August 21, 2008
TECHNOS QUARTERLY Spring 2000 Vol. 9 No. 1
Commentary:
Computer Dictatorship
by Herbert London
Very recently my mom, an octogenarian, called her physician for an appointment. She was told that could not be accomplished because “the computer system is down.”
I had a similar experience at my local bank when a teller said I could not make a deposit because the computer system wasn’t working.
In an effort to keep track of Hudson Institute activity from far-flung locations, I rely on an internal software architecture. Recently my software became corrupted for inexplicable reasons and I was “blinded,” helpless in my pursuit of communication.
These illustrations are not idiosyncratic, but rather the general condition of an advanced technological society dependent on computers as an information archive and the primary means of communication.
So dependent have we become on the computer genie, that without it we are struck deaf, dumb, and blind.
I say this not as a Luddite, for I am amazed by the miracles technology has wrought. On the other hand, I also find remarkable the extent to which computers have insinuated themselves into every aspect of our lives.
I would contend we are now living in a computer dictatorship in which people cannot exercise free will to disengage from the ubiquity of this innovation. If a computer allows a blind man to see with newly devised computer glasses or it monitors the heartbeat of someone suffering from arrhythmia, you cannot say the computer is merely one of many technological options. The wonders the machine offers also come with an attendant dependency.
Mine is not a cri de coeur for the superficial McLuhanesque “the medium is the message.” What I consider critical is the recognition of computer reliance and a willingness to generate scenarios for remediation.
In Arthur Clarke's fanciful 2001: A Space Odyssey, HAL, the onboard computer, malfunctions and resists the importunings of the astronauts dependent on the knowledge base of an artificial intelligence for their journey. Here in graphic form is the worst case scenario of computer reliance.
There is an emerging military analogy. All the services are reliant on computers for information gathering, targeting, force deployment, etc. The sophistication of the nation's computer systems gives us an enormous strategic advantage over our adversaries.
On the other hand, America's enemies also realize that cheap counter measures such as a computer virus can cripple the seemingly invulnerable hegemon. At the moment, not one nation or combination of nations can challenge the United States' military supremacy; however, inexpensive measures that degrade computer-system effectiveness could have a profound effect in various theaters of potential conflict, particularly when complacency about technological superiority is widespread.
Contributing to the complacency is the relative ease with which the world adapted to Y2K fears. Planes didn't fall from the sky, banks didn't close, and food stock continued to be delivered to supermarkets. The naïve belief that Y2K would be disastrously disruptive has quickly given way to the naïve belief that reliance on computers is risk free.
While it is certainly true that technological introduction was initially a function of free choice, its widespread use and the dependency that use creates, fosters a form of social dictatorship. America cannot live without computers; they are masters and slaves simultaneously. They are the nation's statues of Daedalus.
Moreover this cannot change; I am not proposing a return to the Gutenberg cosmology. But it is important — I believe — to consider the ramifications of computer reliance.
What happens when computers don't work? How are we affected? Is life different during “down-time”? Who are our programmers, and are they indispensable in the “new” economy?
None of these questions is easily answered. Yet they should be asked, in part, because computerization is affecting us in manifold ways at the moment. An American who doesn't ask these questions is vulnerable to forces that are potentially damaging and possibly hazardous. All the better to know what we are getting into than to arrive at a new age thoroughly unprepared for what awaits us.
Herbert
London has been a senior fellow of Hudson Institute for more than 30 year
and was founder of its Center for Education and Employment Policy. He has
served on the Institute's Board of Trustees since 1974, becoming president
in September 1997. Dr. London, a noted social critic, is the John M. Olin
Professor of Humanities at New York University. For more information about
Hudson Institute, see its Web site at www.hudson.org.
Photo courtesy of Hudson Institute.