There is little dispute over the usefullness and convenience of technologies such as cell phones and computers. Conversely, there are technologies that are entirely useless. Take for example Sharper Image's Soap Genie, an automatic soap and lotion dispenser. http://www.sharperimage.com/us/en/catalog/product/sku__SI335WHT. It's a smart, economical and sanitary way to keep everyone's hands clean. It features an infrared sensor that dispenses soap and "no-drip innovation" eliminates the mess. To me, figuring out a way to eliminate a soapy mess is hardly an innovation as the word processing was; yet it is marketed in much the same way; to make our lives easier. No one will look back on this invention and think about how much time they wasted pushing down the pump to release soap onto their hands. Did I mention that it plays music when activated?
A technological determinist might think that technology itself has a logic that will mold society to fit its patterns. Granted determinism is geared more towards communication technologies, nonetheless technologies like the Soap Genie make it hard to believe that such is the case. To invoke Langdon Winner, social needs shape how technology is used, or in the case of the Soap Genie, if it is used at all. Technology's public sphere is the consumer market. All products are released into the market, the useful ones prevail, and the useless ones do not. Consumer attitude is its rational debate. In the public sphere according to Habermas, if all ideas are put forth, rational deliberation will conclude which are the best. In feudal times, we pumped our own soap. Now, we simply watch as the soap is pumped for us while the music distracts us from thinking how sad and lazy we are.
Sales and market research reveal how the public feels about a product. If the government was run more like a business, as Winner suggests, then it would listen to its clients and investors, the citizens, and attempt to accommodate their needs in order maintain their business. They would be concerned with putting forth the highest quality "product" possible to address the social needs of their clients. (By product I mean the government and its policies as a whole.) In this way, a business is more democratic than the government because they are forced to report their activity to the investors. If they falsify or they skew this information, there are consequences. (Think Enron, Tyco, etc.) Where are the government's consequences for coverups and deceit? (Think wiretapping, prison abuse, etc.) It's like they keep selling us Soap Genies and we keep buying them. It's about time we stop buying and show the government that we don't want what they're selling.
As the corporate and political worlds continue to conflate, the government could stand to be more business-like. I would begin by improving its customer service.
Heres a link to an exposed weapons coverup. Again, the government doesn't listen.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/30/1156816970606.html?from=top5
Check out this blog. The last 3 paragraphs are especially frightening about the pending energy crisis we face.
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2006/08/winners_and_los.html
A technological determinist might think that technology itself has a logic that will mold society to fit its patterns. Granted determinism is geared more towards communication technologies, nonetheless technologies like the Soap Genie make it hard to believe that such is the case. To invoke Langdon Winner, social needs shape how technology is used, or in the case of the Soap Genie, if it is used at all. Technology's public sphere is the consumer market. All products are released into the market, the useful ones prevail, and the useless ones do not. Consumer attitude is its rational debate. In the public sphere according to Habermas, if all ideas are put forth, rational deliberation will conclude which are the best. In feudal times, we pumped our own soap. Now, we simply watch as the soap is pumped for us while the music distracts us from thinking how sad and lazy we are.
Sales and market research reveal how the public feels about a product. If the government was run more like a business, as Winner suggests, then it would listen to its clients and investors, the citizens, and attempt to accommodate their needs in order maintain their business. They would be concerned with putting forth the highest quality "product" possible to address the social needs of their clients. (By product I mean the government and its policies as a whole.) In this way, a business is more democratic than the government because they are forced to report their activity to the investors. If they falsify or they skew this information, there are consequences. (Think Enron, Tyco, etc.) Where are the government's consequences for coverups and deceit? (Think wiretapping, prison abuse, etc.) It's like they keep selling us Soap Genies and we keep buying them. It's about time we stop buying and show the government that we don't want what they're selling.
As the corporate and political worlds continue to conflate, the government could stand to be more business-like. I would begin by improving its customer service.
Heres a link to an exposed weapons coverup. Again, the government doesn't listen.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/30/1156816970606.html?from=top5
Check out this blog. The last 3 paragraphs are especially frightening about the pending energy crisis we face.
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2006/08/winners_and_los.html
posted by Barry Lird at
11:23 AM
0 Comments
