A Modern Day Pandora's Box

The king of the sound bite and the band wagon - does he ever, for one moment,
stop to think how shallow and ill thought out is the nonsense that he utters

The growth of technology  has, in the past two or three decades, transformed life: the internet, email, almost instant information from far parts of the world, medical technology, technology that we now take for granted in our homes, mobile phones......the list is endless. It is now impossible almost to comprehend life without mobile phones or internet access and although there may still be many who would dispute the value of this sort of technology I guess that most of us would now find life without it quite unacceptable. The Pandora’s box has been opened. Just this weekend David Cameron the UK Prime Minister and master of the soundbite promised (bear in mind he is a politician so we can take his promise with the proverbial “pinch of salt”!) that by 2020 every household in the country would have access to super fast broadband and this would make the UK the envy of the world. Well, we’ll wait and see on that one! Leaving aside, however, any arguments about the rights and wrongs of that particular political promise it is also interesting to consider what else Cameron said: "Access to the internet shouldn't be a luxury, it should be a right - absolutely fundamental to life in 21st Century Britain......Just as our forebears effectively brought gas, electricity and water to all, we're going to bring fast broadband to every home and business that wants it”. That for me is a seriously big claim – to equate the provision of broadband with the provision of water to the populace. I like the sentiment but I’m not too sure about its logic or its philosophical rationale; it might make an interesting philosophical disputation about the relative rights involved with the provision of water and broadband. At a basic level I am concerned with the naivety of Cameron’s  statement (especially bearing in mind he has a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford); “.... to every home and business that wants it” – the important word here is “wants”. I can conceive that as far as broadband is concerned there may well be people (or businesses) that do not “want” it – on the other hand I cannot conceive that anyone would refuse the provision of water. As I say, I like the sentiment but am unsure about how well this has been thought through – in short, as with so many sound bites, it is a statement which can be easily picked apart. It is produced for the consumption of an unthinking electorate. It does make me wonder, however, if Cameron, who is a bright lad if his Oxford degree is to be believed, is either very naive and his degree is bogus or he is knowingly saying things which manifestly do not add up! I suspect a little of the former and a great deal of the latter.

Pandora setting free all the ills of the world

And this brings me to the  focus of this blog. Pandora’s box is indeed open and although I doubt there can be many people who could not honestly admit that technology has impacted and probably improved their life in some way the reality is there are many potential downsides – issues of security, surveillance,  or the impact upon our basic humanity as people relate to screens rather than to people. The list is, I think, quite endless and undoubtedly alarming. But increasingly in the past few weeks I have been increasingly aware of one downside that I find especially disturbing.

Hardly a day goes by it seems without my receiving on my computer or my mobile phone a request to support some campaign or other. All I have to do I am instructed is to “click here” to add my voice of support  to petition Parliament, my MP  or whatever group is being pressured. Of course, this is another aspect of the ubiquitous (and I believe quite mindless) plea on TV and in newspapers to “tweet us your views” or “let us know what you think” . The issues involved can be trivial or important but all I have to do is click the button and my support or views are immediately registered and recorded. We have whole organisations devoted to this canvassing of opinion and to putting pressure on government or various individuals or institutions. I received one today from an organisation called “change.org”  and specifically from an individual named Ben Bradshaw. The request asks me to “sign and support my petition for the Secretary of State for Transport to introduce compulsory age-appropriate retesting every three years once a driver turns 70” and is based on the story of this gentleman’s wife who, sadly, was killed when she was struck by an elderly car driver. At the bottom of the request is the legend "Want to change something? Start a petition" – and a link to allow me to access this opportunity. Other similar pressure groups might ask me to write to my MP about some matter or other. Now, I am not averse to writing to my MP – I have done it on numerous occasions (in fact I think the poor chap must be quite fed up of my mails, but that’s another story) – but for me the catch is that when one of these pressure groups ask me to do this, all I have to do is click the button and enter my postcode. The technology will then send a prewritten letter on my behalf to my particular MP – easy isn’t it!

