“The main problem with this view is that the generation and use of technology is in actuality always negotiated within a complex web of social, economic, political, philosophical and other relationships. No matter how inherently potent the technology, it is fundamentally shaped by these things. Furthermore, all this techno-social activity occurs within the strictly defined parameters of the natural environment.”

I’d agree with that.

Data In = Data Out, and no matter how powerful the computer (or information network system), if the wrong data is being fed in, there is no way a computer is going to fix it. This is something I think Social Scientists in particular should begin to seriously consider.

QUOTE: They are the issues like the individual versus the collective, freedom versus responsibility, and equity versus excellence.

RESPONSE: Freedom is not the opposite of responsibility. It is the essence of it. If our actions are not free then they are not our responsibility. And if they are free then we are responsible for the choices we make. To suggest that FREEDOM is the opposite of RESPONSIBILITY or that they are somehow in tension is quite amazingly inaccurate

Peter,

Your reference to Professor Ian Angell, and especially to his doctrine of a new Barbarism emerging in thought, reminds very much of the offbeat philosophy of Nietsche, whom you mentioned, and who in some sort of maniacal notion, wrote about the need for an Oberman or Superman to straighten things out near the end of the so-called dynamic 19th century. Sounds crazy, as Neitsche finished up becoming.

The scary part about it, looking at our global international position now, is Angell could be partly right, but certainly not right in his belief that this is the way our society should go, as George W” and his crew, and our John Howard, seem to believe. Speaking from the point of view of one of many from our bush country, theory’s such as Angells seem nothing new. Maybe even Socrates in his vernacular may have tried to analyse such things when he intimated “out with the Gods and in with the Good”, in modern meaning out with these new part Biblical world-shapers, and use more than a mite of reasoning and just plain common sense, which also includes our Aussie sense of fair play.

What also could be happening is that Angell’s reasoning because he is a possibly admired intellectual, leaves much of a naive public in a mood of acceptance, academics not even questioning Angell as you have done - already activated by a “dumbing down”, as the Canadian philosopher Ralston Saul terms the situation in the US over terrorism, and is also being felt in Australia - a kind of “yours is not to reason why” overdone patriotic syndrome.

Finally, as a thinking oldie, one can only pray that this current mood of hyper-invidualism as you call it, finishes up in the historical rubbish-tip, as it deserves because it sounds very ersatz, and not built to last.

George C, WA - Bushbred

It would be harder to agree that technology would or ought be a guide line for any person, young or old,the intention and the sophisticated breakthrough in applications are intended to aid and speed up working methodology,as well as providing leasure, and not provide or substitute alturnate philosophical argument with antitheistic intention. There would be a word to express the anti machine-technology group.
It would in my opinion be only a tool for aiding the user,and if by development improves that technology for expanded aid for the user, it is welcome, but when it is used for negative or political manipulation as we have experienced more of late with our media outlets,and political non argument's dressed as edited sound bits and Marxist garble to lie and create confusion deliberatlly, harder punnishment and sanctions ought apply to those with the most gain in exploiting and creating a deseption for any purpose. That is a down side of Technology advancements, The Psychopathy of the user and their intent.
So a word that need to re emerge and that is DISCIPLINE.Something we hear little about lately.

BRUSH
I think it is worthwhile to note, that among my various contentions is the idea that we 'are' as we are due to the impact and influence of philosophers who's ideas have filtered down thru education etc.

Your noting of Professor Angles position and the authors concerning his apparent embracing of Neitsche's ideas of the 'superman' are relevant in this regard.

This is one of the reasons I seriously question the originality of people who say they are 'atheists' simply because it is a thought out reasoned position. I would give more credence to the 'flavor' of the education they received, and the very impact of philosophers which you have already pointed out here.
cheers

A Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche as a historical philosopher and corrilated to any reality would be a big mistake, a flop in his prime, some what "Strange', and obviously had some mental Illnesses to contend with .
If someone can claim that The First Prophet of Zarathustra transformed his thoughts to Nietzsche to engage in philosophical stand point,and claimed Zarathustra, Through him, was to make right the wrongs of Zoroastrianism, and at the grand age of 19 years contracted a , well, a sexual transmitted desease,"and died in his early 50's," that effects the brain, some would say , Insanity.
I think you would be right David . Not a good example I would like my children to indulge, let alone anyone elses.
Do not forget, Nietzsche's work was resarected for Hitlers purposes,after being shelved for 200 odd years and its bearing on the war effort for the Inspiration of German Soldiers and the SS ," That explains alot".