to go through. Interest groups have much more influence and can easily balance out an enormous numerical disadvantage.'

And the sheer speed of modern society, he says, makes positive change more difficult. 'I don't think that government regulation can in any case keep up with the current pace of technological change. Why are we in such a hurry? Why do we have to get there in one generation instead of three?'

Yet 'companies can be monitored,' he assures me. 'What makes it difficult is that there is not one single big offender. We could send strong signals through economic mechanisms, taxation, regulations, insurance requirements and other means to direct business towards the right questions with an emphasis towards a common-sense answer. We need some new, gracefully applied, limits.'

First though, 'we desperately need honest discussion within the province of people in the universities who have academic freedom or who aren't entangled with business interests. We need objective reporting by people willing to take the time to write it up in a way that everyone can understand. We need scientists with strong credentials to examine these problems, and we need to turn to the nonprofit sector for guidance.