The Illusions Of Technology

In The Abolition of Man Lewis states,

There is something that unites magic and applied science (technology) while separating both from the "wisdom" of earlier ages. For the ancients, the cardinal problem of human life had been how to conform the human soul to objective reality; and the means were knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the cardinal problem is how to conform reality to the wishes of the soul; and the solution is a technique.

Peter Kreeft in his lecture, Lost in the Cosmos, points out that if we were to categorize these four things; technology, science, magic and religion, into two groups, that a quite proper grouping would be magic and technology in one group and religion and science in another. The reason being, as he gains from Lewis, is that science and religion are about conforming one's will to reality and technology and magic are about bending reality or nature to our will.

So, where does that leave our society, which Neil Postman branded a technopoly? We have become so enamored with technology that an optimistic pragmatism, where whatever "works" is what is deemed true, has become the spirit of the age. The appeal to reason, truth,natural law, religion or ethics seems passe, whether in matters of education, farming, family life, civic life, commerce, etc.. Instead what is appealed to is efficiency, convenience, entertainment and a sense of control. It is ironic that technologies which are often presented as increasing one's control, (not of ourselves of course, but of nature or other people), are most likely what one will forfeit one's control to. It is indeed a Faustian bargain.

The Real Thing

Update:
Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon has issued and apology and says that the company handled the matter with the Orwell books poorly. He says similar situations will be handled differently in the future, but he doesn't explain how they will be handled differently. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

In PC World, Melissa J. Perenson writes,

Today, Amazon removed George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm from its Kindle e-book store. The company also went ahead and removed any digital trace of the books, too-striking them from both users' digital lockers and from Kindle devices. This disturbing, Orwellian move underscores how, in spite of comments otherwise, a purchase in the digital realm can't be compared to physical ownership of content.

Oh, the irony! So, the gist of the article is this: If you receive information electronically, such as music, books, movies, etc...consider it a rental. The idea of not having to store cds is appealing to me, but I've always loved having books around. In fact, I kind of wonder about people who don't.

More On Investing In Real Things

In a recent Mark Steyn article, he analyzes the problems with the recent G-20 summit, noting that they were looking for scapegoats while refusing to do what would really be necessary to really grow the GDP of the western nations. There was one particular gem of a paragraph in which he touches on our country's growth of "investments". Bold is mine.

Let it be said that in recent years in America, the United Kingdom and certain other countries the "financial sector" grew too big. In The Atlantic, Simon Johnson points out that, from 1973-85, it was responsible for about 16 percent of U.S. corporate profits. By this decade, it was up to 41 percent. That's higher than healthy, but it wouldn't have got anywhere near that high if government didn't annex so much of your wealth – through everything from income tax to small-business regulation – that it's become increasingly difficult to improve your lot by working hard, making stuff, selling it. Instead, in order to fund a more comfortable retirement and much else, large numbers of people became "investors" – albeit not as the term is traditionally understood: Instead, you work for some company, and it puts some money on your behalf in some sort of account that somebody on the 12th floor pools together with all the others and gives to somebody else in New York to disperse among various corporations hither and yon. You've no idea what you're "investing" in, but it keeps going up, so why do you care? That's not like a 19th century chappie saying he's starting a rubber plantation in Malaya and, since the faster shipping routes out of Singapore, it may be worth your while owning 25 percent of it. Or a guy in 1929 barking "Buy this!" and "Sell that!" at his broker every morning. Instead, an exaggerated return on mediocre assets became accepted as a permanent feature of life.

This is interesting to me, as the more I have been reading about our banking and investment systems, I've wondered about the ethics of mutual funds and the like. As we become further removed from those with whom we invest our money, we lose the ability to hold them accountable, all in the name of reducing risk and gaining larger returns. It seems that if we invest, we are morally responsible for the actions taken by the businesses in which we invest, but our thinking has become muddled on this point because we have wanted to remove all risk, which in turn removes any sense of responsibility. All the more reason, I think, to invest in real things and perhaps businesses closer to home.

Investing In Real Things

James Rogers gives an interview for the U.K.'s Channel 4, and the poor interviewer can't believe what he is hearing, as Rogers presents to him the reality of the economy and what it will take to avoid a depression. One of the most important things, other than giving a basic economics lesson, that comes out of this interview is the importance of investing in real things, farming, mining, etc... So, time to expand your gardens folks, and learn a necessary skill. This is what will last and be of worth in the coming years. Enough of the efforts to create desire for extras, if what Rogers, Austin Fitz, Roubini and Celente are saying is true, the yeoman will be the one prospering.

This reminds me of my public school education. Many times I remember the history texts, in a deriding way, taught of how Thomas Jefferson wanted the U.S. to be the food supplier to the world, with farming being the main occupation of our population. Somehow, that doesn't seem so absurd now.

Here's the Rogers interview.