The morality of technology

This has been a very interesting week to be a New Age Democrat, and David Brooks has summed up why. The news media for the past week have, predictably, been focusing on the wrong issue: the plight of a woman in Florida who has been in a vegetable state for the past 15 years and has been allowed to die. The real issue isn't the woman, but the fact that the federal government has made a special case out of this woman to allow her parents to try to keep her alive, and to allow social conservatives to advocate a culture of life. Brooks, however, pinpoints the critical moral arguments involved. "The core belief that social conservatives bring to cases like Terri Schiavo's is that the value of each individual life is intrinsic. The value of a life doesn't depend upon what a person can physically do, experience or achieve. The life of a comatose person or a fetus has the same dignity and worth as the life of a fully functioning adult. ... The core belief that social liberals bring to cases like Ms. Schiavo's is that the quality of life is a fundamental human value. They don't emphasize the bright line between life and death; they describe a continuum between a fully lived life and a life that, by the sort of incapacity Terri Schiavo has suffered, is mere existence." He argues that social conservative have a superior moral argument that contradicts reality because technology allows us to see life on a continuum. He also argues that social liberals recognize the reality, and are therefore pragmatic, but have a weak moral argument because they will allow anything and everything to happen under the simple word "tolerance".

Well, the problem with Brooks is that is he upholding morality as a separate realm of thought and inquiry from all other realms of thought, and he is treating it as a controlling, determining realm of thought. In reality, moral thought is highly contingent on environmental factors and circumstances. Social conservatives may think that moral thought is based on the search for fixed principles, but fixed principles simply don't exist. In reality, all moral thought is contingent on technology.

This essay is titled "The morality of technology", but it could just as easily be called "The technological basis of morality". The central problem that humans have always had in life is sustaining life, or mere existence. When life is more difficult to maintain, morality becomes more important because it provides instructions that compensate for the absence of technology. For instance, the moral instruction "to not lie" is irrelevant if we have technology that either prevents people from lying, or gives everyone the same ability to detect lies. Without that technology, lying hurts our collective survival. Thus, we need moral guidelines, based on the conception of an omniscient god, to compensate the limited technology. The same goes for other moral guidelines, such as "do not kill" or "do not steal." Murder is wrong only if it hurts our chance of survival as a human race. Since our technology is not yet able to revive a person who has been murdered, or able to keep a person immortal in the event of attempted murder, we have moral instructions that compensate for the limited technology. Again, we rely on the concept of an all-poowerful God, who is able to give and take life. Finally, for theft, we do not have the technology to perfectly recreate property that has been stolen, and therefore in a world of scarcity with need the moral instruction "do not steal" to compensate for our lack of technology. We rely on the concepts of an all-powerful and all loving God to compensate for the limited technology.

With that understanding, it is quite easy to see that most of our ideas about what is right or wrong in a particular case have to do with the ability of technology to provide a particular kind of lifestyle, or quality of life. We want a human being to be able to live what we call a "full" life, with our without the aid of technology. A full life entails the ability to interact with other people and entities, the ability to develop and improve past a current condition, and the ability to think, which is the basis for the first two abilities. When a person loses the ability to think, the ability to interact and improve are eliminated.

The problem with technology is that it is largely stupid. It cannot think for us yet. Consequently, technology can be used at minimum to sustain physical existence without thought, interaction, or improvement, and it can be used at maximum to aid the development of thought, interaction, and improvement. Yet, technology cannot replace thought and interaction, or provide the basis for improvement. Only humans can do that so far. Granted, at some point in the coming century, or millennium, we may develop artificial intelligence that allows technology, especially computing technology, to replace thought and interaction, and even provide a basis for improvement. The implication of such a development is the subject of another essay, and of such movies as "The Matrix" or "Terminator". Until we get to that point, we need to consider how technology determines our moral considerations.

