Understanding the coupling between technology, business<\/p>\n
Yanuar Nugroho, Director, Business Watch Indonesia,
\nLecturer, Sahid Univ. Surakarta, Researcher, Unisosdem Jakarta,
\nyanuar-n@unisosdem.org<\/p>\n
Let us consider these three facts. First, Nokia has just
\nreleased its newest type of mobile: The 7650. It is not only a
\nmobile phone, but also has a built-in camera, an internet
\ninterface and a personal digital assistant. Amazing and
\nsophisticated. Some (if not many) people will fall over heels to
\nget their hands on this latest product.<\/p>\n
The International Data Corporation estimates that shipments of
\nimage-enabled handheld devices will jump from 610,000 units in
\n2002 to 11 million in 2006 (IDC, August 2002).<\/p>\n
The second fact: James Morris, head of the United Nations Food
\nAgency says that if Zambia wants the UN's help to feed its
\nstarving population, it would have to accept donations of
\ngenetically modified food. It is impossible, he adds, to expect
\nthat the World Food Program can provide the resources to feed
\nthese starving people without using food that has some biotech
\ncontent.<\/p>\n
In the face of resistance against genetically modified food,
\nanother fact is presented: 280 million Americans eat GM food
\neveryday and it has been certified as safe, and has become
\ninevitable for millions of people (The Jakarta Post, Aug. 26).<\/p>\n
Lastly, from 1975 to 1996, 1,223 new kinds of medicines were
\ndeveloped, but only 13 genres were designed to cure deprived
\npeople of major tropical diseases. The biggest portion of
\nproduction costs was allocated for research into cosmetics,
\nobesity and other beauty-related medicines (The Economist, Nov.
\n10, 2001).<\/p>\n
These three facts tell us that the power of money, and a vast
\namount of it, makes everything possible -- apart from the
\ntechnological progress that makes life easier, or makes us
\nwealthier or healthier.<\/p>\n
In the case of Nokia (or Siemens or Ericsson, etc), consumers
\nare \"victimized\" in a manner that is concealed by the orthodoxy
\nof the \"market\". Such technologies, which have a short life
\ncycle, are made psychologically obsolete long before they
\nactually wear out.<\/p>\n
Examine the psychological life cycle of a Nokia 6210 for
\ninstance. Once the 8210 or newer series like the 7650 is released
\non the market, the 6210 becomes obsolete shortly after. But who
\ncares? That is how the market works, isn't it?<\/p>\n
As for GM food, hiding behind the sacred mission to bridge the
\ngap between the linear availability of food and the exponential
\ngrowth of population, business worth millions of dollars is being
\ngenerated.<\/p>\n
Since the Flavr Savr, the first ever GM food released in 1994,
\nour world has been flooded by biotech foods. Some have started to
\nraise concerns about the inherent, long-term consequences of
\nthose genetically modified organisms for our health and
\nenvironment.<\/p>\n
Others worry that genetic modification technology will be used
\nirresponsibly, leading to the marginalization of many people. But
\nsuch concern are swept away by business interests, which hide
\neverything behind the screen filming of GM food or organisms,
\narguing that the \"market\" needs them.<\/p>\n
The story of the medical discoveries is ironic when it merges
\nwith money in the third case. In 1998, out of the total budget of
\nUS$70 billion allocated for research conducted by the giant
\npharmaceutical corporations, only $300 million (0.43 percent)
\nwent on AIDS vaccine research and $100 million (0.14 percent) for
\nmalaria medicine research. Of course, this is because the
\n\"market\" for beauty clinics is significantly higher, which
\naffects the rate of capital accumulation of the producers.<\/p>\n
Is this how technology works nowadays within the \"market
\nsystem\"? Not really, but some explanations can be proposed.
\nFirst, there are always tensions in technological advancement.
\nOne source of tension is \"Luddism\", the attempt to hold back the
\nadvance of technology itself. Meanwhile the \"technophile\"
\nworships technology, seen as the only way of improving human
\nprosperity. On both sides of this contradiction, the workings of
\ncapital seems entirely forgotten.<\/p>\n
Thus comes the second issue, that of accountability when
\ntechnology becomes married to business interests (or vice versa),
\nresulting in technological and business power practices. Why? It
\nconcerns the ethical implications of both the exercise of
\n\"knowledge\" and \"the market\". However, often the power lies in
\ntechnological knowledge. Power in itself is neutral, though it is
\noften abused.<\/p>\n
Third, the question of whether the technology of genetic
\nmodification (or mobile phones, etc) must be accountable to the
\npublic is rather misleading, for certainly it must be. Science
\nand technology must be subjected to the criteria of democratic
\naccountability -- or we may expect an environmental disaster.<\/p>\n
Science and technology are both a locus and a form of power.
\nThe \"neutrality\" of science and technology is only true insofar
\nas both are separated from their exercising agents -- which is
\nimpossible.<\/p>\n
Thus, understanding the coupling between technology and
\nbusiness is extremely important to know what is really going on
\nin our society. Two points might come to mind here.<\/p>\n
First, we must no longer take the view that all types of power
\nare evil. There remains a type, or some types, of power that are
\nlegitimate: Those which are accountable to the public purpose.<\/p>\n
And who is the public? Here the problem of agency in the
\nexercise of technology arises. Since technology is the domain of
\n\"experts\", the public are all laypersons, non-experts. So how can
\nthe ignorant demand accountability in respect of processes about
\nwhich they are ignorant?<\/p>\n
The answer lies not in science and technology -- but rather in
\nthe scientific and technological experts, and in the way science
\nand technology have been exploited, or \"utilized\", by business
\npower.<\/p>\n
Second, now we can see one of the most intractable problems
\nsurrounding the marriage between the powers of finance and
\ntechnology. Science and technology, which can be neutral, are
\nbeing used and exploited through incorporation into the logic of
\npure profit-seeking (i.e., business).<\/p>\n
If business power in this storm of neo-liberalism is beset by
\ndemocratic unaccountability, then it's clear why public
\naccountability in respect of technological practices is more
\nurgent than admitted by most the false prophets of technology.<\/p>\n
This may involve a psychological issue first before an
\neconomic one. The ingenious advance of the market within the neo-
\nliberal system means that it infiltrates the way people value
\nthings by embedding the criteria of \"pleasure-prestige-status-
\nluxury\". And technology just makes it more deeply implanted. In a
\nway, technology just serves the market, doesn't it?<\/p>\n
It is not that this principle is wrong, but that its pursuit
\nis most often being carried out to the detriment of others.
\n\"Individualism is perfectly human,\" says one of the mobile phone
\ncommercials. Here we might question the values that technology
\nbrings in its wake when it becomes married to business.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/understanding-the-coupling-between-technology-business-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}