Technology is terrific. Technology is terrible. Or, in a mashup of Dickens with current norms of ahistorical, absolutist proclamations: these are the best of times; these are the worst of times. More accurately, as ecologists have long told us, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Technology is great, but we still gotta eat.

Thanks technology

To be clear, modern technology has been immensely beneficial. Communities, such as this one, come together through technology. People, cars, computers, and appliances can communicate continuously. Simulations and analyses that were impossible a generation ago are now commonplace. Tremendous gains in productivity, efficiency, and accuracy have been realized thanks to robotics and automation. The gig and sharing economy also opens income opportunities for those with computer skills, a spare room, or time to drive others around. In my own career, data management, analysis, scripting and programming have provided a middle class income in full time work with benefits.

Thanks technology

At the same time, downsides of technology are readily apparent. Social media takes time, but has yet to improve the quality of life for most users. Along with the benefits, internet technology and social media also reduce privacy, magnify mistakes, increase peer pressure, catalyze herd mentalities, and expose users to exploitation and abuse. Whereas, in previous years, most people could get by being good enough, we are now living in a winner take all world. I transitioned to work with technology, because academics has transformed into a field where the number of secure tenured positions is matched or exceeded by tenuous contract and adjunct work. Moving forward, there will be even less security as more classes move to online forums led by star instructors at prestigious institutions.

I am far from alone. The gig economy is largely part time work lacking benefits, breaks or security. The evolving situation in my field is common to many fields. Journalism, music and manufacturing have all felt the wrath of technology, as law, surgery, education, and other technical fields are now experiencing. Many who would be quite proficient in their work are losing out to a few fortunate practitioners. To add insult to injury, the winners are not necessarily the best or most qualified. Timing, chance, and above all, advertising are key. In this age of every man and woman is a star, true artists, experts and specialists are no better than an internet search. Impact is a product of social media followers, and self-promotion is preferred over experience. You promote yourself, while paid advertising takes up significant bandwidth and clutters web pages to the point of being unreadable.

In short, we all share in the benefits of technology in our daily lives. In the meantime, a few people grow extremely wealthy while most have suffered or stagnated economically. In addition, technology businesses gain competitive advantages by sidestepping taxes and regulations, while investors cram money into unprofitable ventures in hopes of future riches wrought from destructive industry disruption.

Of course, I don’t want to go back. I love having teaching resources available online. Nor, do I wish to go back to endless hours in bookstores searching for solutions to programming questions that I can now find online in minutes. Does anybody want to return to film only cameras, no online movies or music, or news from 3 networks and 2 local papers? The question is not about rewinding progress, it’s about how do we incorporate technological advancement in just, equitable and egalitarian ways.

Others have addressed these issues in much more detail than I can include in one post. Two that I have read, and who have shaped my thinking are Jaron Lanier with Who Owns the Future and You Are Not a Gadget, and Andrew Keen with The Internet Is Not The Answer. Neither of these authors, nor anybody else has solved the aforementioned issues. They do illustrate quite well the pitfalls of progress, and that we cannot rely on this ship or its current captains to steer us on a favorable course. They do offer insights and suggestions that are worthy of further discussion and, possibly, implementation.

Both Lanier and Keen make it clear that a few people and corporations are getting rich due to us. We are the resource. They buy and sell our information and contributions. Without us, they have nothing but millions of lines of code and, perhaps, a few samples. Our lives get a little easier and we save some money. A few coders make a decent living, fewer still get rich, and most of us scrape by in increasingly insecure gigs. This is not sustainable.

Both Lanier and Keen also suggest remedies, which I do not fully understand and will not adequately convey. Still, I will try. Lanier proposes that, since our information is monetized, then we should be paid for our contributions. Furthermore, each of us should have a say in what we want to share, and what we want to keep private. Our resource is not simply exploited, but is the lifeblood of a respectful two-way flow between the data handlers and us, the data creators. Keen adds the recognition of the need for regulation. The European Union has led the way with laws such as the right to be forgotten. If companies are exploiting our information, then we need to have a say in how our information is used.

From here, I want to build upon the notions indicated by these and other authors that present-day technological advancement is analogous to the industrial revolution. For this, I will copy from a comment I made in December. The tech owners are like the industrial owners in that they are robber barons taking advantage of technological advances to enrich themselves and trying to make a feudal system. Libertarian ideals rule. The middle class will keep declining and inequality will increase until we force them to change. One difference is that our personal information is now a major commodity. They won’t respect us personally until we make them, just as we had to persuade industrialists to respect the environment.

A key point is that the direction won’t change until we make it change. I do not see the profiteers sharing enough for a robust middle class without persuasion. Neither do I see government action having any significant effects, particularly with anti-regulation government haters running our government.

A significant question then becomes how do we persuade those who think that they are in control? Obviously, we organize. But, how? Can we persuade enough people to boycott the data exploiters to have an effect? Should we think in terms of boycotts until our demands are met, or would more people join if there were regular temporary actions, such as No Facebook Friday, Twitterless Tuesday, a Youtube-free week, or One Day Without Google? Would other actions help? For instance, can we educate people on how much of their information is taken and how much money is made from that information?

Beyond these direct issues are large scale conceptions of economics. Do we need a base level income provided by the government? If so, who will pay? Perhaps increases in corporate taxes would pay, but those increases are not coming any time soon. Are current developments further illustrating how our concepts of value are limited? What is value? How does money reflect value? Is it accurate or comprehensive? Are there better ways? Do we even need money? Or, do we need big data and central planning to account for each person’s worth and deserved share of available resources? Alternatively, can a self-organizing system of digital value replace national currencies without any centralized planning or records?

One thing of which I am certain is that each of us deserves dignity and respect. The current system exploits most and disrespects individuals by failing to properly value and reward our contributions. That being said, the respect goes both ways. We have an unprecedented array of resources at our fingertips. We failed to adequately respect our natural resources, and many living beings paid for it, and other will continue to pay for our arrogance for the foreseeable future. I believe that respect and humility on the part of both corporate owners and customers is called for. I had planned to transition here into a discussion of artificial intelligence and robot rights, but I have already made you read too much, so that will have to wait for another entry.

Cross posted at Daily Kos