Our current technology can easily sustain life. Therefore, we don't need moral instructions to compensate for the lack of such technology. We do not have the technology to create life, but we do have the technology to destroy life. Thus, the most we can achieve is sustenance and destruction. The problem with the sustenance of life is that, subjectively, the experience of a sustained life without thought, interaction, or improvement, is identical to the experience of the destruction of life. Thus, we don't use technology to sustain life that is no different from the absense of life. We use technology only if there is a chance that a person can develop the ability to think, interact, and improve. If there is no chance, then the rule of scarcity dictates that someone else who can possibly think, interact, and improve should have access to the technology.

Consequently, let's apply technology to two phrases: (1) culture of life, and (2) quality of life. The idea behind the phrase "culture of life" is that life is inherently capable of thought, interaction and improvement. Otherwise, if something cannot change and adapt to its environment in order to live, it is not alive. The classical definition of biological life is thus the ability to interact with one's environment in order to gather information about it for the purpose of adapting and improving. Thought, or the analysis of information from the environment, isn't always necessary. Animals seem to adapt well through instinct and genetic structure. What makes humans different is the fact that we can use thought to interact not only with our environment but with each other in order to promote collective action. Thus, we communicate with each other to forms all sorts of social structures. We pass those social structures on to future generations through communication. All of this requires thought.

The phrase "culture of life" is more suitable for the biological definition of life because it doesn't acknowledge the nature of humanity. It is better for animals to live than to die, and humans are animals at a basic level. Yet, humans have conditions for life and death, arguing that there are certain types of physical existence that are worse than death. This is why we easily understand the idea of a "slow death" or a "horrible death", and we yearn for a "quick death". Our notions of life and death are contingent on technology providing us with a (1) pain-free existence, and (2) interaction with others. Death without dignity is a death preceded by pain and the inability to interact. We now rely on technology to eliminate pain, and we rely on technology to facilitate interaction. Yet, the key tool that facilitates interaction is the brain. Without the brain to provide thought, technology in its current state is useless, and attempts at interaction are futile. Hence, a "culture of life" turns into a "culture of death" if it forces people to prolong a painful existence that is devoid of interaction. Such an existence makes death desirable.

The phrase "quality of life" recognizes the nature of humanity, acknolwedging that pleasure and pain, thought and communication, as well as improvement, are the basis of human life. Without thought as the basic tool to sort through all of these qualities, there can be no quality of life, and thus there can be no such thing as life as we know it. Humans are not animals. We do not simply adapt to the environment in order to survive. We form thoughts and communicate with other humans in order to control our environment. Without control there can be no improvement in life. This is the way we distinguish between high quality of life and low quality of life. We call it "the high life" and the "low life". The high life is free of pain, filled with pleasure, entails constant communication and interaction, and promotes various kinds of control over the environment. The low life is filled with pain, almost devoid of pleasure, entails very little communication or interaction, and promotes powerlessness so that individuals cannot control their envrionments. People who live this kind of existance - usually poor criminals - are called "low lifes". In contrast, people who live the life of pleasure, communication and control are living in "high society".

In this way we see that assisted suicide is simply a recognition of the nature of humanity. It is the tool used by either the patient or the patient's guardian to end life when life becomes filled with more pain than pleasure, more isolation than communication, and greater loss of control over one's environment. As one starts to experience more of these elements of the "low life", one starts to lose one's qualities as a human being, becoming more like an animal than a sentient being. Hence, we say that one should die "with dignity", or with the full capabilities of a human being. We also say that those who aid in this death to avert the loss of dignity are acting with "compassion".

The fundamental problem for conservatives is that they do not recognize the fundamental nature of humanity. They think all thoughts comes from God, all pleasure and goodness comes from God, and that all control over the environment comes from God such that all improvement comes from God. Hence, religious conservatives call life a "gift", and each day of life is such as "gift". This ignores the role of the human mind in developing technology to do all the things that we attribute to God. Hence, the real lesson in all of this is that humans now are recognizing that they increasingly have the powers of God, and will probably soon have all of the powers of God to create and rejuvenate life. This creates a crisis for the conservative worldview because it elimiates God from everything, reducing all behavior to human control, and thus supposedly abandoning all moral instructions.

