The Profit of Doom

Is digital technology really as nefarious as some skeptics postulated prior to the widespread use of the Internet? It is easy to come upon a study from the late 80s such as the Denning paper, and critique its inaccuracy in predicting the globalized network and effect of such technological phenomenon as video teleconferencing and the blogosphere. At the same time, it is comical to see a published work predicting how fax will win out over what would become the Internet. Anachronistic criticism aside, it is interesting to see the weaknesses and confusions of an author grappling with a complex and emerging technology. Although some of the predictions lean sharply towards accuracy, the assertion of the darker side of the computerization of society makes claims beyond the scope of plausibility and strays into opinion. In addition, the perspective that technological advances will create an environment where people are used, optimized and discarded doesn’t take into account the situations in predigital society where human beings already experienced that reality.

 Although it is hardly arguable that in many academic institutions there is a focus on research rather than teaching, is that really the fault of readily available electronic transmissions? I suspect the drive to publish and the reward systems associated with research prominence exist independent of advanced digital technology, and these embedded structures of the Academy were in place by the 1980s. For example, in the life sciences the type of studies on which a professor focuses their energy determines how much and what kinds of funds become available. The NSF is not well known for giving out grant money for high quality teachers, it rewards published results. It seems that if the end goal is quality teaching, the reward structure and not the electronic medium is the likely culprit for failures. The unknown technological advances on the horizon were used as a convenient scapegoat for already defined problems.

The part that was most intriguing was the assertion that businesses would act outside of their own self-interest once affected by the emerging technology. There doesn’t seem to be a clear narrative tying this idea to the rest of the paper, and it seems like it’s the fearful vision of someone judging a technology with the aim of entertaining an audience. While it’s useful to maintain a certain level of skepticism and awareness of the dark possibilities of technological advances, segments of this particular reading are also a cautionary note against catastophizing possible downsides.