- I must have a clearly stated purpose in the first paragraph.
- I must have some clearly defined use of this article in support of my main idea.
- proper use of grammar and mechanics.
Technology like computers, cell phones, space rocket etc.., has made humans progress socially, politically, and scientifically. Over the past few decades, society has been technologized. People now have machines that have made previously thought impossible tasks possible, such as voice and video calling among several parties across the world, sending exploration missions to outer space, heating food in a few minutes, voicing your opinion to millions of people via social networking... etc.. However, when does the technologizing of society become a disadvantage to people? This essay examines the political duality of technology. It discusses that while technology can lead to tyranny as Ed West, author of "The Totalitarianism of Technology" in Kernels Magazine, believes, it can also be used to enforce democracy.
According to West, technology is leading democratic countries to tyranny. Without its people, a government cannot form a state. That is, the people are a vital factor in the economic rise of any political organization. As West puts it, the lack of "the working class could bring the country down" (3). He mentions how it was the government's need of the toil of the working class that attained the people's democratic participation and supports his argument by presenting examples. Athens, for instance, became democratic when, "the sea-based Athenian Empire needed poor Athenian men to row the triremes that ruled the waves. Athens' might have depended on working-class men, and so the working class was given a say in government."(2). Similarly, Britain became a democracy, "because the working class, as well as being large in number and potentially dangerous, were economically necessary" (3). So, if it was the government's need of the working class that gave the people its voice, what happens when advanced technology such as nanotech, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence and robotics replace the proletariat? For instance, in this era of exponential technological advancements, the working class is being replaced by robots, as the days pass by. According to West, this leads to an increase in unemployment levels and higher crime rates. It's not that there aren't any good jobs left; it's just that these jobs require more intelligence compared to jobs in the mid-twentieth century. For instance, the army's need for muscle has decreased drastically. Nowadays, technologists are considered a more valuable asset, than the soldiers themselves. This is to say, that the government has shifted its requirement from human muscle to gray-matter. Since the minority of the population is intelligent, the majority of people are stripped away from their political power and personal freedom. Technology's shift of balance between brains and muscles, as West believes, would lead to a shift from democracy to technocracy. A technocratic country is one whose people are oppressed in all facets of life, where even the ability of expressing yourself freely online is chained. A good example of where the government interfered with people's freedom of choice is when Etisalat, a governmental company, blocked sites that compete against it, like Skype.
While thinkers like West focus on technology's ability of advocating totalitarianism, this essay asserts technology's ability of enforcing democracy. Technology such as the Internet and computers, cell phones, and robots is not in itself endangering people's freedom. In our times, it has been a voice to the ignored against oppression, a means of communicating with people all around the globe, and accessing an unprecedented amount of information, a tool used to speed up processes making them more efficient and feasible, etc. And so, when speaking of how further advancements in technology can lead to totalitarianism, we aren't really discussing the cons of technological advancement but demonstrating our lack of faith in ruling governments instead. People had to work for a democratic rule, and even when obtained, they still suffered from injustices put upon them by their government (less severe injustices than those before democracy surely, but injustices nevertheless). Although the government may attempt to suppress people, the people must always use their power to fight for their rights. For example, when the American government sought to pass the SOPA and PIPA bills, people saw that it meant to obstruct the free-flow of online information, and so they protested through big blog sites, like Reddit, until these bills were dismissed. Also, certain sites, like Google, protested by shutting down their services for a day. Technology might have been a means for the government to have complete control over people's personal freedom, but it also enabled the masses to resist and stop the suppression effort. The people voicing their opinion and using their power, maintained their online freedom. Such an approach can be applied to any kind of future technological tyranny.
Technology is vital for human advancement and therefore indispensable. Although this two-edged tool has powered ruling authorities with the ability to subjugate its masses, it has also powered the masses with the ability to defend themselves and proactively take action to prevent their governments from oppressing them.
