Y2k year 2002 back to archive
Y2k2 issue 4 week 15 2002 broadly, technology and society
Topics: The pace of events, end of empire as a framework for thinking about
America. Herman Melville
Douglass Carmichael
doug@bigmindmedia.com
archives at http://dougcarmichael.com/y2k_2002_introduction.htm
From Melville's Moby Dick!
"And doubtless, my going on this whaling voyage, formed part of the grand programe of Providence that was drawn up a long time ago. It came as a sort of brief Interlude and solo between more extensive performances. I take it that this part of the bill must have run something like this:
Grand Contested election for the Presidency of the United States
Whaling Voyage by one Ishmael
BLOODY BATTLE IN AFFGHANISTAN
Though I cannot tell why it was exactly that those stage mangers, those Fates put me down for this shabby part of a whaling voyage, when others were set down for magnificent parts in high tragedies, and short and easy parts in genteel comedies, and jolly parts in farces " - Moby Dick, Chapter 1.
This week
The pace of events is overwhelming. So much is being written. Hard to keep up.
I keep being impressed by the ability of this civilization to withstand bumps in the road, and maintain continuity. We went from the election to a faltering Bush, 911, Afghanistan, Palestine/Israel… I remember a few years ago writing that this society would learn to absorb ever larger disasters, earthquakes hurricanes - as increased population densities make old style calamities much worse. These disasters, including Chernobles, super sized airplane crashes, rising sea levels and falling water tables - would be absorbed - because there is no alternative except to go on. The problem is, the news takes up these one after another like prayer beads, and moves on, never looking for a pattern beyond the next "large event." We focus on the Palestinian crisis and ignore the fascinating story in Venezuela.
For an interesting background on Venezuela and Chavez, where in it is clear
that the forces are larger than anyone can deal with, that those who claim a
less radical solution than he ignore the plight of the people in the service
of an economy of oil, see
http://newyorker.com/archive/content/?020422fr_archive03
One might ask, is good feedback from reality through the press a necessary aspect of good governance, or does it actually create too much reality and hinder governance? It is important to think this through from a systems, not just an ideological, point of view. If we think of three possibilities:
Stabilization towards a good society
Stabilization toward an armed society
Destabilization
Which do our actions actually support? And is "society" the sole measure?
Understanding the process of social cohesion is key to the use of technology by society. All social and political possibilities depend on that cohesion, the way ideas and images and circumstances weave through our bodies and our lives and we go along - until we don't.
But watch out how that social cohesion expresses itself. In the main part of this newsletter I'll discuss the problem of late empire. As I was writing I came across this from the current Time Magazine quoting George Lukas " All democracies turn into dictatorships - not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator." When that happens it is because it looks like the best alternative: spend social security on security against terrorism. Buy Oil, help the ranchers. Rebuild heavy industrial companies; help the Telco's and media houses. Keep the old network going at all costs.
**I am struck by a recognition that in the past those who wanted more freedom and possibilities for better lives tended to look back to what had been (perceived as) better times. An example is the French National Council of 1406, meeting to take back from the bureaucratizing centralized Church privileges that had been local. "The Church of France will have to be restored to its old liberty and custom." In the centuries before, local councils (the conciliar movement) had exerted real power rooted in local circumstances. In the last two hundred years, most "progressives" have looked to the future for better times. I realized that there is deeper symmetry here. Both the right ("conservative") and the left ("progressive"), want to escape the power of centralized bureaucratic self-serving regulation and control of the local by the remote. The point really is that the tendency towards bureaucratization and mechanization of life is felt as oppressive by all but the majority of functionaries themselves (a strong minority of which is always motivated by attempts to govern wisely and better the total society. ) To get out of that oppression the two obvious paths are towards a better past and towards a better future. The progressives lack historical awareness, the conservatives lack imagination. Both fail to see a common purpose in creating a livable life. (This of course is mild caricature, but modestly accurate).
In an historical frame, before the renaissance, liberty was seen as being encroached upon by the newly emerging state, modeled on the Italian City Republics of Florence and Venice, whereas after the success of the state (Napoleon, Bismarck), liberty was seen as in the future. Conservatives tend to see the state and the left futurists as the enemy, the progressives tend to see the state and the past as the enemy. The common enemy as the encroaching state, with its own logic of what Lewis Mumford called the MegaMachine, is not seen clearly.
