JP/6/YANUAR

JP/6/YANUAR

Understanding the marriage
between technology and business

Yanuar Nugroho
Director, Business Watch Indonesia
Lecturer, Sahid Univ. Surakarta
Researcher, Unisosdem Jakarta
yanuar-n@unisosdem.org

Let us consider these three facts. First, Nokia has just
released its newest type of mobile: The 7650. It is not only a
mobile phone, but also has a built-in camera, an internet
interface and a personal digital assistant. Amazing and
sophisticated. Some (if not many) people will fall over heels to
get their hands on this latest product.

The International Data Corporation estimates that shipments of
image-enabled handheld devices will jump from 610,000 units in
2002 to 11 million in 2006 (IDC, August 2002).

The second fact: James Morris, head of the United Nations Food
Agency says that if Zambia wants the UN's help to feed its
starving population, it would have to accept donations of
genetically modified food. It is impossible, he adds, to expect
that the World Food Program can provide the resources to feed
these starving people without using food that has some biotech
content.

In the face of resistance against genetically modified food,
another fact is presented: 280 million Americans eat GM food
everyday and it has been certified as safe, and has become
inevitable for millions of people (The Jakarta Post, Aug. 26).

Lastly, from 1975 to 1996, 1,223 new kinds of medicines were
developed, but only 13 genres were designed to cure deprived
people of major tropical diseases. The biggest portion of
production costs was allocated for research into cosmetics,
obesity and other beauty-related medicines (The Economist, Nov.
10, 2001).

These three facts tell us that the power of money, and a vast
amount of it, makes everything possible -- apart from the
technological progress that makes life easier, or makes us
wealthier or healthier.

In the case of Nokia (or Siemens or Ericsson, etc), consumers
are "victimized" in a manner that is concealed by the orthodoxy
of the "market". Such technologies, which have a short life
cycle, are made psychologically obsolete long before they
actually wear out.

Examine the psychological life cycle of a Nokia 6210 for
instance. Once the 8210 or newer series like the 7650 is released
on the market, the 6210 becomes obsolete shortly after. But who
cares? That is how the market works, isn't it?

As for GM food, hiding behind the sacred mission to bridge the
gap between the linear availability of food and the exponential
growth of population, business worth millions of dollars is being
generated.

Since the Flavr Savr, the first ever GM food released in 1994,
our world has been flooded by biotech foods. Some have started to
raise concerns about the inherent, long-term consequences of
those genetically modified organisms for our health and
environment.

Others worry that genetic modification technology will be used
irresponsibly, leading to the marginalization of many people. But
such concern are swept away by business interests, which hide
everything behind the screen filming of GM food or organisms,
arguing that the "market" needs them.

The story of the medical discoveries is ironic when it merges
with money in the third case. In 1998, out of the total budget of
US$70 billion allocated for research conducted by the giant
pharmaceutical corporations, only $300 million (0.43 percent)
went on AIDS vaccine research and $100 million (0.14 percent) for
malaria medicine research. Of course, this is because the
"market" for beauty clinics is significantly higher, which
affects the rate of capital accumulation of the producers.

Is this how technology works nowadays within the "market
system"? Not really, but some explanations can be proposed.
First, there are always tensions in technological advancement.
One source of tension is "Luddism", the attempt to hold back the
advance of technology itself. Meanwhile the "technophile"
worships technology, seen as the only way of improving human
prosperity. On both sides of this contradiction, the workings of
capital seems entirely forgotten.

Thus comes the second issue, that of accountability when
technology becomes married to business interests (or vice versa),
resulting in technological and business power practices. Why? It
concerns the ethical implications of both the exercise of
"knowledge" and "the market". However, often the power lies in
technological knowledge. Power in itself is neutral, though it is
often abused.

Third, the question of whether the technology of genetic
modification (or mobile phones, etc) must be accountable to the
public is rather misleading, for certainly it must be. Science
and technology must be subjected to the criteria of democratic
accountability -- or we may expect an environmental disaster.

Science and technology are both a locus and a form of power.
The "neutrality" of science and technology is only true insofar
as both are separated from their exercising agents -- which is
impossible.

Thus, understanding the coupling between technology and
business is extremely important to know what is really going on
in our society. Two points might come to mind here.

First, we must no longer take the view that all types of power
are evil. There remains a type, or some types, of power that are
legitimate: Those which are accountable to the public purpose.

And who is the public? Here the problem of agency in the
exercise of technology arises. Since technology is the domain of
"experts", the public are all laypersons, non-experts. So how can
the ignorant demand accountability in respect of processes about
which they are ignorant?

The answer lies not in science and technology -- but rather in
the scientific and technological experts, and in the way science
and technology have been exploited, or "utilized", by business
power.

Second, now we can see one of the most intractable problems
surrounding the marriage between the powers of finance and
technology. Science and technology, which can be neutral, are
being used and exploited through incorporation into the logic of
pure profit-seeking (i.e., business).

If business power in this storm of neo-liberalism is beset by
democratic unaccountability, then it's clear why public
accountability in respect of technological practices is more
urgent than admitted by most the false prophets of technology.

This may involve a psychological issue first before an
economic one. The ingenious advance of the market within the neo-
liberal system means that it infiltrates the way people value
things by embedding the criteria of "pleasure-prestige-status-
luxury". And technology just makes it more deeply implanted. In a
way, technology just serves the market, doesn't it?

It is not that this principle is wrong, but that its pursuit
is most often being carried out to the detriment of others.
"Individualism is perfectly human," says one of the mobile phone
commercials. Here we might question the values that technology
brings in its wake when it becomes married to business.