THE HIJACKED MIND

I was dragged kicking and screaming into the world of computers and the Internet. Somehow my gut feeling led me to avoid this new technology. However, as fate would have it, good friends of ours were updating their computer and it was going for a song. Once installed, like the telly, it becomes the centre of our universe. However, unlike the telly, it is now portable and accompanies most of us wherever we are. Our minds have become hijacked by the Internet.

Now, I find myself trying to wean myself away from the temptations of "surfing the net". Whatever your interests or obsessions may be, there is a multitude of sites, forums etc to distract you from your business or daily routine. But of course one might argue that its only the same process that strted with  speech and then the written word, then radio etc. But this is the point- all these mediums have the power to distract us from "reality", the natural world and of course from our fellow humans. The difference between the various mediums is their relative power to distract and entrance. I note that the author of the 70's book "Four Arguments for the Elimination of TV", Jerry Mander has also more recently written about the Internet. The issues are the same.

So, when we see people walking the streets, on the metro, in the restaurant, absorbed with their I-phones and other gismo's we are observing hijacked minds. We have allowed our minds to be taken over by the practitioners of the net- be it the news networks, blogggers (like me here!) or Tweeters. 

So perhaps it is worth contemplating how much time we spend in this manner and whether perhaps we could be creative rather than just a spectator of life. This latter mode I believe to be our proper purpose in life- to be co-creators with God of our own reality. If we succumb to the net, fascinating as it can be, we are declining the offer, during that period, of being creative. So, on that note I will sign off and get creative!

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!