At the outset of the Industrial Revolution, American author/lecturer Samuel Clemens (aka, Mark Twain) often expressed his misgivings about the onrushing pace of "Progress," and the unforeseen dangers that might emerge from the country's rapid, unchecked gallop into the 20th century. Clemens had no remedies for problems that had yet to rear their heads on the coming horizon. But his inner sense prompted him to be an outspoken critic of changing the status quo too quickly just for the sake of newness.Now that it’s well into the 21st century, society again finds itself facing new innovations and inventions that are unique to this age, even more so than the many changes that emerged during the Industrial Revolution. A case in point: The current plight of the “Baby Boomer Generation” (my generation), specifically from the 1960s to now. Many adherents of the counterculture revolution (Boomers all) probably recall all the admonitions against experimenting with mind-altering drugs such as marijuana, LSD, mescaline…ad infinitum. Chief among the “just-say-no” sloganism (thank you, Nancy Reagan) was the premise that marijuana was a “gateway drug” that would lead one to experiment with other, more powerful and dangerous drugs such as heroin and morphine, resulting in overdoses and addiction. Of course the so-called Psychedelic Crusaders marched onward just the same, rendering a deaf ear to all of the warnings condemning the evils of drugs. But in retrospect, the question arises: Were such warnings unwarranted and without merit, even though no one really had a crystal-ball “read” on how the counterculture’s experiments would impact society down the road?
There were tragedies to be sure: Users overdosing, some sharing
needles and passing on the HIV virus that led to a new disease no one could have
foreseen coming on the near horizon, namely AIDS. Still, the
Boomers/Experimenters soldiered on in their quest, which was probably more of an
expression of Youth seeking its own freedoms than bounding hurry-scurry into
any perceived new frontier. And for the most part the Boomers eventually came
of age, cut their hair, and went to work for IBM and Corporati Americana. (Predictably,
“crashing” on other people’s crash-pad floors had to run its course eventually for
a generation of mostly middle-class kids raised with full bellies, the polio
vaccine, and more freedoms than the world had ever known before.)
But it seems that the rebellious spirit of that generation
has re-surfaced in this century as those same people find themselves entering
their sixties and older now. And their predisposition for fast-forwarding into (and eventually embracing) anything new and even roguish is still alive and
thriving among these folks. Examples abide. When the Internet first came along in
the 1990s (earlier if you count “Apple”), those same Boomers (and other “new
gens” to be sure) were quick to hop on the digital freight train. The 56K modem
interconnected people, painfully slow, but in a way that hadn’t been
experienced since Bell made his first telephone call. All at once people could
send rudimentary IMs and emails to each other around the world, or join in
multi-user chatrooms, safely and anonymously from their homes. The ‘Net was a
hit and grew faster and more sophisticated as newer, faster computers made it
possible to turn out upgrades on an accelerated development curve. Users were firmly
onboard for the ride to end the millennium, as if swinging wildly from a
fast-moving trolley while holding on to a mere handrail.
But now society has reached the second decade of the new
century and has had a chance to observe firsthand what time and the digital
deluge have produced. The first, most popular social website was “Myspace,” now lost to the Digital Museum in the Technosphere as a quaint relic
from a bygone era. Today, foreign governments are being accused of covertly
dabbling in cyberspace to influence and undermine the outcome of American
political campaigns. The Arab Spring revolution in the Mideast was driven in
no small part by social media. The Internet has also become a rich hunting
ground for predators and thieves alike. Global operators use the Dark Web, not only to hijack personal assets and
identities, but to traffic in all manner of contraband, not the least of which human beings. Cryptocurrency is being used to monetize the Internet with virtual money of questionable source and value. Add to all of this the mass shootings and terror attacks perpetrated by people radicalized by ideological websites and postings by such hate groups as ISIS and white supremacists. In fewer than 20 years, all of this crept in right under society’s nose before it knew what hit it.
On balance, the Internet and Information Technology in
general, have been a boon for society, propelling it into the future like a
fast arrow from an archer’s bow. It is an innovation that is here to stay and won’t
be going away any time soon. Indeed, today’s culture would be lost without it.
But like so many things throughout history (as philosopher George Santayana said about “remembering
the past”) that start out with the best of intentions but end up going terribly awry,
I.T. has presented us with a daunting quandary that is pervading 21st-century
culture and global thinking; a quandary of which the core question is this: IF
we come upon a cool, inviting swimming hole as we hike a path through the fast-growing
forest of emerging technologies, which beckons us to “jump in, the water’s fine,”
then should we (a.) take a step back and consider first what may lie before us
before we leap, or (b.) take a plunge instead, casting caution to the wind, and
chance coming out on the other side of some unimagined hell?
Just Pop a Pill
Other real-life examples of such things as the wildfire explosion
of digital technology abound in this new, unchartered century that seemed to
be upon society before society was ready for it, but that it is now galloping
to catch up with. As the aging generation of those same Boomers/Experimenters begins
to feel the very real growing pains of arthritis, cancer, stroke, heart attack,
and so on, the fields of Medicine and Pharmacology have come front and
center to claim their rightful place in the new 21st-Century
Marketplace of the Needy. The current crisis with opioid addiction that is claiming some
33,000 American lives each year not only bespeaks the metrics of the aged among
our present population, but also demonstrates the willingness of those one-time
experimenters of mind-altering substances to toss caution to the wind and just
“pop a pill” at the first sign of a sore knee or a stiff back.
