To begin with, a short, generic description of the Other: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other . That which is singled out as different, whether as an individual, group, or something else. Otherization has been a long-standing subject of philosophical investigation; prominent thinkers across the years have used the term to describe many things. Here I use the term generally and allusively.
There is an issue with the public discourse on the subject of technology: the public, as a cumulative entity, is rather moronic. Not generally (well, perhaps generally), but in regards to technology. Whether the discussion is on biotechnology, nanotechnology, or some other -technology, there is a clear dichotomy in the masses: those who know, and those who don’t. As David Berube put it (www.ifs.tu-darmstadt.de/fileadmin/phil/nano/berube.pdf), “Contemporary technological discourse is shameful. Leaders who wish to recommend
options and sometimes policy call upon experts. Heavily biased by personal and professional
interests, experts craft their messages so they are resistant to most counterclaims. For
example, by using excessively technical vocabulary, their arguments become arguments
from authority. When asked “why is that true?” their response generally is “Don’t you understand?
I do. I have an advanced degree!” As a result, citizen-consumers are frozen out of
depthful discussions on issues involving science and technology”. Though the reasons for this development in technological rhetoric can be blamed on many causes, the bottom line is that the general public is systematically removed from the technological sphere.
This in some ways seems justified; shouldn’t the highest tier of scientific discussion take place among the highest echelon of qualified scientists? While this may have its merits, one must consider the purpose of science itself. Especially in areas such as this week’s focus of biotech, science is explored for the purpose of potential utility. Science is an industry; innovation is a commodity; and each new technology is a marketable product. In a world dominated by the supply-demand dynamic, it certainly seems odd that the “citizen-consumer”, to quote Berube again, has no say in the pre-implementation policy decisions concerning the future course of scientific advancements. Internationally we already face a digital divide, where developed and undeveloped countries are increasingly separated in terms of technological wealth. Now we face an internal “digital divide” of knowledge and discourse, where the common crowd is fed sensationalist, exaggerated, and oversimplified journalism from the profit-seeking media, while the scientists and researchers hole up in an Ivory Tower built to repel all opponents, political, intellectual, or, inadvertently, those who are neither–us.
This returns us to the Other. First, identification; who is the Other? From the viewpoint from one such as me, I am part of “us”; thus, the guardians of Science must be the Other. Yet in terms of scientific discussion, it is equally clear that the scientists are the dominant group, which would in turn otherize the non-scientific community. A mutual otherization is most certainly not a scenario normally seen. Ordinarily, one group holds power, while the Other is subjugated. The question of who’s who therefore relies on finding out which community truly holds the reins. Settling this power struggle will be a defining moment for scientific progress; in effect, it will determine the exclusion or nonexclusion of ‘the masses’ in the world of Science. Thus we become concerned with the actions of each group.
Reintroducing economic theory, we assume that both groups act rationally, in their own best interest. Also assuming that power is a valued commodity, we can utilize a basic form of game theory. To begin with, we establish the rudimentary risks and rewards for each. The common crowd is at risk of having little to no say in the advancement of technology; and thus the fruits of human achievement will be arbitrarily plucked. Their reward is the ability to direct science and bend its course to their own benefit. For the scientists, the risk is submitting their work to the power of those less-qualified, and being placed under restrictive policies; the reward is freedom.
Game theory would then tell us thusly: although if both groups chose the submissive option (that is, the scientists included non-scientists in policy decision, but non-scientists gave them freedom), both sides could gain rewards, if only one side chose the dominant path, then the other group would be denied this reward. Therefore, the safest option for either would be the dominant strategy. Which, in accordance with the pessimism inherent in economics, leaves all of us worse off.
How depressing.
0 Responses to “Technology and the Other”