Tweet Tweet

The discovery of new technologies presents us with a challenge. At present, and for the last few centuries at least, virtually all technology has been assumed to constitute "progress" and as such, taken on board. Later, and in hindsight we often find adverse or side effects. We haven't as yet achieved a mechanism to evaluate technologies before they are adopted and become mainstream. The term"Luddites" has commonly been used in a negative context and yet the Luddites' basic premise was correct- that the new looms would destroy their way of life and de-skill (in modern parlance) their comunity.
Today, there is a widespread acceptance of the internet, together with its various offshoots- Facebook, Twitter and forums etc. Critics are often regarded in a similar light to that in which Mr Ludd and his compatriots would have been viewed. I use the internet- its hard not no and still contribute actively within our communities. And yet it concerns me that this new communications revolution, whilst providing impressive new possibilities, envelops each of us in a cyberspace "bubble", effectively isolating each of us. The virtual reality of the net is increasingly replacing conventional relations and inevitably has practical repercussions for everyday community life.

Its a crude analogy I know, but the optmistic reception that the internet received is not dissimilar to the excitement that greeted the first motor car, 200 years or so ago. Then, this amazing machine promised freedom of movement and a general emancipation of the everyday citizen. At first, the car did seem to be delivering on its promises, but today the picture is not quite so rosy.

Somehow, we manage to overlook the fact that every new technology exacts a price from its users, and inevitably, advantages and benefits  become nullified by the hidden costs. How many of us consider the energy costs of using IT? A Harvard academic argues that 2 Google searches results in the production of 14g CO2 and that IT now causes 2 per cent of global emmisions. These emmisions stem from the electricity used by the computer terminal and by the power consumed by the large data centres operated by Google and the like around the world. These are the physical impacts of the technology. The social implications have yet to be fully understood- but they are likely to be substantial.

Ivan Illich used the term "convivial tools" for technologies which chimed with our human needs, without exacting a high ecological or social cost. He considered the bicycle as a prime example of a convivial tool. I doubt if the internet would meet these criteria.

Similarly, Schumaker promoted the benefits of " small"- and again, the 'net would fail the test- it is incurably centralised, and although it can empower communities and individuals in many ways, the balance of net benefit will always rest with those with the greatest financial and political power.
This point has been eloquently addressed by Jerry Mander, amongst others, who wrote the book "Four arguments for the elimination of TV" back in the 70's and has since turned his attention to the role of the internet as well as globalisation and technology in general. His conclusion-" Technological evolution is leading to something new: a worldwide, interlocked, monolithic, technical-political web of unprecedented negative proportions". His solution-   dismantle technological civilisation. Simple as that!

Be naiive

I am certainly not alone in thinking that state education is probably now doing more harm that good to us as a society. When did you last hear a serious discussion regarding the role of education? Hours are spent reviewing and arguing over targets and qualifications but few ever broach the question "what is education for?".
My main objection is that schools view children as empty vessels which have to be filled. If this is the goal then perhaps schools are fit for purpose. However, children as well as adults are not mere sponges for facts- we learn when we are ready to learn. You can present concepts and ideas to a person but it will only make sense if they are ready to understand. We find this in our own lives- a book which we previously couldn't fathom, suddenly makes sense. Campaigners will also tell you that you can hit people with all manner of facts and statistics but only when they are ready, or on the same "wavelength" do they actually take them on-board.
Krishnamurti goes further in saying that knowledge gets in the way of learning- because knowledge represents past experience, and as such has been through the mill of the mind and therefore is not "reality". In other words, to truly learn we need to start with a blank sheet of paper- not one coloured by previous knowledge/experience. In everyday life, the mind is continually judging, comparing etc. To learn we need to suspend the mind's activity in order to accept the reality for what it is- unclouded by our own ideas, preconceptions etc.
One could say we need to be naiive in order to learn. Its an analagous situation to that of instinct and "gut feeling" which rise in response to a given situation. Then, invariably, the mind kicks in and clouds the issue with logic, experience etc.
It may appear a truism but, if education is to mean "learning", the primary task of the teacher must be to enable children to learn. They need to understand how learning occurs, the role of the mind, and what instinct is. Having taught 2 of our children at home over several years, it was quite a revelation to observe how little time a child needs to learn what a school takes years to achieve. This is because, once a child is ready to learn, the teacher almost becomes superfluous, as life and living become the child's teacher. Schools need to be replaced with life- the best teacher there is.