Technology rising- The cost of advancement

Technology is undoubtedly one of the hallmarks of this century. With the development of technology there has been an unprecedented advancement in the lives of man. Every aspect of life has significantly improved, at least that is the promise technology has brought. But if one considers the relation between society and technology where both areas are affected at almost equal parity as a result of the other, are all these developments in technology necessary for society and the human race or, the more interesting alternative, are these changes in humanity necessary for technology?

Technology in its most rudimentary form has existed for hundreds of years, about the time when man developed the idea of living together in a society. The development of technology has coincided with the desire of man to facilitate the development of societies needs. Should this technology not have evolved together with society it would by no means signal the end of society’s development, perhaps if the technology had stunted the society would still evolve but at a slower pace and perhaps without a heavy reliance on technology to facilitate its main actors. The Monks in Mongolia for example do not rely heavily on technology in the present day context, yet they are able to evolve as a society within themselves, developing their own culture and more importantly religious institution that govern the way they live. This is in contrast to many people living in the developed and industrialised areas around the world, who would not be able to continue with everyday function without the help of the humble telephone. I am not suggesting that we abandon the luxuries of life and technology in favour of the simple life of monks, however it is important to note that even in this century when technology has aided greatly in the development of society and has been instrumental in some of the directions taken by society in its progress, it does not imply that society would cease to function if new technology was not found or the role of technology is lessened. Therefore would the continued advancement of technology be in societies favour? Surely society would benefit greatly but on the account that society is becoming increasingly riddled with structural deficiencies such as inequality and marginalisation, would further change built upon already weakened foundations cause an inevitable collapse of society and its institutions? This would simultaneously plunge the world into chaos and anarchy the extent of which might be unconceivable.

Alternatively, this relation does not only involve technologies impact on society but rather societies impact on technology as well. With the rise of sophistication of technology, society is becoming ever so dependent on technology in its quest to achieve greater efficiency and productively, mainly this applies to the economic institutions that began to utilise technology on a mass scale from the industrial revolution on, resulting in more products being produced from clothing to cars, although this enabled a larger portion of the growing society to enjoy particular luxuries, the use of these machines has progressed so much so that they are able to take over the role of men in the process of production. It is as though society has endorsed technology so much so that it has displaced its own actors. Unfortunately these displaced actors soon become irrelevant as workers and it results in unemployment and by extension poverty. These workers are not able to overtake machines in certain industrial processes nor will they ever will at the rate technology is being developed. Therefore as the trend suggests more and more agents of production will be by machines owned by men. To what extent will this trend continue? Though it is unlikely that the machines will own the means of production and assimilate into a higher class, they are already taking over roles of the working class, a class in which more people belong to. The displaced workers are forced to reinvent themselves through skills upgrading and state institutions are forced to pour in resources to retrain workers, as Singapore has done with the establishment of the Workers Development Agency or WDA. It is ironic that resources are being poured in to retrain workers to overcome the fact that they have been displaced by machines, the very creation that was suppose to improve lives in the first place. It seems that men now have to play catch up to technology. In a profit driven economy unfortunately this becomes the only logic.

The workers who have survived this onslaught of technology have been those who have the ability to absorb and utilise information. The possession of this information would involve education and retraining of workers already in the system, however with increased standards of education quality and application, would the displaced workers be able to adapt and catch up? It seems that a new hurdle has been erected on the part of the workers to restrict them from maintaining or retaining the level of employment they once had, unlike machines humans are not as expandable and there is only an extent that an individual is able to adapt to the changes, the faster these changes occur, the lesser chance of the workers staying in contention. No doubt some will be able to survive, but it is the large numbers who don’t that ultimately becomes a concern.

