To receive
The Riley Report
free
by e-mail,
CLICK HERE
Back Issues
April 2000
WE ARE THE INTERNET
This could well be the anthem for all those netizens who want to continue to recognize their particular identities in a medium that is increasingly being dominated by the corporate world. We are the Internet could well be the clarion call stating loudly and clearly that this medium is for all the people, that this is the medium, which will bring new forms of expression of the democratic will of the people. However, We are the Internet is taking on a more prosaic meaning, in that the growing connectivity with many forms of media is more and more making all users of the Internet one with technology.
Within the next decade, or sooner, we will probably not even use the word "Internet", or "the Net", because the actual convergence of technologies is creating a new phenomenon. Now an individual can be connected to the online world through a variety of technologies. In experimental stage in the labs are glasses you will wear that will bring the online world to your lenses. You won't need to boot up and go through all the messy program commands, as these glasses will be linked to a micro cellular device which will be voice activated. You will just say what you want, get your email, send a message, take a virtual tour of the office, meet others in virtual meeting spaces, go there anonymously with created identities, book a holiday, look for new online, or any of the things you want to do. You will be in cyberspace, disconnected from the physical offline world except for the glasses you are wearing. The new Palm Pilots will effectively do the same thing - connecting you to a series of services from email, to the web, to chat rooms as well as tremendous capacity to also store information. Books are now being downloaded into Palm Pilots. Soon we will be rooted to the technologies and there will be no going back. For the futurists, the commentators and the business people bringing people into the Digital World is an ideal to achieve.
Experiments are currently ongoing to have automated automobiles on the highways, so all you have to do is program your destination (probably by voice) and off you go. The car, as it travels, will not necessarily go to the route you (once known as the driver) will tell it, as it is will be connected to a GPS (GeoPositioning Satellite) which will alert your autocar to any potential traffic jams or road problems ahead. Thus, your car (or, that is to say, the machine the technological masters are letting you occupy) will be diverted as needed to the most desirable and quickest route. This mapping of cars is not a fantasy or possible scenario for the future but a reality, as mapping programs already exist to get you to your destination by the quickest route. In much of the industrialised world, most countries are already mapped electronically, thanks to satellite technology, and available on the Internet.
Other ideas for the Internet include the wired home in which everything from your electricity to your heat to your refrigerator would be connected to the Internet and to whatever company is providing you with the service. Thus, the electricity corporation can adjust uses of electricity, and your refrigerator can alert you when you are low on milk or, more probable still, send a message to your grocery supplier to send more supplies to you. This is all very efficient, and perhaps even a time saver for the consumer, but do we want our lives to be governed by disparate pieces of technology? For the sake of efficiency and time do we really all want to be wired to a seamless technological mosaic? But this is just one small example of the technological world we are building.
The advances in biotechnology, genetic engineering and other areas of science are just as rapid. Cloning is becoming inevitable despite the rumblings of politicians who say it should not. There is inevitability to it all because it seems that voices that do cry out "not fair, not right" are in the minority or not being heard.
That is not to say there are not intrinsic values to the Internet and the new technologies, and that many have benefited. The Internet has been a tool of enrichment for large numbers of our populations. It has allowed diversity, the rise of the entrepreneur, the mushrooming of home businesses, the bringing together of family and friends through instant communications. The Internet has been a voice for many who for too long did not have the means to express themselves because prior mediums of the expression of communication have been controlled by the few. The Internet has been many things to many people. New, advanced medical technologies and scientific breakthroughs have lengthened our average life span and brought us better health and lifestyles.
