Technology: An Evil Empire?

Rich Logan is a 34-year-old massage therapist by profession, critic of technology by choice.

“I recognize it [technology] will guide and shape our planet for years to come. My only fear is that people will lose a sense that human interaction is really important,” said Logan, who lives in Chicago.

“I'm afraid we're just forging ahead and not thinking about what's happening to us emotionally in society.”

Logan is not alone. Many like him fear that technology is having far-reaching negative effects — effects many chose to ignore.

Now people like Logan have a voice — a movement called “technorealism” that wants a critical examination of the impact technology is having on people's lives.

“There ought to be a counter-voice to the Wired view of the world,” said technorealism co-founder Paulina Borsook, referring to the technology boosterism of Wired magazine.

According to Borsook, a technology writer and author of the recent book, “Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech,” much of the current debate over the impact of technology is divided into two extremist views.

“Everything is great — everything is terrible. We wanted to present ourselves as an alternative...,” Borsook said.

In 1998 a group of prominent people who write about and study technology, such as David Shenk, Brooke Shelby Biggs, and Andrew Shapiro, converged on Harvard University to hold a conference and unveil their technorealism “manifesto.” It is comprised of eight principles.

For example, technorealists believe that technologies are not neutral. They disagree with the National Rifle Association's (NRA) rallying cry, “Guns don't kill people, people kill people.” Technorealists instead believe that technologies promote certain behaviors in people.

As such, technologies are not utopian. Technologies can be “evil” and cause problems in society, technorealists say, and therefore need to be regulated by the government.

The Internet in particular is “not formally a place or jurisdiction separate from Earth,” technorealists say in their manifesto. So there is no excuse for “inefficient regulation or censorship” on the part of the government, which the technorealists say should take a more active role in enforcing things like copyrights.

Another concern is education. Technorealists argue that ambitious plans to wire public schools will not save the educational system or overcome the “digital divide.”

According to Borsook, putting computers in schools doesn't address issues like overcrowding, lack of funding, outdated textbooks and mediocre teachers. The problem, Borsook said, is that computers are seen as a quick fix for those larger problems.

“In high tech we express community involvement by throwing computers at problems,” she said.

“I've always felt computers in schools are a bad thing. Computers can be in our schools, but not as a substitute,” said Borsook.

Another technorealism principle is that information is not equivalent to knowledge.

“We must not confuse the thrill of acquiring or distributing information quickly with converting it into knowledge,” declares their manifesto.

“Regardless of how advanced our computers become, we should never use them as a substitute for our own basic cognitive skills.”

According to technorealists, information is just a collection of facts and data, while knowledge is the analytical skill needed to make sense of that information. They fear future generations will lose that skill if they continue to be inundated with context-less information.

Prominent technorealists include Biggs, the editor of Mother Jones magazine, Shapiro, a technology writer, lawyer and fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Shenk, author of several books on technology including “Data Smog,” Simon Garfinkel, a columnist for Salon magazine, and Steve Silberman, a contributing editor at Wired magazine.

Logan agrees with the sentiments of the technorealists.

“I started thinking about the specific things I need in life and it [technology] wasn't gonna get me closer to what I am looking for,” said Logan. “Technology is ruling us.”

Borsook said there is “a cultural hunger” to discuss concerns like these in an open forum.

“Nobody is talking about the cultural impacts. There needs to be a way to talk about this in a highly visible way.” Even people who have embraced technology in their work share some of the concerns of the technorealists.

Gary Selnow is a business professor at San Francisco State University. He uses technology on a daily basis and is currently working with refugees in Kosovo to unite them with relatives via the Internet.

Selnow says he recognizes the benefits of new technologies, but he too worries about their potential effects.

“(The Internet) has the capability to divide,” said Selnow. “Our society needs to come together.”

He said users' ability to tailor their browsing of the Internet to their specific interests enables diverse groups to avoid interacting with one another.

“Instead of homogenization, the Internet stratifies people…the danger is you begin to lose the over-all perspective. It tends to make people take sides.”

“People could become less aware of other issues. Or on a given issue, they could only hear one side,” said Selnow.

Selnow also said he is concerned about “closing the socio-economic disparity between the haves and the have-nots” among computer and Internet users.

But while technorealists argue that the government can step in and help resolve some of the problems posed by the Internet, Selnow is much more pessimistic about such efforts.

“It [the Internet] defies control. That is a blessing and a curse,” said Selnow. “It will have to run its course.”

Return to top