the bigdumbHoosier Archive - 01.08.2001
The Off Button
In techno-luddite Basics, I said that techno-luddism isn't about a know-nothing, "toss out the baby, the bath water, the tub and the plumbing too" approach to all those tools and toys people make. Techno-luddites, like most people, find technology interesting, often helpful and sometimes downright wonderful. But people ought to remain firmly in charge of their devices.
Thankfully, this is most often a personal decision. As goes the Lisa Germano song, "Happiness, is like TV, on or off, it's up to me." I like to watch TV when there's something on it I'm interested in. But when it's just blabbing away and I don't have the option off shutting it off (social conventions being what they are) I can find it really annoying.
Perhaps that's a trivial situation, but it's similar in some respects to more serious social issues: when some people in society want to adopt a new technology but others find it offensive, what should happen? For starters, I think people have a right to choose not to fall in love with every new gadget that comes along, and to express their dislike too. New technology is not necessarily progress. Sometimes it's annoying; once in awhile it's unduly dangerous.
I say potentially because the burden is on the new technology to prove its value, safety, and benefits, not upon those who express their doubts. Recently, I was reading Genetically Modified Nonsense where Thomas R. DeGregori of the University of Houston argues that genetic modification of crops is a necessity to feed the worlds burgeoning population. He comments that "It is really questionable whether anyone benefits from opposition to GM technology (or from opposition to any genuine advance in science and technology) except those organizations that gain membership, funding and above all, power from these Luddite actions."
Mr. DeGregori objects to what he calls fear mongering (and no doubt some of that goes on) but his usage of the term "Luddite" is little more than name-calling; it's what he calls anyone who doesn't share his world view. He's correct that many of us don't share his vision of a technocracy where important decisions would be made by the 'right' people. People who know 'the truth'. "Don't worry your silly little peasant heads about this stuff, we know what's best for you."
The Indiana Dept. of Conservation (and similar organizations) knew best when they advised farmers to plant multiflora rose (rosa multiflora) to create a wildlife friendly natural fences, and for the erosion control benefits of a permanent vegetative cover. Now it's a serious (and thorny) pest over large areas of the U.S. No, it's not the end of the world, but it wasn't a good idea. There are many, many examples of such 'biological pollution'.
The myriads of invasive plants and animals causing problems around the world were not the result of bio-engineering, but consider that many were first advocated because they were (a) easily propagated, and (b) mostly pest free. Do these qualities sound familiar? While eating GM food may not be dangerous, that does not mean that GM crops aren't dangerous to the environment. It's not at all unlikely that a GM plant or animal will turn out to be a serious pest; they're pestiferous by design.
Are we to believe that our technocrats have learned their lesson from the multiflora roses of the past? Not long ago an Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources employee suggested that I plant another thorny and pest free shrub, russian olive. Sorry, I don't care to leave control of my life to 'the experts'.
When the "off button" is a social decision, it is useful for us all to listen carefully to what the experts say, but in the final analysis everyone must have the opportunity to participate in the decision, even bigdumbHoosiers and Luddites. That's the ultimate Luddite belief - an imperfect, but time tested system called 'democracy'. In the U.S. we've still got something similar to that, at least in 49 states.