Imposing wellness

The threat of a global pandemic is a major concern to nation states, corporations and individuals alike. Although global spread of diseases has not been new however the concerns are further amplified with the speed at which people can now travel around the world seamlessly. As proven by the SARS epidemic, the movement of the infected individuals was so fast that by the time authorities realised something was wrong the disease had already spread to several cities each with its own mass of people living in high density settings. However it is interesting to note the steps taken to prevent SARS and also steps taken to immediately prevent HIV have been very different. As for the case of SARS, it was a virus that had the potential to infect quickly with a high rate of transmission between individuals but the latter is also true for HIV as well, yet the immediate response has not been on the same scale as the SARS epidemic. Why is there a disparity between the handling of these two particular diseases?

HIV has drawn a worldwide response as many scientists are working on a cure for the disease across many parts of the world. Financial institutions such as the World Bank are also stepping in to provide financial assistance to improve education and preventive measures to avert the virus. However the virus is still deadly and has now spread to many other parts of the world. Unlike the SARS virus which resulted in many of the patients being quarantined, as in the case of Singapore, in a designated hospital. Temperature taking was also introduced at many public areas such as schools and entry points into the country to isolate cases early so that it may be treated. But the same treatment is not given to HIV. Testing for HIV is not compulsory neither is there impositions made by the state to ensure that travellers or more importantly residents know of the status of their health. This has been left to the digression of the individual, partly due to the costs and the time required to conduct such tests and also due to privacy issues however wouldn’t a virus such as this that is able to spread from person to person through particular normal human functions demand a waiver of privacy at least?

The nature of HIV is such that it can remain dormant in a host for an extended period of time therefore it would require immediate attention when the individual begins to show signs of infection. However as individuals have the freedom to choose whether to be tested or not, the pretext of ignorance is often utilised when unexpected effects occur. These effects often involves innocent parties who do not subscribe to the lifestyle associated with HIV, to be infected with the disease, as with unborn children infected through their mothers and women infected by their travelling husbands. These could have been prevented if the individuals had been tested regularly. The treatment of the results from the test might differ from person to person however with the assumption there is a basic sense of concern by most people with regards to the well being of others this information would be treated with the upmost importance that would possibly causing a change in lifestyles. No doubt education and prevention are fundamental tools to prevent the spread of HIV however such tools pale in comparison to the results of a lab test.

Due to the global spread of the virus it is undoubtedly difficult for states to impose testing on individuals to ascertain their HIV status but perhaps this can be done at the point of travel between borders as was the case with SARS. However this does not insinuate that states have to subsequently undertake measures to begin medical care on the individual but perhaps with the knowledge of their HIV status they will exercise a level of self control and not infect their loved ones at least. This would not stop the spread of HIV altogether but it could slow down the rate of infection significantly. Consequently with the imposition of these testing measures, research and development will be done to further streamline the testing process to make it more effective and cheaper to meet the demands of the world. Therefore indiscriminate testing might provide the ballast needed to complement the many preventive educational campaigns that are ongoing all over the world to raise the awareness of HIV.

Perhaps these measures are not considered workable as they involve heavy logistical demands as well as a heavy state imposition on a disease that is ravaging many parts of the world in poverty. Hence unlike SARS, urgent steps taken to actively prevent the spread are not taken as states are reluctant to spend added resources on a virus that has already spread across the world and more importantly the fact that the most infected states are developing countries teetering on poverty and not the developed areas of the world. There is therefore an important disparity between reactions to viruses as it affects different demographics especially when it comes to income disparities. It is time for the world to look beyond such differences and focus on the principle of viruses, as treats to the human race.

Shattered cities

The urbanization process has brought with it new challenges for all the major cities. It is an inevitable process that has occurred through the centuries. With industrialization and globalization added to the mix, urbanization has taken on an even greater role as it integrates and develops the city or core area of a particular place, physically and socially to ensure that the city’s inhabitance are able to develop according to the cities progression. However with the movement of people and goods our of the city’s centre towards areas outside the city, would the cities be distinct form one another, or would they be reduced to shell like entities that will take on any role at any given time by anyone?

Increasingly, with the deindustrialization of many cities, the cities are taking on the role as areas of cultural interest with ethnic diversity being key, although this adds life to the otherwise decapitated areas of the city, the city is transformed to accommodate this change, buildings and warehouses are converted to restaurants and museums. However the power to utilize these functions effectively has been at the hands of new immigrants as they seek to develop their own unique ethnic enclave for them to assimilate with. With the locals almost abandoning the city in acceptance of the enticements presented by the suburban areas, would the city change drastically to result in the locals being unable to relate to it? With the locals no longer actively participating in the cultural developments of the city, would a new culture be created that is foreign to the identity of the city?
Would the city then become a hotbed of conflict as picket lines are drawn between the city dwellers and the rest of the society?

Undoubtedly the development and progression of ethnic enclaves has injected some life into the areas of the city otherwise left to wither away. It has also allowed the city to revitalize its own image to remain relevant in face of competition from the suburban areas but the freedom in which the developers of these enclaves enjoy might lead to changes to the city that are not transitory in nature. The city has lost some of its activities through the relocation of industrial areas outside the city to cheaper areas as well as its residential blocks for suburb living, these facilities have moved on to “greener pastures” at the promise of greater living space and cheaper costs, however the development of ethnic enclaves based on cultural aspects might result in historical and emotional connections being made that would entrench the particular area permanently as a cultural enclave for a particular ethnic group. Would these ethnic groups allow for the same areas to be transformed for different purposes when the needs of the city call for it? Unlike the deindustrialization and migration of people based on economic lines, areas with emotional and cultural significance might be more difficult to part with. This cultural enclave also serves as a gateway for new immigrants as a transition point to aid the integration and assimilation process, with more of the city being left as unused areas and with the increase of immigrants, these ethnic enclaves will increase in size. This will automatically give these areas a louder voice and a stronger purpose to exist. Hence making it difficult to remove or relocate should the need arise. Therefore should there be a new wave of purpose that envelops the city, the city developers might be forced to tip-toe around these areas to prevent conflict.

Although this would result in distinctive cities that would have its own unique flavour, it would have to come at a cost, especially for cities with space constraints. This coupled with the fact that suburbs are beginning to invade parts of the cities outermost boundaries, the city would be choked for expansion and future development. Hence this would make this cultural enclave the final transition of the particular area. This would not be a source of concern unless the cities lose out on opportunities by virtue of these cultural enclaves. These lost opportunities especially those of an economic nature would present itself as a source of resentment an eventually conflict between the state, the society at large and the tenants of the city.

Please sir, I don’t want your identity

A dark skinned, heavily bearded, middle-eastern man walks into the departure gate of Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris to board a flight to New York. He is loosely dressed in black, with a bracelet of a cross tied to his wrist and a Jewish skull cap on his head. He carries a heavy bag marked with the initials OBL embossed in gold. He also carries with him a first class ticket.

Imagine the conflicting images faced by security at the airport. The individual painted above does not conform to any marked boundaries of someone who might pose a terrorist threat. Could he be a terrorist? Could he be the elusive OBL that the Americans have been searching for? Or could it just be a conflicted individual who has no clear definition of who his identity is coupled with a strong interest in religious fashion? It is likely that the members of the airport security will proceed to ascertain further if this individual does pose a threat to the security on board the plane, especially since the origins and motives of the individual could not be ascertained without a shadow of a doubt. However this scenario regardless of the result will present a discourse amongst the airport security officials at least, on the superficial attributes that would point out a person’s identity.

Identity is something that is very fluid in nature. With the socialization of each individual different situations relating to his affairs with others, technically everyone would have a different identity or set of principles. There is however a peculiarly strong tendency to lump many similarities between identities together into one group of individuals. With this characterization come the political, economic and social implications for that particular individual or that particular group. When the group is characterized externally in order to fit pre existing models or stereotypes would it become fair for the unfortunate individuals who are lumped in that group to begin to subscribe to the stereotypes themselves? A moderate Arabian man for example, having been heavily prejudices in the Western world for being of Arab descent is pushed to consider the extreme views of his brethren seriously. Having found a source to affiliate with the entire group would it not mean that the binding principle of the group, be it fundamentalist or otherwise, become acceptable to some degree to the members within irregardless of the inclinations of the majority of the group before the lumping process. Would we have not created a new batch of sympathizers or worse still extremist fundamentalists itching to further strengthen their beliefs?

