Humanity
indeed finds itself embedded in a technological world. This is a world where
human beings consume technology, and where technology in turn incorporates
human identities. It shapes human interaction, and it shapes the future. There
have been many unforeseen byproducts from the advancement of technology and
technologic science. The nonplussing lack of “miracles,” and astounding strides
in progress, for example, reveal the deep-seated complexities that arise from
the dynamic relationships inherent to science, technology and human society. James
Smith writes in his book Science and Technology for Development:
Development Matters, that, “Society and technology are mutually
constitutive.” The same is arguably true of technology and development at most
any level now.
Which Master Does
Technology Serve?
Examining
the successful landing of the Mars rover (during the Mars Rover Exploration
Mission) in August of 2012, is akin to pondering the imperial tour de
force of some centuries ago. Politically and economically powerful
nations sailed their great armadas, or naval fleets, so as to flaunt their
technological and military prowess at would-be competitors. What one nation—the
super-industrialized Untied States of America—achieved across a solar system,
and on the surface of another planet, surely marked a new phase in the overall
mastery of human technological capacity. It certainly marked a new era in international,
military showboating. Whether or not the Curiosity rover operation seemed
inherently political to the layperson, though, mattered little to embedded
power; what the spectacle successfully demonstrated to would-be competitor nations
was obvious enough. That the human reach effectively spanned a heuristically
unknowable void (space) only to land on another planet was also, historically
speaking, nothing short of astounding.
Today,
we see that the richest nations on planet Earth funnel unprecedented amounts of
wealth into the research and development of technologies that will capacitate
them to dominate spaces that far exceed the biosphere. Meanwhile, the global
poor are continuously impoverished. For that matter, processes of foreign aid,
along with development planning, cannot overcome the inertia of this
self-evident truth. Just as capital is required to generate more capital, some even
argue that it is many times easier to “help those who can help themselves,”
rather than help the helpless. This especially encompasses technology. Nevertheless,
asking whether enough really has been done for those who suffer most never
ceases to be relevant. Though developing nations might resemble the working and
living patterns of developed countries, they still contain the “non-modern
sectors” that account for the overwhelming majority of the world’s citizens. In
fact, in least-developed urbanizing states, living and working patterns are not
only miserable, but as E. F. Schumacher notes, “in a process of accelerating
decay.”
It
is important to remember that capital is the product of human work, and unless
technological advancements can also help engender work or job opportunities,
there is little reason to hope for a truly radical and technic-inspired
alteration to the looming specter of perpetual global misery for the
marginalized. At times, such change seems unlikely to happen, especially given
that development efforts remain focused on big cities where new industries are
quick to emerge, and where finance and other markets can sustain them through kinds
of economic mutual symbiosis. This cyclical boom continues to hinder certain
types of production throughout the rural areas of developing countries, while
at the same time accelerating migration from rural areas of misery to
population centers that do not guarantee much more than homelessness and urban
misery.
A Need to Examine
Technology as Human Beings
The
fact is, technological advancements have long contributed to human and
political development. Technology has impacted physical spaces of human history
as well as deeply psychological ones. It has even shaped revolution. For
example, Ernesto “Che” Guevara wrote a letter to his children a half-century
ago, instructing them to mature as good revolutionaries, and to study hard in
order to “master technology, which allows [humans] to master nature.” Lewis
Mumford, in his 1962 work, The myth of the machine: Technics and
human development, wrote something reverberant of Guevara’s missive to his
children. Mumford noted that, per “the
relation of man to technics,” advancement from the “primeval state of man” is
marked by the “invention of tools and weapons for the purpose of achieving
mastery over the forces of nature.” This, argued Mumford, would push humanity
toward “a radically different condition, in which he will have not only
conquered nature, but detached himself as far as possible from the organic
habitat.”
Does
human mastery of a habitat truly ring the bell of freedom and development,
though? In 1958, German philosopher Hanna Arendt published her book The
Human Condition. In her work, the philosopher addressed both “human
condition” and “human nature.” The philosopher signaled space exploration in
particular, and the mark it left on the general trajectory of human progress. Arendt
made her distinction between the human condition and human nature yet apparent.