**Why don't leaders take responsibility for the errors of the past? WW1. So much to learn, especially the cost of the failures. 10 million dead? A Europe where you can still feel the cost of that war. Last year I sat in a graveyard - against my desire led there by some friends - in Slovenia. As they walked around I sat and got into a conversation with a few people sitting on stone markers on either side of a grassed path: a Serb, a Croat, a Viennese. As the talk continued, civilized, compassionate, trying to grasp Kosovo and the aftermath, I could sense the listening, even the silent standing (I am not usually given to this kind of imagination) of the million - a million! - buried there - Italians, Germans, Greeks, Slovenes, Serbs - from a battle I'd never even hard about. When my friends, loud and touristy, came back, we four got quiet and the million receded back into the land. 200 million died in the 20th century from violence of civil conflict.
Even if leaders would make reference to the dilemmas faced by leaders from the start of WW 1 or 2, or Rwanda, Somalia, Eritrea.. But no, nothing is learned. I recall when I was a grad student Berkeley 1961, I had read a book on the French experience in Indochina. Then Vietnam and I thought, ah, the lessons! It took me years to get to interview some of the key policy people under Kennedy and realize they had not read that book, which had already laid out the reasons we could not win there.
**An interesting take on WW1 looks at the possibilities - if Germany had won
WW 1.
http://www.nypress.com/15/13/taki/.cfm
"What would have happened had Germany won the war? For starters, the most philo-Semitic nation in Europe, Germany, would have remained so. Six million Jews would not have disappeared, as Hitler would have remained a failed artist and nothing more. The dynasties would have survived, which means there would have been no communism with its 20 to possibly 100 million victims. Hungary would not have been chopped up by Romania and Slovakia and Yugoslavia would not have become the unnatural federation it became. The Ottoman Empire would have lumbered along, Iraq would not have been created, nor would've Israel, Lebanon or Jordan. Russia would have joined the modern world-eventually. The world would have been led by England, Germany, France and the United States, and Africa would have never become the slaughterhouse it is today."
(To see Germany in a different light from the usual American perspective read the two volume biography of Goethe by Boyle. This is the best analysis of an individual life - and a wonderful life to know and experience - in relation to its historical time - like the impact of Napoleon in vol 2 Germany had the highest literacy, it balanced small states with regional federations, it was steeped in art and modest civilization. Napoleon's bureaucratized state and national conscription army ended it.)
**On the middle east. "Neither Arafat nor Sharon can end the war - the forces are bigger than they are" - heard from a reporter on CNBC.
**For a detailed difficult discussion, to which those who disagree need equally
detailed responses. radio call-in discussion with Noam Chomsky on the Middle
East conflict
http://www.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/wnyc/raotl/otl041102c.ra
**The complexity: Bush thinks we can sort out the players.
"They all sport the same shabby clothes, haggard looks, and bulging
suitcases bound with frayed ropes. These are the shuttle traders. You
can find them in Mongolia and Russia, China and Ukraine, Bulgaria and
Kosovo, the West Bank and Turkey. They cross the border as "tourists",
sometimes as often as 10 times a year, and come back with as much
merchandise as they can carry in their enormous luggage. Some of them
resort to freight forwarding their "personal belongings".
They distort trade figures, smuggle goods across ill-guarded borders,
ignore international treaties and conventions and, in short, revive
moribund economies. They are the life-blood and the only manifestation
of true entrepreneurship in swathes of economic wastelands. They meet
demands for consumer goods unmet by domestic manufacturers or by
officially-sanctioned importers.
From http://www.balkanlands.com
**Recession. Y2K is increasingly given significant credit for the recession
in 00-01, because of heavy spending in 98-99, and the need to assimilate the
new systems. But we have moved to a new phase and some narrow economic optimism.
However
1. JIT (just in time) warehousing turned out to be dangerous. For example, during the four days of no flights after 911 fed ex could not deliver parts. Now, so as not to be so utterly dependent on JIT transportation vulnerabilities, we are getting a re-inventorying, which makes the economy look stronger than it is. JIT and much business leanness was based on a model of efficient functioning which is now realized to be a myth and too risky.
2. Much of the consultant/programming jobs opened up to meet Y2K are now being phased out. The assimilators of the new systems are no longer needed. The general trend in business is to cut costs. The drive for this is the pressure on profits made clear by the free flow of information, where any profit can be competed against (look at the way world DRAM prices move.) So profit can only be made by quasi-monopolistic positions, or in the short run based on real innovation. That is why the wave of downsizing staffs will likely continue, which feeds local tax problems, which means more layoffs. So the economy is doing better while the people are doing worse. Note that the desired customer for most corporations is not people, but other corporations.
