Re: [-empyre-] the promise

[Brendan Howell <mute@netaxs.com>]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Jun-Ann Lam wrote:

> it is the promise of technology that has failed.
> 
> The promise of something better, something truly wild and wonderful, the
> promise of accessibility, the promise, THE PROMISE that has failed us.

I don't think it's the promise of technology that has failed.  I think
that it's a result of reaching a dead end with techno-fetishism.

I came to a similar conclusion halfway through engineering school:

It's disappointing to realize that widgets, gizmos and block boxes are not
in fact magical and that they can't do much to improve your love life or
show the devine nature of the universe but if you recognize that some of
these technologies are quite empowering, it's not so bad.

Complaining about technology is a bit like yelling at your hammer or
paintbrush.  If you obsess over the medium, you're just overanalyzing the
canvas.  Screw it.  Paint with sticks on plywood.  Go low tech if it's
easier.  But there's no need to sit crying, clutching your tools saying
"oh woe!  dear craftsman cordless muti-speed drill driver.  thou promised
stars and planets and yet birthed the same babe as a coarse gutter
flathead."

Why not start with an idea instead of a technology.  Then pick the tools
you need (if you can get them).  

I never found much solace getting angry or depressed over the lie of
technological utopia.  Technology is not a philosophy or a way of life,
it's just tools that make certain tasks easier.  

...

Now, that's not to say that we should not analyze the political
implications of a medium.  And on that tip, I have to say that I totally
disagree with Jun-Ann's assertions about the internet having a negative
military influence.  The military design requirements  for the arpanet
were that it had to be fault tolerant and able to survive the failure of
multiple links and nodes.  The result is a network that is completely
non-heirarchical and decentralized.  TCP/IP is the protocol where all
packets are equal and as you can see, the result is quite a bit more
democratic than say the phone network, TV, radio or even postal mail.  
  The first computers were used for military use but do we see any
lingering violence in the ibook?  I'm more intimidated by clay knives.
  I'd say the 'axis of evil' on the internet is from commercial forces
that are attempting to dominate the digital real estate and threaten the
inherent democracy.  Cisco, Microsoft, Worldcom, AOL-Time-Warner, etc. 
They all want to leverage their dominance to turn the internet into a
fancy version of american television.  

I'd say the military influence is not so relevant any more. 

-Brendan