“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".

Tech has been changing the way humans behave since we learnt how to make flint tools. The big difference today is that the average joe doesn't know how any of it works.

Death to all you luddites!
Ayn Rand, what a woman; GO HOWARD ROARK! (Charlie Darwin too)
Social Darwinism…hmmm, bliss…no more, well, no more sponges and weaklings…oh, no more talk of god would be just grand also…
Peter, I agree; the prof’s book makes some pretty astounding claims, but, how far off is he really…I mean, we change, we will never be static, we will evolve, into what, probably something non-human, how far off was Michael Crichton’s Prey? Write on the money I think!
We must embrace change and technology, and control it, if humans are to remain, well, human…

Peter,

Hoping to be not intruding the second time, but looking back more as a mature-age historian and political scientist, it is interesting how thinkers such as Ayn Rand use the reasoning of Aristotle to portray a style of individualism which in the end induces fascism both in politics and economics - and indeed, which could be happening now with our own Aussie government policies. However, these right-wing thinkers should take note of Aristotle’s Golden Mean - Moderation in all Things, the Great Man no doubt having had the insight to understand human weaknesses, thus seeing the necessity for the Golden Mean, to balance individual ambitions, which over the centuries has helped bring justice and democracy, the beginnings of which were set in train by Muslim scholars bringing Aristotlean thought to the barbarian West just after the 1000 millenium. AD.

It is interesting also how a documentary on Rand tells how she disliked the philosophies of the German thinker, Immanuel Kant, no doubt preferring, the less egalitarian doctrines of Wilhelm Hegel. Kant, of course, postulated the dire need for a global federation of nations, Rand probably preferring the role the US is taking at present, carrying on the neo-colonialism and neo- economic imperialism, and pre-emptive attacks on other countries, which Kant as a true Christian, would not have justified.

Regards, George C, WA - Bushbred

It is telling that this discussion on IT and its impact on the individual and/or the community is done through The Forum - a virtual community that exists on the internet.

I have perhaps met 2 or 3 of the regular participants in this Forum face to face but I value the thoughts and opinions I am exposed to here and partcipating in these discussions definitively makes me feel more connected to my new home country .

I am a technological optimist and I believe that electronic technologies can actually be used to strengthen the bonds of community and build social capital. What Katrina and other disasters on a mega scale shows us is that civic life and communities are the ultimate bulwarks and levees against the tides of destruction.

Seen in this light the recent discussions on the necessity for Telstra to continue to provide tele communications services for all Australians becomes a matter of national importance and a question of how we can continue to build a spirit of community. We all need to be connected to each other in order for everyone to be given the opportunity to contribute to developing the bonds of civic life and conviviality.

I have a major problem with this article.

"...technology is now so potent and pervasive it seems to be the main driver of social change"

This is a blindingly inaccurate statement. It absolutely reverses cause and effect.

From the time man picked up a rock and whacked his neighbour over the head with it, to the atomic bomb, we have exploited technology to help us terrorize our neighbour.

But the stone was not the cause. The stone simply provided the means to express aggression. To argue otherwise is to suggest that aggression was the result of finding the stone.

Recent technology is just that - recent. In its way it is no different to that stone, which was the most recent manifestation of a weapon at that time. Computers, when used to write stuff, are simply the most recent manifestation of the concept that include chisel-and-rock, papyrus-and-stylus, ink-and-paper, the typewriter and the word processor. Email is just an up-to-date version of the cleft stick.

Also, I should point out that predictions about the impact of technology have a solid history of being entirely wrong. Cambridge professor Douglas Hartree, who had built the first differential analyzers in England and had more experience in using these very specialized computers than anyone else, stated in 1951 that in his opinion, all the calculations that would ever be needed in the UK could be done on the three digital computers which were then being built. The 1972 polemic "Limits to Growth" also springs to mind as a resoundingly poor piece of prediction.

Technology and technological innovation, are simply an extension of us. They have no separate existence, and therefore cannot at any level be said to "drive" anything. I think it may be reasonably inferred that new barbarians, or whatever, are simply an extension of the writer's own prejudices and/or fears, much as were Hartree's wishful thinking (he was after all a mathematician) and the Club of Rome's vested interest in a doomsday scenario.