Rethinking the economy is getting more and more realistic. A year a go we were just reaching a majority view (deeply resisted by pockets of fairly well informed opinion) that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, and that inclusion in the current economy is not possible for all. Some must live with marginalization. Now we are moving to a new majority opinion (still lots of resistance) that the problem is deeper. There is much over production. Quality (coffee world wide for example) is suffering. The recession once again has been used to cut jobs, increase automation (another y2k motivated effect - "now that we have those expensive systems we need to use them, besides, competition is looking us over."), and proceed without any intent to rehire. Note that "productivity increase" Means producing the same amount with less workers!! "The Nation showed a 3% productivity rise" can mean nothing more than unemployment increased by 3%. The stock market goes up. Meanwhile kids, and the environment, are not being watched. If we had stock certificates that represented the whole country, rather than parts in the form of corporations, we would see how deeply they would have been already discounted.
At the same time, rethinking religion is on the world culture agenda. Monotheistic commitments seem to lead to wars. But monotheism need not be just about traditional gods. The US position on free markets is too mono-logical. The other values, democracy, freedom of consciousness about spiritual matters, caring for the community (in its full range from children to ecology), are not given their weight. The logic of the last decade might go like this
1. Clinton ran up the economy. "It's the economy stupid." (John Maisto,
who was Clinton's Ambassador in Caracas, advocated supporting Chávez,
because he left U.S. business interests in Venezuela intact and encouraged foreign
investment. "Watch what Chávez does, not what he says," Maisto
advised. The Clinton Administration's policy was to avoid a confrontation in
Venezuela that could endanger oil imports and other oil revenues. The Venezuelan
state owns the oil and the state oil company controls exports and sales, but
exploration and extraction are partially privatized, and foreign companies make
hundreds of millions of dollars in Venezuela."Bill Clinton and Dubya haven't
wanted to mess with Chávez," a Bush adviser said to me. "As
long as Houston and Big Oil are happy, we're not going to say anything to fuck
things up." http://newyorker.com/printable/?archive/020422fr_archive03
2. People made money and (I am speculating) voted for Bush because when the
system comes apart he would be more likely than Gore to Bring out the national
guard to defend property won in the Clinton years.
3. The external threat gives a chance for traditional industries (oil, cattle, land, guns..) to regain the center of the economy (Bush's constituency), and opposition to the "center" to be labeled terrorists. We might see the resentment towards the 60's from those who supported Vietnam, hated the draft resistors and the hippies- to try and take advantage by "winning this time." Traditional media are also using "security" as part of the rational for constricting the internet. Copyright benefiting big media is supported against common use and public domain.
The other logic operating on leaders is that, signs of weakness are always bad for the leader (as individual or as a country) because there are many just waiting to take him down (the US as the elephant that might show signs of weakness.) It is a curious act of fate that a real loser, in school, fraternity life, business and other dimensions of life, is now the leader who must appear strong. The need to give the appearance in the absence of substance is dangerous. The person of real strength can remain conscious but the actor narrows the field of perception to the performance.
** Late Empire.
The problem of monotheism and empire. No question but what the three great monotheistic religions gained their sense of god during struggles in the middle east that were terrible, repeated, absorbed and recovered from - always for short times - less than a generation mostly. It was a time of the severe passing of empires, the languages of 50 B.C. were nothing like the empire and linguistic mix of 1500 B.C.. The spillover of power centered monotheism into western Europe and the world stage is one of the major aspects of human history post Paleolithic (we need to remember that the far greater period of human history was during this period, before history, before writing, when kinship systems language, weaving, pottery, and grace (stone age people did not look like the comic characters of cave men, no "B.C." with the stevedore look). Those who picked up on Christianity were the leaders of a Europe in a culture vacuum, and Christianity allowed the organization of the people into another aggressive empire of meaning, releasing huge quantities of human ambition and energy, from the march of new empires" Portugal, Spain, Holland, England - and the US, from Michelangelo to Van Gogh.
Books that help understand the problems of being a late empire. (full citations at the end)
The Rise of the West by O'Neil. He points out that in the period say 1500-500 BC The Greeks, the Chinese, Buddhism the modest Indian late Veda traditions, and the Egyptians, were all moving away from god the creator of the universe to a focus on human society, with softer more remote gods (if any at all). It was in the central Middle Eastern struggles that the god of power reasserted itself.