The reality is that our moral instructions are increasingly becoming obsolete because we are rapidly developing the technology to sustain life, promote life, and improve life. Yet, this technology only works when a person is capable of thinking, interacting and improving. When we recognize that we cannot use technology to squeeze water from a rock, it is time to let the rock remain a rock. Humanity is now recognizing that it can play God, because in reality humanity is God.

The proper political response to the New Age

Publius makes the interesting argument that "we are not living in a new, unprecedented era", despite technological difference between now and, say, 100 years ago. Instead, he argues that "all we are living in is the next logical phase of the industrial revolution", which is globalization. The proper political response to globalization, he argues, is not incremental Clintonian policy, but policy that focuses on international responses to the globalized economy.

There are two problems with this argument. The first problem it mistakes a change in kind for a change in degree. This is also the argument that Thomas Friedman addresses in "The Lexus and the Olive Tree". Most political economists know that what we call globalization today pales in comparison to the globalization of the 19th century, when the British Empire provided a gold standard that allowed for the easy exchange of goods, labor, and services throughout the developed world, and led to rapid industrialization of the developing world. The problem is that this was all disrupted by World War I, which led to World War II, and the Cold War. The environment that allowed 19th century globalization to exist - friendly state relations, low trade barriers - resurfaced after the Cold War ended. Thus, the 1990s saw the rebirth of globalization. Thus, most observers of globalization say that today's globalized world is simply a bigger version of 19th century globalization.

However, this is wrong. Today, we have a difference in kind, not of degree. The difference is the global spread of information technology, spurred by the low cost of microchips, spurred by the growth of multinational corporations. The 19th century didn't see MNCs on the scale that we have them today, but the MNCs couldn't exist on today's scale without the existence of low-cost information technology. Today's globalizaiton is a difference in kind, not of degree, because it cannot be stopped by high trade barriers or unfriendly governments. Indeed, today;s globalization makes all regional conflict instantly global, even without a Cold War, because the regional actors can use information technology, and other technology, to affect the entire world.

This is why Thomas Friedman refers to super-empowered angry men, because the state has become largely impotent when dealing with both multinational corporations and multinational terrorist organizations. Both types of groups use the exact same technology: cell phones, satellites, the Internet, etc. Both groups are outside of the sphere of control of local governments. That's why Osama bin Laden is such a challenge to capture, and why Mexico, Thailand, or Brazil, do the bidding of Intel, Ford, or McDonalds. MNCs bring the much needed capital for economic development, and small individuals use the technology provided by this capital and technology to copy the power of MNCs. A person can use the Internet and information technology to become a billionaire, move the funds to secure locations all over the world, and stay out of the reach of local governments and international agencies.

The difference between 21st century globalization and 19th century globalization is that governments actually mattered in the former. They do not matter in the latter. No matter how big or small governments get, they cannot control the flow of international capital, they cannot control the flow of international criminals, and they cannot control the flow of technology and software. This is why Napster and its clones are causing such a headache for the music industry, and why Microsoft caused such a headache for the United States government. The power to control the distribution of resources used to be in the hands of villages and townships, then the power shifted to states and national governments. Now, with 21st century globalization, power has shifted down the to individual. Any individual who is smart enough and wealthy enough to acquire as much, or more power, compared to any government. A government can invade another country. A wealthy individual can bankrupt another country, or create internal disorder.

This gets us to the second problem with Publius' argument. He advocates global political responses to the information age. Indeed, global political responses may come about at some point. However, the information age renders political responses moot.

Politics is the act of uniting with like-minded individuals to pool resources as a response to market failures. When the market is limited in reach, or fails to work as it should, politics is the only possible response because the government must provide a remedy. However, the information age and globalization allow the market to exist everywhere, and they make the market very robust - so much that even governments have to act like corporations and private firms.