Big Pharma has been ready and willing to spew out its products
as quickly as aging consumers can swallow them, often before the USFDA can conduct sufficient human trials on new medications. The profit-driven pressure
brought to bear on the American government by industry lobbyists to rubber-stamp
its approval on new medications prematurely led to recalls of Vioxx (osteoarthritis
drug Rofecoxib, Merck & Co.), and Yasmin or “Yaz” (birth-control drug Drospirenone,
Bayer Pharmaceuticals Co.), two drugs that did so much harm to consumers before their recall by the FDA that their
makers are still in litigation today. Still, could it not also be argued that
the counterculture mindset of those one-time experimenters (harkening back to
the 1960s), and their unbridled predisposition to delve into altered states of
consciousness, have perhaps set the stage for them to jump into yet another
cool, inviting swimming hole in search of pain relief, regardless of whatever
hell lay waiting at the bottom?
The 'A Team'
The acronyms for the many technical advancements, both those now in use as well as ones still under development, are so long-winded and verbose that an ever-growing list of abbreviations has resulted in a new lexicon of "alphabet soup." "Autonomous Vehicles" (AV) or smart cars can park themselves and even protect us from collisions using radar eyes that interface directly with the vehicle's braking system. Artificial Intelligence (AI), or "Augmented Intelligence" -- the latter term put forth by marketers to balm consumers' fears of robot devices taking over the world -- is now being used to characterize new cell-phone features and other devices. Beckoning on the horizon now is “Assistive Technology” or
AT. AT holds
great promise for those with physical disabilities such as vision impairment,
voice and language disorders, communication skills, and impaired mobility. (See “The
Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation” website for more information on the
latter.) The list is quickly growing. It’s easy to say, “So what’s wrong with
this?” Currently, the jury is still out on AT as the technology is
still in its infancy, but problems are already bubbling to the surface of this
new, cool swimming hole. For the majority of people with disabilities, the AT
they need to support their independence and productivity are not available.
Factors contributing to this reality include lack of personal finances,
complexity of third-party payment sources, rigid state and federal regulations,
and a lack of healthcare coverage. Hence we are only just now seeing the
surface of what AT is apt to reveal once it becomes integrated
into society.
I could go on and on with countless examples of ill-considered innovations, such as the quickly assimilated and widespread overuse of the synthetic material "plastic" that emerged in the 1950s. Today plastic has created so much non-biodegradable pollution that the garbage from soda straws, TV sets, furniture, cups, product packaging...and on and on...is poisoning the planet, even washing up in Antarctica. Or there was the advent of the wonder drug "penicillin" that emerged during the World War II era, with which a whole generation was reared in good health thanks to the plethora of antibiotic medications derived from it. However, today's penicillin-based drugs are beginning to lose their efficacy due to pernicious disease mutations that are becoming resistant to the one-time super drug. But I think that by now you get my point!
Time
for a Reset?
One of my favorite writers is the late Michael Crichton of Jurassic
Park fame. Crichton’s book launched a series of cinema sequels and even made
terms like “Velociraptor” commonplace in the English language. But behind all of the
growling & gore of the action/thriller film was a very serious, cautionary
tale that I think was missed by most moviegoers, even though it was a hallmark
of Crichton’s writing style. The story’s theme of delving too quickly into Genetic
Engineering – another inviting swimming hole – for the sake of fast fame and
fortune, before considering the downside of such an enterprise, resulted in utter
disaster as everyone familiar with the story knows. This was Michael Crichton’s
writing gift that harkened all the way back to The Andromeda Strain and other works crafted by the self-appointed
town crier that was Michael Crichton. The main thread that runs through much of
Crichton’s work is simply to “look before we leap.” Crichton’s work is
generally considered science-fiction, but in reality his fiction always touched
upon relevant, currently developing technologies that were being fostered upon
society before their impact upon society could be fully evaluated and understood.
One of my favorite scenes in Jurassic Park
was when Dr. Ian Malcolm (played by actor Jeff Goldblum) tells entrepreneur John
Hammond (Richard Attenborough), “Your scientists
were so preoccupied with whether or not they could [replicate dinosaurs from DNA samplings] that they didn't stop to
think if they should.”
So then, what’s to be done at this point in the Human-Techno Sojourn into the new, unfolding century to ensure that the now-emerging technologies and innovations of today do not come back to wreak havoc upon mankind 20 years down the road, once they have taken root in societal soil? Even Samuel Clemens could offer no answers in his day but only proclaim a warning about what he sensed was coming down the pike. (Who could have known back then that Henry Ford's assembly line would fast-track production for many legacy industries, but at the same time would also obsolete hands-on human craftsmanship? Carpenters became knob turners in factories, seamstresses became mere button sewers. As one observer then wrote, "It was the beginning and the end of Imagination, all at the same time.")
So then, what’s to be done at this point in the Human-Techno Sojourn into the new, unfolding century to ensure that the now-emerging technologies and innovations of today do not come back to wreak havoc upon mankind 20 years down the road, once they have taken root in societal soil? Even Samuel Clemens could offer no answers in his day but only proclaim a warning about what he sensed was coming down the pike. (Who could have known back then that Henry Ford's assembly line would fast-track production for many legacy industries, but at the same time would also obsolete hands-on human craftsmanship? Carpenters became knob turners in factories, seamstresses became mere button sewers. As one observer then wrote, "It was the beginning and the end of Imagination, all at the same time.")
As for me, I can only echo Michael Crichton’s simple warning: “Look before we leap...look before we leap.” But I would contribute one additional observation: That so long as greed and the pursuit of the almighty dollar take precedence over caution, common sense, and a regard for humanity's well-being, the cycle of society diving into the same old traps that George Santayana warned us about will continue to dog our days like that all-inviting swimming hole that so often reveals itself to be a hell hole in the end; a place wrought with pitfalls aplenty...all in waiting.