Spengler's Decline of the West. He crafts a picture that says humans move from cultures to civilizations to empires, and the necessary structure of an empire is anti-creative, and must stress control inside and out. (There is a Chinese saying that says governing an empire is like trying serve a goldfish for dinner). Caesars are the expected outcome.
Frnandez-Armesto's Civilizations, revisiting our core understanding of civilization, concludes that humans have a strong urge toward civilization, but that no successful civilization is possible without exploiting it own people, neighboring states, and the environment. In his earlier book Millennia, the last 1000 years, he suggests that in the museum of the distant future (say as far ahead as Shakespeare is back) the "west" will be represented by a single room with armor and a Coke can, and the fact that the Americas was an outpost of Europe and "the west" will have been forgotten by all but specialists. He shows how the cycle of western empires began with the discovery of the Americas and its gold and silver, the shifting of the world economy out of the Indian Ocean into the Atlantic, and now the return of majority wealth to the Pacific and on into the Indian Ocean and surrounding land and resources. (I recently read that about 60 % of all that gold and silver went rapidly to China - to pay for Spice and silk debt).
Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies, presents lots of evidence that complex societies collapse because of overspending on infrastructure costs (note that the higher a building, the more of each of the lower floors must be devoted to elevator space to get people to the higher floors. This puts an absolute limit on the potential height of a building.) Note that Robert Wright, in his recent book, Non-Zero, argues (I think that is the spirit of it) that complexity tends to have a Darwinian advantage, so the history of society will be towards increasing complexity. No discussion of how that fits human nature, or the problem of having only a single society model should we get into trouble, nor of infrastructure demands. I think this view is limited.
Pocock: The Machiavellian Moment. Shows that our Founding Fathers and the writers they read the most understood that the shift from a culture of the state to a culture of commerce was dangerous by itself, and that the loss of virtue to corruption was inevitable unless the boundaries of the state kept increasing and new lands could serve as a base for both the military and the commercial "meaning". And cessation of growth, any implosion, would be the end of the political culture of a virtuous republic. (Pocock's work shows that intellectually the determining ideas of the American Republic are much more challenging, conscious and interesting than we are usually taught.)
Our standard view of history goes something like -
First there were cave men, then the Egyptians with their slaves, then the Hebrews walked out of that empire and became a people with God, then Christ came and found that each person was his own spiritual center, then the Christians overcame Rome, and became a church and then came the renaissance and the enlightenment and democracy and America and here we are.
Little details like that the Renaissance was part of one of the most "authoritarian" periods in European culture. Or that when Venice in 1400 was the largest city in Europe, with 20,000, China had a city with a million, and on the silk road from Mongolia the town of Azerbaijan (then Maragha) with a library with 400,000 volumes. When Cortez walked into Mexico City is was larger than any city in Europe.
The key point here is to make clear that governing a late empire is a very tricky business. The temptation will be towards repression and grandiosity, because modesty and weakness look like a senior antelope in the Serengeti plains surrounded by watchful lions. If this metaphor is to replaced by a more hopeful one, the effort will need to deal with the issues that machismo is trying to solve. The US cannot simply withdraw or talk peace. It needs a new vital image, and strong alliances, or it will continue up (down) the path of empire.
Implications for technology and society: the emerging trend will select the technologies that support it.
** Good moves
Help for Ukraine's street kids, from two US women
Two American women reach out to the 100,000 children who live in the
sewers and doorways of Ukraine's capital. By Arie Farnam
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0408/p01s04-woeu.html
I like this because it's doable. Doesn't take infinite resources. And creates real meaning. Go do it.
**Books mentioned (and highly recommended).
To Order from Amazon with a little credit to the newsletter
Nicholas
Boyle Goethe vol 2.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/
0198158696/dougcarmichae-20
Felipe
Fernandez-Armesto Civilizations
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/
0743202481/dougcarmichae-20
Felipe
Fernandez-Armesto Millennium: a history of the last 1000 years
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/
0684825368/dougcarmichae-20
O'Neill
The Rise of the West
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/
0226561410/dougcarmichae-20
Richard
Wright Non-Zero
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ 0679758941/dougcarmichae-20
Spengler
The Decline of the West
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ 0195066340/dougcarmichae-20