Something we should think about - Does our technology destroy our humanity?

In a recent article entitled The Moral Hazard of Drones  in the New York Times John Kaag and Sarah Kreps raise a very critical question about our relationship with our technology. They state, "

As in the myth of Gyges, our use of drone warfare confuses our ability to kill without detection with the moral right to do so.

As anthropologists (scientists and  humanists), we should recognize from our archaeological and ethnographic archives the moral hazard that this conundrum presents to our species. Do we have an answer to it?

 Human beings exist in a Superorganic environment created by our unique intelligence, our collective memories and the technologies these have produced that enable us to become the dominant species on this planet. For a million years our species and precursors have relied on technology to give us an edge in the evolutionary game of survival of the fittest. But over the past 500 years, our technology and the environment it creates for us has become as much a threat to humanity and its survival as it has been the tool by which the superorganic evolves.

If you question this assumption, think of the millions of human beings who died because the invention of navigational tools and science, and deep water sailing ships broke down the natural barriers between the old and new worlds. These brought the Europeans and their diseases to the new world and disseminated the peoples who lived here. Just as the rapid growth in international air travel today brings peoples from all parts of world and their products together in a one world system where humans competes with and use advanced technologies to survive.

One might argue that this is the old Luddite argument against the machine and technology. That it is the political argument that favors labor over technology, that pits labor against capital. But these are political arguments easily dismissed by partisan philosophies and ideologies.

The question Kaag and Kreps present is moral, not political, but the solution may require a political solution. It has to do with the question of survival of our humanity. If you study the HISTORY of the technology of weapons, you will find that going from the hand axe that one uses to beat the prey to death and move to today to the predator drone where you sit in air conditioned quarters half way around the world and destroy a truck (and kill the human occupant), you will find that we become more psychological desensitized or disengaged the further and further away we become from the physical act of killing.

To be human is to have empathy. There are only a few species that we know of with this capacity. There is only one species so physically generalized that it has adopted technology as it means to adapting to environmental change. The further removed our technology makes us from the consequences of our action, the less empathy we have for the victim. As the technology of killing becomes more sophisticated and efficient, the whole process has becomes more mechanical and dehumanizing.

The question is a practical, pragmatic one. When killing is a job, there is a lose of one's humanity, a lose of empathy. Terrorism is successful only as long as we put a human face on the deaths and suffering that the terrorist can produce. The whole of the United States military technology has not been able to stop or beat terrorist attacks using technologies like IEDs or using using a human bomb. Our greatest fear is that A TERRORIST will obtain and successfully deploy a WMV (technology) in a major populated setting. How do we control this and not lose our own humanity? 

Where is the responsibility for the moral hazard that this technology imposes on our species?

Are Memes dangerous to humans?

Memes are those meaningful elements found in the members of a superorganic entity. They act like genes do in an organic entity to determine what the individual will look like and how they will act. Memes can be beneficial such "altruism" or they can be deleterious such as "suicidal".

In the current Deep Water Horizon disaster, where lives have been lost, careers and businesses ruined, the environment and way of life of the Gulf Coast threaten with permanent lose, we find that there is a meme which causes its infected host to be blind to the meaning and impact of the situation.

Here is an example of a politician infected by the meme "corporate capitalism." Ask yourself. "Is this politician's meme infection dangerous to the health and welfare of human beings and nature?" Or "Is it an example of a predatory parasitic meme blinding a good descent human being to the reality of his position?"




We can see from Rep. Joe Barton's statement that the "corporate capitalism" meme has lead to a misappropriate application of the "shakedown" meme in his speech. This lead to a behavioral reaction -- that of applying the "apology" meme inappropriately. The "apology" meme is normally applied by the guilty party to ask for forgiveness from the harmed party. In this case, Rep. Barton displays a pathological misunderstanding of the "apology" meme as it applies to this situation. This is evidence of how memes can be dangerous to human beings.

TOO BIG TO FAIL: Systematic Pragmatism or Moral Hazard

The Economic crisis of 2008-2009 is summarized in the PBS program, Frontline's February 17, 2009 "Inside the Meltdown". This crisis threatened to bring down the American and global economy and lead to the popularization of the phrase "Too big to fail."

"Too big to fail" means that a superorganic entity, "Corporation," is so complex and so intertwined with the other elements that make up the many levels of the superorganic entity known as the "Nation", that the failure of the former could result in the fatal failure or death of the latter.

As the Frontline report makes clear -- when it comes to the superorganic, human moral principles come up against the question of systematic pragmatism. When the survival of the whole depends upon the survival of the one critical part that is TOO BIG TO FAIL, then how do we, as individuals, justify and come to an accommodation with the paradox of personal responsibility vs the greater good?

The questions it raises for us are two-fold:

Should the greed and selfishness which fostered the systematic breakdown of Wall Street's investment banks be punished by letting the individual and institutional immorality be punished by letting them fail regardless of the collateral damage to the nation's financial system? (Moral Hazard)

Or, Should those responsibility for safe guarding the United States' financial system as a whole, step forward and take over the failed system, and, in effect, reward greed and stupidity in order to mitigate the collateral damage and to save the system? (Systematic Pragmatism)

As we come out of the depths of the crisis, it is time to take stock.

Here is the paradox we now face, what was TOO BIG TO FAIL, is today MUCH TOO BIG TO FAIL.

For example: As part of the Bush/Obama solution to the crisis -- big investment banks that failed have been allowed to fail in the case of Lehman Brothers, or forced to merge with stronger ones, i.e. J.P. Morgan/Bear Sterns and Bank of American/Merrill-Lynch. In either case, where there were 5; now there are 2.

Financial innovation such a credit default swaps are sold with no regard to the "product liability" concerns that innovators in other sectors of the economy are held to. Should there be an FDA or CPSC to oversee the manufacture and marketing of "toxic" assets. Should the stock analyst be held accountable for false advertising? Where are the trial lawyers and regulators?

Should the fund managers for the nation's retirement funds, the major investors in Wall Street, be held accountable for their failure as fiduciary agents to safe guard the long term interests of their clients. Should there be special rules for fiduciary capitalism to distinguish it from entrepreneurial capitalism?

Do the survivors of the crisis represent a healthy new heart for our financial system or are they part of the same cancer in the system?

Are the moral ideals of a "free market" and "capitalistic political system" still philosophically valid principles for government today in a global, instantaneous economy where private corporations are free to move assets anywhere at any time without any responsibility to anyone for the consequences?

If governments are the courts and banks of last resort for their people (citizens), can a republican democracy limit their exposure to financial failure while maintaining a principle of moral hazard applicable to its citizens and institutions equally?

Or, Does a systematic pragmatism require a redefinition of the principles of republican democracy and a formal differentiation in the role of government toward different segments of its citizens?

Should any corporation be allowed to become TOO BIG TO FAIL?

These are the questions the American people and their representatives must address in the remaining months of 2009 and will answer in the election of 2010.