nettime on Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:24:42 +0200 (MET DST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Re: Anti-Technoenvironmentism |
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:04:40 +0100 From: Andreas Broeckmann <abroeck@v2.nl> Subject: Re: <nettime> Re: Anti-Technoenvironmentism dear moderators, spare us the flame wars, please. -a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 07:27:17 -0300 (ADT) From: Michael Gurstein <mgurst@ccen.uccb.ns.ca> Subject: RE: GETREAL-L: Tethnocentrism (fwd) Since the discussion of the Technorealist document has slipped into this list as well, I thought the attached might be of interest. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 11:58:02 -0300 (ADT) From: Michael Gurstein <mgurst@ccen.uccb.ns.ca> To: getreal-l@mindshare.net Subject: RE: GETREAL-L: Tethnocentrism I must say that I've been watching the discussion on this list with guilty fascination...sort of like an eight year old watching his parents making love from behind the curtain. You folks are so certain, so definite, so "American"... We up here in the frozen north get to watch you folks get rich and rule the world up close. Hey and your squabbles about the Libertarians and the FDA and the EFF are so much similar to watching my cousins quarrel (once I manage to figure out who is on which side and what the in-jokes/insults really stand for... But I live in this techno-verse as well and I have my traditions too--McLuhan and Morty Zuckerman and... and the Kids in the Hall... (one of us invented Superman as well but that's another story... I must say that I find the discussion on this list and (going back to the 8 theses/dicta/commandments/...) Principles of Technorealism really and truly bizarre. Sure you guys invented the Internet (but not the www and not computers and not the telephone) and even if you are 60% of the Internet population right now that percentage is falling fast because your user stats are almost saturated and the rest of the world is catching up... And you may own a good piece of cybertech but as even you are discovering that is maybe a fast emerging problem and not just an opportunity.... So what about everybody else, us "lesser folk without the law" as Tennyson wrote about an earlier but no less imperial age. Reading the "Principles" and monitoring (I hate the term lurking) on this list, it is like I'm sitting in the airport at O'Hare catching fragments of coversations by one set of mid-western computer salesmen niggling back and forth with another set-of mid-western computer salesmen. The rest of the world isn't to all intents and purposes there...where...anywhere... The world stops at the Golden Gates (with occasional incentive travel excursions to Waikiki... Let's take a closer look... 1. "Technologies are not neutral... They have biases"...yup...and among the greatest and most commonly commented upon (beyond Waikiki) bias is language. The fact that the Internet is 85% or so English in many parts of the world this is not something to be commented upon and then passed over for the next incidental observation...this is fundamental to the survival of languages and cultures and peoples. Its the subject of emergency studies, and special commissions, and even (god forbid) legislation... 2. "The net is revolutionary but not Utopian"... Yup... And one of the most revolutionary aspects of the Net is the way in which is brings the rest of the world into your attention space almost effortlessly. In this the net is truly revolutionary (and subversive) most profoundly I would say the more distant culturally and geographically is the user from the Golden Gates... 3. "Government is important"... Yup... In roughly 100% of the world outside of the USA, this point is so obvious it does not even need to be discussed. The fact that so much of the discussion on this list has consisted of elaborate pirrouations around this point simply demonstrates how "tethnocentric" this whole process really is. The issue of government and the net is not "if" but "how", and "to what ends", "with what controls"... government's role in the Net-iverse may be vestigal but all of us will be very long gone before we would be in a position to testout this hypothesis. 4. "Information is not knowledge"...Yes again... But the question for most of the world is "whose information", "whose knowledge", "how much is it going to cost to get to use it"...this isn't the rather bland issue of "proliferation of data" but rather the very real and material question of economic survival in an ever more competitive, knowledge intensive world where traditional resources and skills are devalued while the knowledge needed to recreate means of livelihood are owned and operated by and in the interests of folks a million miles and a zillion nano-seconds far away. 5. "Wiring the schools will not save them"???... Well for maybe 50% of the world's population "wiring the schools" refers to wiring them for electricity not for the Internet... and the tethnocentric discussion about how/if technology can "save" the schools passes most of the people in the Third World right on by as they are more concerned with having schools...the issue of how to "save" them being rather secondary at least for the moment... 6. "Information wants to be protected"???... I guess you mean that information like property wants to be owned and thus have access to the protection of the State. Well yes and no... The US agri-business folks who tried to patent Basmatti rice (a traditional specialized rice of India), were I guess, someone might say trying to "protect" something informational about the rice... From where I sit (and also from where the Government of India sits) this looks like an attempt to privatize in the name of "protection" part of the common heritage of the Indian people and through them of the world's people (we only eat Basmatti rice in our household) and so on and so on. 7. "The public owns the airwaves"... Well in the US, the public arguably owns the airwaves because of some particularities of your laws...but on that basis, the government of Nauru could legislate that the Great Auk owns the airwaves and the citizens of Nauru should be paying into the Swiss bank account of the Great Auk's representative on earth an ppropriate annual tithe. I think it makes more sense to argue that the "airwaves" are part of the common heritage of mankind and their utilization and development should done so as to benefit that common heritage, but then I believe in the tooth fairy... 8. "Understanding technology should be an essential component of global citizenship"...HEAR HEAR... Now if the snake would only eat its tail... regs Mike Gurstein Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. ECBC/NSERC/SSHRC Associate Chair in the Management of Technological Change Director: Centre for Community and Enterprise Networking (C\CEN) University College of Cape Breton, POBox 5300, Sydney, NS, CANADA B1P 6L2 Tel. 902-539-4060 (o) 902-562-1055 (h) 902-562-0119 (fax) Mgurst@ccen.uccb.ns.ca http://ccen.uccb.ns.ca - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 06:39:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Carmen Hermosillo <humdog@well.com> Subject: Re: <nettime> Re: Anti-Technoenvironmentism this is what i do not understand: assuming that the technorealists are really anti-utopians, as opposed to people in search of a book deal, why is it that they haven't gone after howard rheingold, prince of the cyberutopians, who, during his tenure as an evangelist of social-interaction intranets, advocated a kind of reign-of-social-terror that would have made the versailles of louis the fourteenth look like an experiment in anarchy, and who, even now, maintains a small gated community with a large silly argument in favor of social exclusion on the frontdoor. you want to chew on a control-freak utopian? go there. furthermore, addressing an argument to a live man who appears to have made several statements that are actually relevant to the stance you appear to have taken is so much more effective than flaming the memory of the late tom mandel, if indeed, the goal of your campaign is something other than a suite in the remainder bin at barnes and noble. your words about mandel suggest that you don't know anymore about him than you know about anything else you've been talking about. tom mandel was a brilliant man with a lovely, edgy sense of humor. he was subtle. he had style. he had actually read the books that he talked about, which is unusual in some corners of cyberspace. van der leun is right. he didn't have much patience with idiots. perhaps that explains some of the difficult interaction you had with him. i think you need to apologize, newmedia. yes. i think you need to do that. i want a nice rant, about the same size as the idiotic self-promotional piece you wrote about tom, explaining about how you don't know what you're talking about in this instance, as well as in several others. perhaps you will try to make an effort to be less slimy in the future. i am sure that we would all appreciate it. i would like to see this apology appear as soon as possible. smoochy smooch -humdog --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl