Technology and the Inevitable Entropy of Mankind

Technology and the Inevitable Entropy of Mankind

by Matthew Edward Hayward on 14 June 2010 

Technology and the Inevitable Entropy of Mankind
What would your life be like without modern-day technologies? Would you be happier and better off without the distraction of cell phones and televisions, or would the quality of your life be lessened with the absence of them? My goal is to take you down a path comparing and contrasting morality and culture in correlation to the progression of technological advancements and the convenience they bring. Most importantly we are going to look at how information and the ability to access it has changed.
As we look into the complexities of technology and its effects, we quickly come across the subject of globalization. Society has many different views on the New World Order, commonly referred to by its acronym, NWO. Multinational corporations have their view, collectivists have theirs and then you have technocrats. We are going to talk about how technology is shaping geopolitical decisions. As you read on, you might ask yourself where you fit into the worldview and what role you think technology should play in the lives of mankind, and again, is technology empowering you to be more influential or less?

Before we get too far into globalization and the role technology is playing, I would first like to start with a sociological comparison. Political and economic technocrats, though well intended, remind me of the two years I spent working for a casino. Have you ever asked yourself why casinos turn money into chips, coupons, and points? They do it because it further removes their clients from the reality of the situation. Patrons fork over their hard-earned money to the dealers, and in return they receive proxies. These proxies are viewed with less value than hard-earned money and as something that can’t pay bills or buy groceries. The proxies tend to spend more easily and players are more willing to make careless mistakes. Could it be, those who are building a NWO through technological advancements are doing so with short-sighted haste? Could it be that their actions are being made in a frame of mind that is far removed from the social construct?

These are just a few questions to think about as we go on to analysis scholars, authors, reporters and philosophers perspectives on technology and global integration.


Cynthia L. Selfe is an author and professor at Ohio State. She teaches a course about technology and percussion. In one of her essays, “Lest We Think the Revolution Is a Revolution: Images of Technology and the Nature of Change,” Selfe writes about how “our culture subscribes to several powerful narratives that link technological progress closely with social progress.”(784) In Selfe’s second narrative, “Land of Equal Opportunity and Land of Difference,” she brings up equality through technology. Her basic conclusion is, and I agree, those who have the newest technology will have the greatest advantage, therefore, equality is based solely on ones capability of access.
Walden Universities Dr. Aqueil Ahmad regularly publishes articles on globalization. In "The World is (Not) Flat," Ahmad agrees with Selfe’s conclusion, “globalization and technological progress by itself has never helped flatten or level the playing field.” He uses historical accounts to prove, short of public policy protections, “technological innovations tend to accentuate inequalities by being inaccessible.” Aqueil also brings up the separation from those who have “technological availability but are socially and culturally inaccessible.” The ground has been laid; the insinuation that equality through technology can only exists if the government and major corporations whom both control information and consumer marketing allow it.
In Selfe’s first narrative she discuss “The Global Village and the Electronic Colony.” She describes how Americans believe computers and “technology will help create a global village.”(786) If this narrative is correct and “we are all connected …erasing meaningless geopolitical borders,” then the real question becomes; is this outcome truly “cooperation for the commonwealth?”(786)
Daniel Estulin is an investigative journalist who managed to penetrate the inner most sanctums of the most important globalist group in the world, The Bilderberg Group. He wrote a book titled The True Story of the Bilderberg Group. In this book he discusses how the media, bankers and multinational corporations are all on the same pay role. He also makes mention of a book, Tragedy and Hope by  Carroll Quigley. Tragedy and Hope talks about social engineering and the formation of secret societies and public organizations like the Council On Foreign Relations, also referred to as the CFR. While these groups mission statements are clear, they often have underling agendas. Theses organization are working to form a NWO, a world order that benefits them through making the masses more connected to produce greater wealth for the organizational members and their subsidiaries.
If only humanity maintained a philosophical and principled stance when looking at the progression of technology before embracing it. Although it is unlikely there will ever be utopia, perhaps we could at least have an advanced society with personal privacy and freedom. However, the hierarchy uses technological advancements to manipulate society into generating wealth for itself. The reality is, “multiculturalist viewpoints take a backseat to xenophobia.”(Cohen) While technology is being touted the bridge to equality, those who feel they are being oppressed would certainly disagree. Traditional and cultural loss are sacrifices being made to integrate all of the societies together into a “New World Order.” This loss of individuality and sovereignty is desired by only some, some that try and present themselves as the mass. Aristotle might have argued that, “Different men seek after happiness in different ways and by different means, and so make for themselves different modes of life and forms of government.” Of course the rebuttal of those who drive the Geopolitical bus could simply be that their  happiness is based on a global government and thus that is what they seek it.
Cohen seems to think we are coming together in a global community and technology will help us to seek out happiness. In Scenario 2: Diversity and Harmony. He starts off by saying, “Just because different cultures don’t interact doesn’t mean that they can’t all get along.” Social integration in his eyes may come about with relative peace. He does however admit, terrorism will still exist and need to be handled with global interests. While Cohen sees integration as relatively peaceful, he fails to mention that most terrorism comes from radicals trying to defend their culture, heritage and individuality. These terrorists either do not wish to conform into a NWO, or simply desire some authority in charting its course. It’s not that people have a problem with others nations or cultures, it’s that a great number of people do not wish for the world bank and militaries of other countries to jeopardize their sovereignty. Scenario 1: Fragmentation and
Fundamentalism touched on this. Cohen did fear that imputation of “globalizing technology produces” could cause “too much change too quickly, and the frightened masses retreat to the perceived safety, social stability, and unity of their own separate enclaves.”

Cohen wants to portray those who resist, as both terrorists radicals in one scenario and the scared masses in another. Are those who partake in acts of terrorism to defend their identity terrorists or patriots? If we have so much information and knowledge because of the internet, why would the masses be afraid of what was happening? It is not always easy to answer these questions. Depending on what side of the argument you support, there are vast amounts of information to prove whatever one wishes to prove. There are immense variables to consider and the complexities are far greater than can truly be understood. This is where apathy comes into play. Once things are complicated enough and people are preoccupied with entertainment, they really don’t have a cognitive stake in globalization verse national sovereignty. Traditions, cultural and countries heritage become vaguely important as people stand in line waiting for the new release of some gadget, talking to one another about a reality T.V. show.
David Roman looks at the affects of over stimulation and too much information. He looks at how, “for some users the answer starts with restrictions.” If we limit our exposure to television, computers, video games etc, we may be able to make better use of the  massive amounts of available information. Roman uses examples of controlled restrictions, for example, more and more college professors are banning laptops.  He also talks about the use of legislation, like the new cell phone laws that recently went into effect in Washington State, however he also points out, “restrictions won’t end any of this. That texting driver in the next lane is not going away soon, law or no law.” While Roman acknowledges there is an overabundance of  available information due to modern technology, he also believes that technology could be the solution.
Robert Pappas, Selfe and George Carlin have a much less optimistic view. Robert and Selfe fear that  Orwell’s ministry of truth is currently applicable today in America. They may or may not be aware of Daniel Estulin and the Bilderberg group, but they are all clearly aware that the increased technological means are being used by those with the most resources to exploit those with less. David Ray Griffin a theologian, author and one of the lead speakers worldwide for the 9/11 truth movement, a movement that pushes to expose the cover up surrounding the events of 9/11/2001, supports these claims. In his latest publication he discussed something called SCAD.
SCAD is a term used by the American Behavioral Scientist, a social science journal, in an article recently published. The article “argues that social scientists need to develop a scientific approach to studying an increasingly important type of criminality: State Crimes Against Democracy,” or SCAD. While there has always been SCAD, for example, the Watergate break-ins and cover-up and the illegal arms sales and covert operations in Iran-Contra. The ability the government and corporations have to either misinform the public, overload them or simply hide the truth altogether is astounding.
Technological overload is not talked about enough. We live in a country that’s values and way of life are dependent on technological upgrades. We have a problem, “our brains can process only so much information. If we exceed our cognitive threshold, we panic or shut down or find ourselves in the biological equivalent of a computer system's crash.”(Neuman) On a more subtle level most of us need go no further than a friend or family member that has a blackberry and a facebook. Make your best attempt and holding a meaningful conversation with them. They will generally hold a conversation with you but never really be engaged. They are not present for you nor are they really present to what it is they are doing on their gadget, they are in a state of cognitive limbo.
Neuman makes the point, “our common conception of our own info-sorting abilities turns out to be fundamentally wrong.” But what does he mean by this? He goes on to say that we have a “sophisticated capacity for ignoring, filtering, and occasionally purposefully selecting information.” Neuman’s research may one day show us “how citizens are exercising their powerful capacities for selective attention in monitoring the mass-mediated world around them.” He is doing this by analyzing the ratio of media supply to media demand.
Aqueil believes, like Roman, simply having technology does not necessarily improve people’s lives. They both appeal to the idea that users need to have the proper training, understanding and wherewithal to benefit from the availability of information. Aqueil focuses more on the fact that the less fortunate are always behind the curve on upgrades. Roman seems to address the same issue, but does so without ever really mentioning it. Romans position could be easily correlated with families economic status and their availability to parent their children as well as their ability to put them into private schools or highly credited colleges. “How citizens are exercising their powerful capacities for selective attention in monitoring the mass-mediated world around them.”( Neuman)
Ondi Timoner produced an eye opening documentary called We Live In Public. It was a story about the creation of the world wide web and the man that was ahead of it all, Josh Harris. Harris showed the world that technology is advancing quickly, yet man is evolving at only a fraction in comparison. The documentary starts off with Josh’s voice, “ The internet is like this new human experience, at first everyone is going to like it, but there will be a fundamental change in the human condition. One day we are all going to wake up and realize were all servants, its captured us.” He shows that most people are in the fast lane trying to reach goals that were brainwashed into them. Upon creating the first interactive web software and television, Josh told news correspondent Bob Simon “we are in the business of programming people’s lives.” What is ironic is that Josh also said that “it is wrong to invade people’s privacy with cameras.” (Harris) But apparently he think is okay to program their minds. In any event, it is scary to know that one of the leaders of the world wide web predicted that it would enslave humanity. He made it clear in his introduction, “ Three hundred year ago the lions and tigers were kings of the jungle and then one day they wound up in zoos. I suspect we are on the same track.” (Harris)
Do you think you have control over your thoughts and ideas? Are you cognitively aware of the choices you make and the reasons you make them? I am curious how technological progress can be said to be increasing peoples capability of human relations. How can it be said that technology is strengthening personal relationships when it is quickly becoming the largest distraction in human interaction? On June 4, 2010 I was at my brothers house to celebrate his birthday. The barbeque was going and people were everywhere. While sitting outside at the picnic table, I overheard my sister in law and another guest talking about face-book and the effects of technology. They had nothing good to say. Apparently my niece Mallory was almost afraid to use the phone to call her grandma, she doesn’t know how to engage in a phone conversation. All she knows how to do is text message and instant message. When she was asked to use the phone book she got a confused look, she had never used one before. But all day from the time she wakes up at 6am, she is communicating with people on her phone. Sadly Mallory is like so many others who have been enslaved by technology.
After watching Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room I could not help but correlate the means of corruption to technology. Enron’s capitalist misadventures were made possible through technological advancements and fast paced lifestyles of greed. On one hand, Enron’s exploitations of California’s power supply was unethical and horrific, on the other it showed amazing innovation and ability to maximize capital by understanding the complex power grids and complicated laws. Without technology, Enron and other major banks and corporations would not be able to engage in such lucrative and unethical ponzi schemes. Technology allowed California citizens to become slaves and those at the helm lost their souls and freedom for the economic gains of technological terrorism.
You might one day be the victim of technological terrorism, chances are good that you already have been. You may one day be the perpetrator of technological terrorism, one does not have to know what he or she is doing to adversely affect others and their environment. I would challenge all who read this to ask questions about how and why things work the way they do, if you don’t, you might not be anything more than a computer waiting for an upgrade.
I discussed the process of writing this paper with a friend. When I got to the area where we have peer reviews, I made the comment, “I do not use any of the information given from other students. Instead I use friends and family members.” When asked why, I had to think about it. First I pointed out that I like to be able to call the person on the phone and talk to them. My friend asked why I could not do that with the students. Again, I had to think about this, especially since every class I have ever taken, I have gotten phone numbers and made personal contact. It occurred to me that I do not know anyone because this is an online class and do not trust or care to be criticized by people I don’t know. I have not gotten phone numbers from any of the students nor have I talked to any of the students. On-line classes are very impersonal. I don’t learn as much when taking on-line classes and feel a social absence.




 Aldous Huxley - Speech at UC Berkeley, The Ultimate Revolution 1962.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt2Lp7yxi14





Works Cited
Ahmad, Aqueil. "The World is (Not) Flat." Globalization (15359794) 2008: 1. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 May 2010.

Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room. Dir. Alex Gibney. Prod. Alex Gibney. By Alex Gibney. Spring 2007. Web. 20 May 2010. .
Greene, Stuart, April Lidinsky, and Cynthia L. Selfe. "Lest We Think the Revolution Is a Revolution: Images of Technology and the Nature of Change." From Inquiry to Academic Writing: a Text and Reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 784-97. Print.
Griffin, David R. "Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight." (2010). Print.
Manwell, Laurie. "In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11." Sage Journals Online 53 (2010): 795-825. Print.
Molyneux, Stefan. "YouTube - The Story of Your Enslavement." Freedomain Radio. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 10 June 2010. .
Neuman, W. Russell. "Appraising Information Abundance." Chronicle of Higher Education      56.21 (2010): B8-B10. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 May 2010.

Orwell Rolls in His Grave. Dir. Robert K. Pappas. Sky Island Films, 2003. DVD.
Quigley, Carroll. Tragedy and Hope: a History of the World in Our Time / Carroll Quigley. Hollywood, Calif.: Angriff, 1984. Print.
We Live In Public. Dir. Ondi Timoner. Sag Harbor-Basement Pictures, 2009. DVD.
"YouTube - George Carlin -"Who Really Controls America"" H.B.O. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 10 June 2010. .
"YouTube - How George Carlin Deals with Globalism (NWO)." Interview. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 10 June 2010. .