First, read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut.
This question has two parts. First, Harrison Bergeron was written in 1961. What could technology do today, fifty years later, to make everyone "equal" as they are in the story? What avenues are available? What about the virtual world...is everyone equal online?
Second, is equality necessarily a good thing? How do we discern between "good" equality and the dystopian forced equality of Harrison Bergeron?
Technology makes everyone equal in its very nature. iPads, laptops and phones alike, were meant for equality in human nature. We have social platforms today, like Facebook, Twitter and Google Plus to make our word known to other's. Ammendments protect these rights that we have and hopefully bills like CISPA will not overturn their ability to do so.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is equal online because their are no boundaries, no matter what "Halal Internet" a government has set up. You can not shut the people up.
Equality is a very good thing, in that nobody is better than anybody. However, when we get into government's definition of equality, that is where we skew the line of equality. This is when equality becomes inequality. Faith and belief determine as equality and inequality.
Your right they're are no boundrie's on the internet.
Delete(http://youtu.be/-IpPPDYWexE jkjk :D
I like that you bring up the idea of the national intranet or "halal internet". Hopefully something like this will not come to fruition. If such technology were prominent I feel like this would limit digital equality on the global scale. If some countries utilized this technology, while others didn't the flow of information would be greatly impeded in the world.
I feel like we could say that such technology is already in use by some governments today. How about the Great Firewall of China? The outright censorship of North Korean internet and others such as Iran and Cuba.
DeleteCompared to the relative openness of most networks, I wouldn't say this is prominent. The fact that it exists means that a very small portion of the global community is digitally unequal and at a disadvantage.
The potential for equality is certainly much more prevalent now than it has been in the past. With equal rights for women and minorities (for the most part), we have seen major changes in what the average citizen can do with their life. I use the word citizen deliberately, because I am refering to the way that the average US citizen has far more advantages than any other country. If you want true equallity you cannot just think about the people around you that you see every day, you must consider all people. The story was interesting in the way that people were made not to increase their intelligence, but to decrease it if they had too much. This is short sighted in that having the highest IQ possible rarely matters if you live in a 3rd world country. Our success in life stems so little from our intelligence and athletic ability, but stems more from our place of birth.
ReplyDeleteI realize this is a very specific stand point to have, but I feel that your place of birth has so much to do with one's success, that in order to be equal, we will have to all have the same opportunities from day one.
"What could technology do today, fifty years later, to make everyone "equal" as they are in the story? What avenues are available?"
ReplyDeleteI'm confused by this question. The hyperbolic situation presented in this story is impossible. However, to equalize everyone in society using technology we have available now I think it could go a little something like this: People could interact virtually via the internet. I imagine something like the virtual world Second Life, only people's avatars would resemble these neutral characters from Futurama.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbclvfkrhI1rubjl2o1_400.jpg
People would communicate via text over the web only. Language would be censored and translated so that the user would always understand the vocabulary and topics being discussed. The software would also remove any sort of empathetic language. I feel like this would be comparable to the dystopian future seen in this short story.
However, Kurt Vonnegut's satirical image of the future seems to be a mockery of Russian socialism at the time. By making the handicaps of the characters physical and intellectual instead of economical and social, Vonnegut appears to be implying that equality would come from actual equal opportunity.
In our current virtual world, I think that people are more or less equal. Many online forums are anonymous and I feel anonymity is an equalizer. In an anonymous setting people rely on the content you present, as opposed to relying on any preconceived prejudices they may have.
Equality is a good thing. The idea that people will all have the same rights and opportunities is pretty, pretty, pretty good(http://youtu.be/O_05qJTeNNI). Compared to the fascist equality presented in Harrison Bergeron, "good" equality would come from knowledge and understanding. Knowledge would give people a larger understanding of people around them. Hopefully this would lead to empathy and understanding. If people utilized these tools in more aspects of life, I feel like it would only lead to good things. So basically "good" equality would be a natural progression of social growth instead of a forced, state mandated institution.
I think your idea of text only communication is a spot on example for this time period. I imagine your idea also bans the use of punctuation as emoticons ;-)
DeleteI'm in agreement that people are more of less equal, but I don't think it's their anonymity so much as it is just the voice that the virtual world gives them. Many, many users of forums freely share information about themselves in their accounts/posts.
In order to the answer the first question I think it's better to go in the opposite direction of the Mr. Vonnegut's article. By that I mean away from the tongue in cheek limits imposed on a population to a real world "hand up". The goal isn't to bring some individuals "down" to a certain level, but rather enable and bring "up" the disadvantaged.
ReplyDeleteA basic tenant of human nature is the need to communicate. This allows us to expand our horizons, learn, and flourish. Computers and the internet make communication easier and in some cases more robust (video chat vs. a telephone call). In this manner those of lesser opportunity are provided a tool that creates greater equality.
The example above is "good" equality in that it's created by itself on the backs of those motivated enough to achieve. It's easily discerned as good because nobody is forcing the issue. Equality that is "bad" is force fed without giving people a voice. Internet censorship by say Iran for example. "You all have access to the same subset of material and are told to think the same way"
I agree, exposure to many types of media and experiences is vital to us moving forward as a people. Censoring peoples' abilities is just as bad as censoring the television we are allowed to watch.
DeleteOrchid, Hex, Fuschia, Capn Crunch--well done here! This is a really strong conversation!
ReplyDelete