prestidigital's Journal: No, We Are Not Doomed Yet (I Think)

I've been thinking a lot about Sheldon Pacotti's recent article on Salon. When I first read it I was compelled into a lengthy feedback that never really got out the door (i.e., it's still my "Drafts" folder waiting to be finished and sent). But then I thought I could sort of just work it all out here, perhaps over a couple of blogs. So, I guess that's what I'm going to try to do.

My understanding of the basic premise is this:

1. Malicious applications of science and technology and computers pose real threats to humanity.
2. Actions taken, both overt and subtle, to counter these kinds of threats are creating a society that is criminalizing knowledge while relegating access to knowledge to oligarchies.
3. ("The Bottom Line") While no ideal solution may exist, complete and open access to and exchange of knowledge is our best protection against the misuse of knowledge.

My first response is, "Yes! Yes! And yes!"

But...I don't know...I'm a Libra, so I guess it's just my nature to keep shuffling the scales until they balance. There a many points Mr. Pacotti makes with which I do not agree.

First random observation: #3 seems a lot like the argument the National Rifle Association uses: best way to prevent gun violence is to put a gun in every home. Is this a model? I wonder how NRA members feel about the "criminalization of knowledge."

Second not-quite-as-random observation: Wasn't a fundamental argument for NAFTA that free trade is better for everyone? Is this a model? Trade can certainly be used as an instrument that forcefully imposes will.

One thing in the article caught me right away and I almost didn't want to finish the article because I didn't want to go following along to any potentially logical conclusion based on an illogical premise. (I kept reading and I'm glad I did.) It was the assertion that we are our own biggest threat. That just cannot be true. What about weather, natural disaster, disease, and famine?

Right now there are 30 million people on this planet who are the brink of starvation because AIDS has killed most of their food providers. Does it get any more threatening than that?! Does anyone think that an orphaned child with no electricity nor running water nor quality food to eat would give you two shits if you told him that we need to start preparing ourselves for the future (WAY future) possiblity that someone will be able to print the recipe for a self-replicating nanbot virus? One does not have two shits to give when one does not eat!

(Here's where the subject changes a little for me. I need to get past this first before I can weigh in on the pros and cons of free and open knowledge.)

I don't want governments to stop passing restrictive laws and spending money on increased surveillance and increased policing of knowledge so much because I'm worried about losing my freedoms (of course, I do worry about that). I want them to stop spending money on that stuff because I want them to spend that money on medicine, and schools, and infrastructure for impoverished areas all over the world.

Right now we are seeing that it's not so easy bomb the hell out of a country in order to liberate it and then expect everyone to smile when we say, "your life can be great if only you become democratic." There's this idealism that is pervasive in American foreign policy that says, "Damn it! We should be able to use our power to reach half-way around the world and squash an evil tyrant and free the oppressed. Any kind of oppressive government is a threat to humanity and a threat to each nation's security, including our own. The world should thank us." We want to look at tryannical goverments like we are about to witness a rape and it would be wrong to not do something to stop it. But too many people don't see things this way...for whatever reason...it doesn't matter. But what if the next thing we do is "march" $550 billion dollars worth of money to buy Africans the drugs that will help them combat AIDS? How about 30 million new votes for democracy? Hell, we could even send that money in with "armed guards" if we are worried about corruption on the receiving end (and we should be).

I'm not saying we should ease up on the press against terrorism. I just hope people take this all into perspective. I have no doubt that what Mr. Pacotti is talking about is cause for concern and action. But concern and action must be holistic. Perhaps if we look outside our own (already well-protected) perspective we'd have a better understanding on how to deal with the "new" threat of terrorism. There will always be "kooks" and "crazies." They don't scare me. And while I refuse to make any execuses for suicide bombers, hijackers, and other terrorists, there is a vast difference between the occasional lone lunatic who might unleash a deadly bot and a trans-national organization that feels they have a "cause."