Government simply isn't absolutely necesary anymore. It can help in certain situations, but it isn't critical. A government provides something that can now be provided by information technology: shared information. If we are interested in pooling resources, all we need to know is "who needs what?" If individuals can use information technology to identify and address needs, the only function for government is to protect individuals from faud. However, in an individual engages in fraud, the community will quickly recognize it and kick the individual out of the community. Hence, where governments imprison, information technology allows communities to exile. Indeed, exile is the old response of communities to criminal elements, before governments decided to build prisons and police forces.

So, we are living in a new age, and no amount of political response or will is going to change that. Globalization facilitated the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, but it wasn't stopped by it, or by any of the political changes that have resulted from it. No matter where the locus of control is - city, state, national, international - the power is now in the hands of individuals who know how to use information technology. Thus, the only proper political response is to use that technology to enhance communities. Communities are essential because only communities can exile individuals, or put pressure on individuals to change their criminal ways.

Restore the Craft

The headline is not a typo. I am not talking here about Iraq, terrorism, or the draft. Instead, I am talking about a much more fundamental issue in American life.

Recently, David Brooks and Robert Reich wrote Op-Ed pieces in the New York Times about two apparently different topics. Brooks wrote about the use of separate checking accounts in marriage. Reich wrote about the reason why Wal-Mart is so successful. Brooks wrote that separate checking accounts have their origin in our hyper-individualistic, capitalist society, which promotes self-indulgence and person growth over shared values, the common good, and personal sacrifice. He says these values are disrupted to the family, which is based on self-sacrifice for the purpose of producing children. Indeed, he puts it in almost either/or terms: either you take care of yourself, with your separate checking account, or you take care of your children and your family, with a joint checking account. The market and the family have different foundations, and although they both need to exist, one should not incorporate the values of the other.

Reich talks about the conflicting economic goals of society, which is based on the labor market and the market place. As workers, we want to earn as high a wage as possible for our contribution. However, as customers, we want to pay as little as possible for the products we purchase. We cannot have it both ways because the money we pay for products is the money that businesses use to pay their employees. If we pay less for products, employers cannot pay their employees very much. The bottom line is that a living wage and a good bargain are not compatible goals. They contradict each other.

The reason I have titled this piece "Restore the Craft" is because the craft is the basis of both the marketplace and the family. Reich is correct: it is impossible to get bargains for purchases and to promote living wages simultaneously. However, instead of sacrificing our income to promote a living wage, and instead of restricting the growth of Wal-Mart, we can do something entirely different: we can start our own businesses. We can become the capitalists.

Every economist knows that there are two types of capitalism: industrial capitalism and market capitalism. They are based on two opposing premises. The premise of industrial capitalism is to have continuous profits. People invest in a company, the company grows by hiring more people, developing more products, and giving increased dividends to the shareholders. The shareholders want their money to double, triple, or more, and so they invest in companies that will grow more by either producing more products or paying workers less. You get a profit by having more income than expenses. If employers pay more for labor, they cannot make much profit. Thus, in order to maximize profit, employers must eliminate labor costs.
The premise of market capitalism is sustainability. It is the law of the bazaar, which we have had for all of human existence. I make a piece of clothing, you pay me for the cost of the materials, and maybe a little extra. I don't need much money to sustain my life. I only need food, clothing, and shelter. As long as I can walk, I can travel. As long as I am living around people, I have a community. The rule of the market is that I sell products to sustain myself, and once I achieve sustenance I do not have to sell any more products. We really don't even need the market to achieve sustenance. All we need is the ability to produce our own goods, which we then consume. Instead of buying bread from someone else, I can bake my own bread. The same goes for clothes, books, music, toys, and any other product.

Industrial capitalism destroys market capitalism because it destroys the idea of sustenance. The goal of industrial capitalism is to live off the work of others: you make the bread, I pay for it. You make the bread, I sell it to someone else and make a profit from your labor. The goal of profit contradicts the goal of sustenance. Indeed, most people intuitively understand the goal of sustenance. We all need to live. Most people understand the goal of profit. We want to have as much leisure time as possible, without spending so much time struggling to live. Few people understand that the goals of sustenance and of profit cannot coexist in
perfect harmony.

