Icarus, or the Future of Science: Revisited

The year is sometime in the near future. We see a world filled with inventions and technology beyond our belief. We get some nostalgia as we see a familiar brand or a landmark that now looks futuristic in order to fit with this new era of flying cars, robot servants, communication holograms; you name it. This temporary bliss and awe, however, is cut short as a new technological menace arises. Yes, the very same machines the humans created now threaten to eliminate our existence, and suddenly this future wonderland starts to become pretty grim.

That’s more or less the recurring plot of many futuristic films that try to give us a peek into our future. It doesn’t take much effort to realize that we feel uneasy of what the future might bring and how we’ll adapt. Sure, machines could eventually develop the intelligence and the will to enslave us like in the Terminator saga, or then again, the world could be filled with luxuries and novelties just like in Back to the Future II in the following years. It is difficult to predict what inventions are awaiting for us, but leaving all the Hollywood elements aside, my biggest concern is who will use this technology and for which purposes.

Back in 1924, philosopher Bertrand Russell published Icarus, or the Future of Science, a work in which he stated that the holders of power will use science and its progresses to control and dominate the civilization of the future. By using science to give comforts to the people and organize them into easily manageable entities, they give them the illusion of choice and freedom while in reality they are manipulating them in order to make them work towards their goals: war, rivalry, markets and wealth. Russell believed that just like Icarus’s tale, the holders of power overestimate and misuse their control over science to serve their purposes and that it will eventually lead to a collapse.

Though a significant collapse is yet to be seen, Russell’s premise is worth re-analyzing now, a time where science has reached almost every aspect of our lives. In this new Information Era, have we steered clear of Russell’s predictions? Or are we falling deeper towards our collapse?

The Companies
Today, although nations still compete with each other and use war to achieve their goals, I see a new type of holder of power has emerged: business companies. Financed by wealthy entrepreneurs or even governments, companies are the modern holders of power. Not only do they have a big influence on a country’s economy, they can grow out of its boundaries and into other nations. This means they can have its own goals and purposes, independent from its country of origin. Unlike Russell’s view with nations, business companies focus on creating wealth and not so much fostering competition. Besides, since almost all “Western” nations have chosen a capitalist system, most of their citizens usually make their living by working within a company.

I believe the human capital and know-how of the future will reside in the companies. The employees will be more of an asset that contributes to the development and use of science according to the companies’ intentions. Science will ultimately increase productivity by applying two basic approaches: decreasing costs and speeding production processes. In a Eugenics point of view, only the most trained, resourceful and less costing employees will be kept, while the others will be discarded and replaced by machines. Science contributes in making machines cheaper, more intelligent, and better overall. Humans are not that “updateable” as they are, so it’s no wonder machines are more preferable and easier to deal with. Competent employees, however, will be needed to service the machines and to make management decisions. If these employees become too expensive or cannot be found locally, companies will buy them off from others through outsourcing techniques.

What is the result of all of this? Humans will strive to meet the company’s requirements, competing against each other for a position in the company and hoping a cheaper, faster technological solution doesn’t come along to fill that void. As unemployment rises, humans will be willing to work more for less, undervaluing their skills. Ultimately, we’ll end up molding ourselves to an employee profile, to what the holders of power want us to be.

IT: Tool or Loophole?
Russell argued that organization was key in controlling the citizens. Whether it was mass media broadcasts, political parties, or governmental institutions (such as school), the collective will would triumph over the individual one. I, however, believe that there is one organization tool that exceeded its purposes and gave a way of relighting hope for individual will. I am referring, of course, to the Internet.

Internet and all derived inventions were created at first as a way of having a means of fast communication anywhere in the world in case the US needed to respond to an act of war. After the technology was sound enough for commercial use, the network known as Internet began operating in 1983. (Thirteen years after Russell’s death, mind that). Russell did not live long enough to judge its potential and witness its effects, but I’m certain this phenomenon would have caught its attention at the very least.

I believe the Internet poses a loophole in Russell’s theory about organization. First of all, it does not belong to a specific country, company or organization. The Internet is composed of computers all around the world and does not know space or time. Anyone with access to it can have its individual will expressed online and it will be as valid as the collective will from another entity. How is the Internet different from mass media or other organizations, for that matter? Well, for starters, the user takes an active role and decides what to see and what to reject. He is neither passive nor blindly receiving information from a restricted number of choices as with other means. He/she decides what to see and what to believe with no ties involved. Here, choice is not an illusion. A second point is that every user can form its own virtual organization, whether it involves knowledge, opinions, or even business. If I may be bold, I would have to say that the Internet is a place where democracy can really take flight. It doesn’t matter what race, creed, or social status a person has. Everyone with a computer has the means and the rights to make use of this tool and manage information.

Holders of power are not blind and can see this loophole as well. China, for example, has tried to censor some content from the Internet, but it’s having a hard time keeping with Internet-derived inventions called proxies, that ultimately let the user see the content. Others have chosen not to fight it, but rather to use it to their own advantage. Notice how almost every company and government has its own website? But surely social networks, the most democratic part of Internet, are clean, right? Nope. You can find world leaders and companies in there as well. I’ll do you one better. Isn’t the owner of the social network a company by definition? Are we the assets, or worse yet, the products of the company?

So as you can see, yes, the Internet has surprised everyone with its capabilities and the power it gives to each individual user. However, it is not exempt from the influence of the holders of power. Though it has the potential to create a true democracy online, it also has it to create a network of surveillance, just like future that we see in Minority Report, where it’s almost impossible to stay hidden, whether you are a murderer, a protester, or just someone who needs to be silenced.

Final Thoughts
Throughout this writing, I have talked about how holders of power are creating the means to control civilization. However, I am not trying to build an enemy out of companies and governments because as Russell said, it is human nature to compete with each other. We have seen throughout History that there has hardly been any ruler or institution whose thoughts have not been influenced by power. Put me up there and the opinions I have shared with you might drastically change as well.

There is no doubt that science acts as an enabler, or an amplifier, if you prefer. Russell believed that humankind would struggle to make use of science in the ideal way, and that’s why he expected a collapse. As for me, I wouldn’t dare to propose a solution to an issue we, or holders of power for that matter, don’t fully control. As I said before, 10 or 20 years from now, we might be living in a technological paradise, a technological menace, or we could be exactly like we are now but with more computing power and with iPods Pico. The only thing I’m sure of is that we must stay on top of science, for it is a power tool. And when you don’t use a tool properly, it can accidentally turn into a weapon that causes injuries and destruction yourself and others. But learn to use it responsibly, and it will serve its intended purpose.