This is a highly likely scenario when one considers the prejudices that are faced by individuals who are scrutinized for just the simplest of similarities. In cases where it is dismissed as mistaken identity it would probably not cause such a heavy grievance as compared to an innocent individual who is placed to be persecuted with those who are perceived as threats even when they are innocent to begin with.

In a world where religious fervour and fundamentalism is becoming more prominent, perhaps its rise is not more so of strong political unhappiness but rather the cases of persecution from a set of perceived notions based on the labeling of ones identity by others.

Big to small- shrinking democracy

The evolution of society has undergone many processes, one of which is the establishment of institutions in many aspects of our lives. The political institution specifically is important in a sense that it affects the lives of many if not all the members within the society. Therefore the evolution of this particular institution to its current state and its ongoing transition to meet the needs of an ever-changing societal and global landscape is a matter of importance in the lives of all global citizens

Historically this institution began its process when man decided to live together instead of individually. They in turn, developed interdependence on one another to an extent where a network was established. Even though this network was primitive and was rather light in the interdependency spectrum it is however the beginnings of an era where the need for others became important. With the establishment of this network, there was a need to make decisions collectively as a unit. These decisions had to benefit the network in some way or at least point them in a direction in which they are able to complement each other instead of competing against one another. This decision maker was chosen under several requirements, influence and wisdom being the initial rudimentary requirements. This quickly evolved to more complex forms of selection in tandem with the ever growing complexity of the society. The criteria for the choice of decision maker or leader vary from society to society however the need for such a role is prevalent in all.

This role and selection process has evolved drastically over the centuries. In its current form it is known as a democracy having risen in prominence since the end of the era of empires. The development of democracy was inspired by the demand for more representation and freedom of the larger society, hence an important shift was initiated, and the power of the decision maker no longer rested in the hands of one individual however there was a collective voice of opinion when an issue was raised. Hence the views of the individuals are represented by persons who are aware of views and possible implications of the individuals represented.

This system works partly because there is the notion that the majority actually do have a say in the running of the state or nation state. This gives the majority a sense of control over how their lives are marshalled, through agents such as policies and legislation for example. Unlike in the past when there was unequal or no representation of the voices of the majority it now has an avenue to be heard. This system does have its drawbacks however and has failed or has been perverted in some form by individuals with a hunger for power and control. However these faults will not be discussed here, instead the question I would like to raise is; will democracy be able to sustain its appeal in light of the new challenge posed by the ongoing process of globalisation?

With globalisation there has been an increase in the movement of individuals across many borders. This has resulted in a more uniform version of democracy to be adopted by many nation states to aid in the movement of individuals. Nation states are now forming into larger regional groups to discuss and decide on matters pertaining to the progress of the particular region. With the collectivisation of the states to a more regional form, would it be a mirror of the empires of old? In a sense the implications of decisions made affect a wide range of people, some of whom might suffer as a result of new policies or laws passed. Would this not undermine the entire basis of a democracy since the voice of particular peoples are no longer heard? It does not imply however that local governments, would be able to satisfy everyone’s needs when a legislation is passed however smaller areas of governance would not differ greatly in terms of social conditions therefore such policy or legislation would not have a large detrimental effect on the local economy or local people. A regional decision that tries encompass many areas at once will surely not be able to satisfy all regions and worse of all might leave some in a precarious position.

Therefore instead of expanding and collectivising democracies, perhaps for democracy to remain relevant and true to its basic function a reversal needs to be sought, which would bring about many smaller states instead of a larger regional fraternity. These smaller states will be able to satisfy the needs of the people more effectively, not only from an economic viewpoint but also culturally as well.