This brings me to the family. Families exist for the purpose of promoting sustenance. Every family has some type of a division of labor, but every family also has shifting roles in that labor. The wife cooks sometimes, and the husband cooks other times. Even the children cook sometimes. The rule of industrial capitalism is to have specialization such that a given person can only do a given job, and must undergo years of training to do any other specialized work. There is no specialization in families though. Instead, families promote each other by occupying multiple roles simultaneously.

The reason people get separate bank accounts is so they can develop their own special interests. Their special interests are based on their separate specialization in the industrial society. This contradicts the idea of having shared interests in the family.

The reason I talk about restoring the craft is because a craft is the only way to incorporate special interests into shared interests. A craft is a method of producing something. It could be a pie, a play, a book, a poem, or a shirt. When making any of these things, the individual cares about the quality of the final product. The individual also knows that quality is dependent on how you make the product. The process and the product are indistinguishable. Thus is because there are rules to follow - syntax, grammar, order, steps - when making anything. These rules can be improved with specialization, but the craft shows all people how to learn these specialized rules.

The principle of industrial capitalism is that knowledge, or the ability to apply specific rules, is restricted to workers. Workers compete with each other to increase their own understanding of the rules, but if one person is better at applying a set of rules, he receives the money and the job for making the product. Indeed, this person directs everyone else on how to follow the same rules.

The principle of the craft is that, once a person develops a better way of making a product, he doesn't get more money for that knowledge or get a job where he can apply that knowledge. Instead, the principle of the craft stipulates that a person who improves a process shares the improved process with everyone else. There is no "job" because the process is the job. There is no "income" from the job because the finished product is the only income.

This, of course, goes against what Adam Smith said when he advised us about the structure of a market economy. He argued that a person does not make a product for himself, but for other people, and the reward is the profit from selling the product to other people. The rule of the craft, in contrast, is that a person makes a product for himself and for other people simultaneously, and the reward is the use of the product itself. This is the fundamental origin of family. Kids are the product, and everyone in the family shares their improved methods of raising the children. The reward is the children themselves. The kids are raised by teaching them how to make products, and to engage in the process of the craft. If a child has an interest, show the child how to consistently apply that interest to making products, and how to consistently improve the products. Teach the child that the joy in life comes from using the improved products.

Thus, Reich and Brooks are pointing to the exact same problem - the rule of convenience and the abandonment of the craft. Convenience forces us to abandon the craft because it forces us to ignore how a product is made. It forces us to separate the quality of the product from the production process, when the quality and the process are innately connected to each other. Convenience, and profit, present paradoxes to use, and automatically point to the importance of the craft, because the purpose of convenience and of profit is to lead directly back to the craft.

Profit allows us to use our time for making products that we like and enjoy, instead of having to worry about sustenance. Convenience allows us to quickly take care of sustenance so that we can move on to making and enjoying products. However, when we have too much convenience, and too much profit, we end up with a lot of free time. If we forget about the craft, we end up with time that we don't know how to use. Consequently, we stop enjoying life because the craft is what allows us to enjoy life.

So, instead of worrying about having separate checking accounts, or about what to do about Wal-Mart, the important step we should be taking is restoring the craft in family, friendship and business. We need to pay close attention to the process in everything around us, because by improving the process we directly impact our quality of life. By ignoring the process because of a desire for convenience, we ruin our quality of life.

There is a simple way to focus again on the craft. We had it before capitalism came along. It is called the Apprenticeship, and today we call it the internship. However, the internship merely entails bring individuals into a process so that they can learn by doing. In contrast, an apprenticeship entails a master working closely with a student to tell him how to do the process correctly, and then allowing the student to improve the process once the basics have been mastered. The problem with the pre-capitalist age was that the guild prevented this knowledge from spreading. Now, we have a greater emphasis on shared knowledge through education and books, but we have less emphasis on the craft because we expect individuals to be warehouses of knowledge and skills. We need to combine the process of the apprenticeship with the shared knowledge in books and schools. This means that instead of focusing on profit, or on family, we need to focus on the production process that is embodied in the Craft, and have the craft be the basis of everything else.