There are many who use the new technologies for learning, to facilitate their businesses, to get a service, whether from government or business, to play games with each other over long distances, to keep in contact through email, and a thousand and other good usages that can benefit the individual. We know the benefits, we know of the attempts of many professionals who seek to use the Internet both to gain knowledge and to dispense and share knowledge. Perhaps, the most important feature of the Internet is that it has allowed individuals to communicate in ways not available before. This is an important new channel through which communication, ideas and knowledge can flow. The Smithsonian in the United States, the British Library along with a wider consortium of universities and libraries are joining together to put online the¸ Magna Carta , the Lindisfrane gospels and the entire contents of the Smithsonian. Their purpose is to take the massive volumes of knowledge available in off line libraries and to make them available online for the whole world to benefit. The intent is simple: what an individual can get by going to a library should be available to the world through the Internet. But as with all things in life there are positive benefits and negative impacts. The question we must now ask ourselves is: how do we manage to grow the benefits while neutralizing many of the negative elements? And there are many negatives surfacing, as technological advances far outstrip society's ability to determine the direction we will go as a result of the developments.
Technology is the modern spider that has increasingly built a web around our lives. The collective question for us as a society is: are we the fly now captured in this complex, intricate web, or are we still the masters of our destiny? Where is the debate, discussions about the social, cultural and political impacts of technologies on our lives and what these technological changes are doing to our humanity? Has society become the fly willingly ensnared in this new web (not simply the Web of the Internet), actually created by a few and used to drive the new economy and the engine of consumerism? Has electronic commerce and the burgeoning global information economy so subsumed the agendas of world governments that we can no longer objectively look at where we should be going? It can be persuasively argued that throughout history all new technologies have changed the way the world lives and operates as a society. Transportation brought the world together and television resulted in the global village that brought all of us on the planet closer together as a people (though not necessarily in a harmonious way). Now tourism is the world's second largest industry with millions of people on the move all around the world, experiencing and sharing in other cultures.
Of course, these millions are mostly from the rich nations. It appears we see nothing wrong in going to exotic and culturally challenging parts of the world, in the quest for something new and exciting and the next best thing to experience, and then pay scant attention to the many more millions of poor. Many will argue that tourism brings needed dollars and helps these economies. But even this does not ring with the hallowed sound of truth, as studies show that those who benefit most are the western multinational recreational chains and others who sell their wares globally to all and sundry. Usually, the locals benefit only to the extent they receive minimum wages.
The point here is not a quick analysis of the rich vs. the poor but rather that we as a people who experience the offline world as we do, and are often blinded to the consequences, might be just as blinded to what technology is doing to us. The message might also be that most people don't really care and are happy to carry on enjoying the new wealth and comfort that technologies are bringing.
Whatever the opinions or views of individuals and governments in society, it is evident that we need a far deeper debate and discourse over the impacts of technologies. There are concerns over ensuring all citizens have universal access to the Internet (and are free to use it or not use it as they wish); there are serious, abiding anxieties about the digital divide that is occurring throughout the world. Privacy laws, to protect people's information and endow them with certain rights over their own personal information, are spreading. But the implementation of such laws is one small step. Articulation of these issues is just the start. We need deeper discourse. Ironically, it is this very medium that affords the opportunity to bring such discourse forward.
This is why online e-Democracy is so important, as this activity represents the power of this technology and how it can be used to embrace democracy and to involve people in the social, economic, cultural and political issues of the day. This is a tool that can give the individual citizen the power to influence public policy. Governments are slowly coming to realize that there is an undercurrent of democratic change going on in the world. The face of democracy is beginning to change and a few thousand at the moment are doing it. But this is a change that has the potential for growth.
Technology is a cold and neutral medium. It is the people, the individuals, that bring passion, life and meaning to this medium. It somehow seems that this point is missed, as society collectively races to embrace technology. We are the inheritors of our past that we did not bring about, but the creators of our collective futures. At this point in our history we have a collective responsibility as to how our society will shape itself. We have the capacity to create change in our societies through speaking out. Many changes do occur in society when people speak out and spark debate. It is now time for such a discourse over the future of technology. We need to develop a philosophical base about all these new technologies, in which we as a society drive technology and not technology drives us. We are the Internet.
Thomas B. Riley
Visiting Professor,
University of Glasgow
President, Riley Information Services,
Ottawa, CanadaPh: 613-236-7844
Fax: 613-236-7528
With author attribution, this document may be freely copied in whole or in part for online
distribution.
Any offline use requires the author's permission.