She postulated that, were humans to colonize the moon, or some other “planetary
body,” the conditions under which humans lived would change; human nature,
which is endogenous to the human being, however, would remain uncompromised. Wisely,
her paradigmatic forecast did not preclude advancing technology from profoundly
reshaping human existence. Thus it need not only send robots to Mars; it must
fix earthly problems, too.
The
effects of the “unchanging human condition” and unceasing technological
progress imbue development. This is a serious matter for consideration; it
affects far-reaching policy and the consequences (intended and unintended
alike) that technology has on development. Moreover, today’s ever-globalizing
culture largely depends on technology in painfully obvious ways. There are even
serious “recurring environmental and social ills” that technological progress
has engendered. Those seeking public office often politick on contrived
platforms that blindly links technical development with the furthering of human
development and well-being. They unquestioningly associate innovations in
technology with human salvation.
While
the human being makes technology an endogenous part of everyday life and
existence, technology has yet to receive perhaps a full philosophical
inspection as to its existence. In fact, some of the best technological explorations
of the philosophical significance came from Karl Marx (through the development
of his history of historical materialism), and Martin Heidegger, who treated
technology in his theory of ontology. Otherwise, technology arguably retains
little in the way of enduring and important philosophical address. And although
none would outright deny the significance and utility of technology given a
half-decent comprehension of the human condition, technology arguably warrants
a much greater inspection from all corners of humanity. The ethics alone
cry for attention.
Where Technology Might Do
More
Large
technological (socio-technical) systems might absolutely affect development for
the better. This especially holds for focusing on the application of
information and communication technologies (ICTs) via global efforts on international
development in urban as well as rural areas. This not only challenges current
methods for approaching and engendering development; it emphasizes the need for
a newness of ideas, and new expertise, too. Moreover, to consider the Global
South is especially imperative; there will be changes in major areas,
especially in the Middle East, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Central,
South, and South-East Asia. Exploring where technology can and will both
further and foster change is critically important.
Richard
Heeks, of the University of Manchester, states that we should ask “why we
should give priority to ICTs application for the poor in developing countries.”
Indeed, there are many very good reasons to do so. To start, the development of
ICTs is largely oriented toward the wealthy and their demands. Maximizing
revenue and marginalizing cost at such stressed junctures of supply and demand
in the rich world cannot be arguably thought to outweigh the moral economy of
approaching the useful advances that ICTs might propel in the most desperate and
disparate corners of the world. Concerning global “megaproblems,” it is the
world’s poor that bear the brunt of climate change, terror, conflict, disease,
and resource depletion—not to mention, virtually half of the world’s denizens
subsist on less than two dollars each day.
In
addition, rich world elites should not forget about the staying power of
enlightened self-interest. Unintended consequences of poverty include
migration, terrorism, disease, etc. The fact remains that poverty lends itself
to strife and misery that does not heed political boundaries. Also, there may
arise prosperous markets among developing countries, as the poor are able to
generate wealth for themselves and can purchase rich world goods and services.
Though detractors cite how technologies do not pose nearly the promises that
clean water or sanitation do for the poor, surely none argue, that technology
is a substitute for water. Furthermore, development now requires “water and information,”
as Heeks puts it.
The
future is now, and the macro-response is most appropriate. It necessarily involves
the economic, social, and political dimensions of human development, as well as
technology. Whatever the area of human life, it will increasingly become more
digital. Excluding the world’s poor from access to ICTs, as an example, will
only further ensure their overall exclusion, and hamper development—an
unforeseen consequence of ICT development itself. For that matter, some
developing communities already prioritize ICT options to the same extent they
prioritize essentials, such as water and sanitation. Thus, they should also
have access to these technologies and the systems that sustain them.
Technology, as an intrinsic part of development, should not only work for those
who can launch it leagues beyond the biosphere, but it should also work for
those who stand to most benefit from it.
© Copyright 2014 by AxisofLogic.com
This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!
|