------------------------------
 
Date:      19 August, 1990
From:      Bob Gleason
Subject:   Computers, Social Responsibility, and Political Action
 
********************************************************************
***  CuD #2.01: File 4 of 6: Computers, Social Responsibility    ***
********************************************************************
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In a recent discussion on The Well, there have been debates about how to
respond to law enforcement attacks on "hackers." Topics incuded how to
educate the public, whether it is better to use the metaphor of "war" or
"peace" in responding, and how, in general, does one mobilize a large group
to address what are perceived to be threats to civil liberties. George
Gleason argues for conciliation, but recognizes that the resolution lies
in the broader problem of public apathy and wider social issues.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
 Twenty-five percent of Americans own personal computers.  It is most
 likely that these individuals come almost entirely from the more
 privileged half of society.  Most of the people who use computers do so in
 routine capacities such as clerical jobs or academic writing.  Awareness
 of the political and personal empowerment possibilities of the computer,
 is limited to a small subculture, many of whose members are concentrated
 in the Bay Area and the urban Northeast.
 
 The fine points on which our arguments rest lie outside of the
 experience of most of the population.  We are talking about specialised
 knowledge, and even though it has broad implications, it is difficult to
 understand without at least a certain familiarity with some of this
 specialised knowlede base.  The position is similar to that of geneticists
 engaged in engineering microbes to alter plant behavior, and faced with
 public opposition to improbable consequences of their work.
 
 The other face of the debate over "elitism" rests on the contents of my
 statement, to which I next turn.
 
 Here we see a mainstream culture which is engaged in behavior that is
 ecologically and in other ways non-sustainable.  We also see a vast scale
 of aacquiescence in a political agenda of creeping authoritarianism.  We
 also see the continuation of cultural norms that support greed and
 self-centeredness to the exclusion of other values.
 
 A person can take an attitude of support for these cultural norms, or of
 mere acceptance of them, or of opposition to them.  Those who support can
 be seen as doing so out of commitment to either an actual or potential
 benefit they may realize from their position: for instance a high-paying
 job in the military-industrial bureaucracy, or the symbolic identification
 with nationalistic themes, etc.  More typical, and in fact the large
 majority by most measures, is a mood of acquiescence, plus or minus some
 grumbling.  My argument is based on the position that acquiescence is
 nearly as problematic as active malice, and that acquiescence represents
 the utter abdication of personal responsibility for ethical choice.
 
 Now for any given individual, one or more of the following can be true:
 -He or she is being manipulated by the media or other large institutions.
 -He or she is more interested in personal gain than in public issues which
 involve consequences to others.  -He or she is under sufficient pressure
 of circumstance as to have no opportunity to engage in various acts of
 personal liberation, public opposition, or even basic creativity.  (For
 example, parenthood plus a full-time job).
 
 In the last case we can see at minimum the decision that the status quo is
 better than taking a chance on the unknown.  Whether this decision is
 "right" or "wrong" isn't up to me.  The question I have to raise though
 is, "How bad do things have to get before people rise up?"  The extreme
 case can be seen in the black community: economic oppression, the
 destruction of an entire generation by drugs, poverty, violence, etc. One
 wonders why the signs of collective outrage have not become more evident
 in that community: the history of the political repression in the 60s
 supplies part of the answer.
 
 However, most people in the mainstream aren't under that kind of extreme
 pressure of circumstances.  For them, acquiescence is either a matter of
 being manipulated or being selfish.
 
 Are we going to say that the public are brainwashed?  Does this imply that
 we ourselves are relatively free of brainwashing?  That would be awfully
 elitist, wouldn't it?; and as well, would create a mass "victim" role.  If
 we truly believe that brainwashing by TV and so on is the cause of the
 predicament, we are left facing a force that is so powerful as to be
 unstoppable: How can our calls to freedom and lofty ideals ever begin to
 compete with the pleasures of the shopping mall and consumption lifestyle?
 How can our press conferences and pamphlets be heard and seen above the
 din of commercial jingles and junk mail?  What have we to offer that can
 satisfy basic needs and desires?  A meager existence in cramped housing
 and on a hippie diet, made tolerable by an ethic of sustainability?  There
 is no substantial alternative economy anywhere in view.  Our alternative
 culture is either barely able to survive or supported by rare cases of
 vast success whose effects even so are not able to build a truly
 large-scale example which can become self-supporting.
 
 Instead, are we going to say that the public are acting selfishly?  That
 would cast the majority in a moderate version of the role of "Good
 Germans."  Instead of an absence of insight and will, there would be an
 absence of ethics and basic compassion.  The result of this is even more
 dire: it is not that people don't know what they want, it's that they want
 more or less what they're getting, *including* the consequences of
 intolerance and repression and injustice.  In that case, what alternative
 have we to offer?  Simulations of public executions, to stem the desire
 for the real thing?  Simulations of other forms of evil, which serve to
 disguise good done in secret?  That appears rather Machiavellian.  Or
 instead should we fold inwardly and hide from the rising tide?  A limited
 escape if that.
 
 Sixty percent of the public don't vote.  Sixty five percent of people
 under 35 years of age don't read newspapers or watch broadcast news
 (source Newsweek poll a few weeks ago).  When "don't know" is compounded
 with "don't care," we are in deep shit.
 
 Fact is, I believe that there may be some way out.  As Huxley said,
 "Nothing less than everything is truly sufficient."  It does cause me much
 despair to see that the vast majority of our resources are committed to
 fighting a holding action where success is measured in the absence of
 defeat.  I believe that a key element in the overall solution needs to
 take the form of cohesive examples of alternative economic and cultural
 entities.  Integral neighborhoods, intentional communities (not the same
 as "hippie communes" thank you), cooperative enterprises; generating a
 sustainable *and* prosperous way of living by higher ideals and deeply
 considered values.  Not isolated on little islands, but integrated with
 the overall economic and cultural sphere while retaining distinct
 identity.  And of course, publicized as such, to provide accessible models
 from which to proceed further. . . .
 
 We all have our cynical moods.  Contemplating the overall scale of the
 predicament of what used to be called "civilization," is frightening and
 can as easily give rise to despair as it does inspiration and hope for
 change.  I think one thing we all share here is a commitment to creating a
 better world in many ways.  Argument and debate are valuable ways of
 clarifying views and reaching a more cohesive synthesis.
 
 My cause of despair is that a huge amount of talent and energy and
 resources are going into what is basically the equivalent of defence
 expenditures.  On very many fronts.  Realistically I'd like to suggest a
 concentration of political effort in one specific geographic area, to
 create and maintain an area which is conducive toward the creation of real
 alternative institutions of all kinds.  From a strong and solid base like
 that, we can move outward and affect other areas.  There are plenty of
 other ways to get at an agenda that actually moves forward instead of
 fighting defensively.  I think the people who talk in terms of educating
 our opponents are on the right track: not us/them, but "all of us," and
 solving problems together.  "Nothing less than everything is truly
 sufficient," isn't a cry of despair but an affirmation of the need for
 everyone to play whatever part their conscience moves them toward.
 
 Forward!
 
***************
 
 
********************************************************************
                           >> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************
 

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+