One of the petitioning sites

And that, for me, is the problem and the thing that worries me about this aspect of technology. It is taking the thinking out of the issue. It’s easy – maybe too easy. No thought is  required, just instant response - press the button and “wham bang” your instant feelings are registered. It is the “democracy”  of the social media where, too often, trivial commentary tries to pass for great truths; where instant, heart on sleeve banality is poured out and instantly forgotten. It is gut reaction not considered thought.  When I write to Ken Clarke my local MP I feel it incumbent upon me to think through the complaints and issues that I wish to raise with him and in return I expect a similar level of consideration in his reply. If, on the other hand, I cannot be bothered to write a letter of complaint and am, maybe, only doing it because some pressure group has asked me to – and I register my complaint or petition by simply pressing the button I wonder why my complaint or petition should be considered at all. My view is that it should not. It is trying to influence policy, institutions and government not by the force of considered argument but by the use of large numbers. It is the democracy of the mob.

As I wrote the last paragraph my email alarm clicked – a mail from another pressure group - 38 degrees. This one asks me to “...sign the petition to stop 999 calls being handled by a private company with a history of getting it wrong”. It is a response to the proposal to allow the security company G4S taking over local 999 response centres. The email tells me that 38 Degrees member Vic, started this petition, and he says: “Such fundamental services are far too important to be given over to the interests of private capital. Their performance will always be compromised by the need for profitability....”  the email also gives a brief and very biased review of the government proposal to support their petition. Now, in essence I am very much in favour of the petition – the points made are, I believe, valid. Similarly I think that the  issues raised by Ben Bradshaw in his desire to ensure older drivers are monitored are perfectly reasonable.  I could very easily press the button on both of these petitions – but I am also worried about the direction that all this is taking us as a society. It seems to me that we are in danger of acting on impulse rather than reasoned and considered debate; clicking the “I agree button” is easy, too easy; instantly done and quickly forgotten. Writing a considered letter to my MP, rather like writing this blog, is a much more demanding thing but more a gauge of how I really feel since I have had to put some effort into it.

A year or two ago Parliament introduced legislation that sought (misguidedly I believe) to encourage this sort of thing. It’s rationale was, I think, to encourage popular participation in the process of democracy in an age when more and more people were not taking part – for example, increasingly people can’t be bothered to vote or specific groups such as the young appear to have little interest. Basically, if someone or some organisation can amass 10,000 signatures then the government is required to respond to the petition. If they can amass 100,000 signatures then the government is required to consider holding a debate in Parliament on the matter. Clearly that is what the examples I quote above are keen to get. Those two petitions may well be worthy,  and indeed the notion of ordinary people petitioning the king or the Parliament is not new – it has been around as long as there has been government of any kind. Now, mass communication makes it very much a real option and potential vehicle for change. But it seems to me that the ease of communication via modern technology means that just as worthy causes can be aired and become law so too can less worthy doctrines.

When the ancient Greeks began to develop their notions of democracy upon which our western systems are largely based they struggled with the sort of issues that this throws up. Ideally, they believed, democracy would be best served by everyone being involved in the decision making process; if everyone was involved, they argued, then no-one could complain. But they faced insurmountable obstacles: in those days they simply couldn’t communicate with everyone and in any case it was not practicable to get everyone together in one place at the same time. The Athenian response to this was that every free man (i.e. not women or slaves etc.) should serve a period of time in government - so that everyone had a go. They tried this but it failed abjectly for the very reason that I object to our current petitioning and pressuring via the internet – namely that although everyone had a “go”,  many did not undertake the task well and so bad legislation resulted. People didn’t bother to turn up, many were simply incapable of understanding the issues involved, bribery and corruption flourished as pressure was put upon those who were easily influenced and happened to be in government at the time – the whole system of government simply became a mess. The Athenians tried several variations on the democratic theme and in the end settled for something approximating to what we have in western societies today – a form of representative democracy where we choose people who we believe not only represent our views but also have the ability, wisdom and the integrity to undertake the required deliberations and decisions on our behalf.

Democracy, of course, is not perfect but it is probably the best we can do. I am not a fan of Churchill; the reverence with which he is held in this country is, I believe, totally misplaced and based largely upon Churchill’s own ability for self-aggrandisement which is so well reflected in his comment “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” But, I have to admit, he was the consummate politician and his commitment to democracy second to none. He famously said two things on the subject which I believe are pertinent:  “....democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” and “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”  He was right. There is nothing sacred about democracy – it is simply the best option that we have – or as Churchill indicated, the least worst option. But, secondly, democracy’s greatest potential weakness is the ability, the commitment or motives of the electorate. As the ancient Greeks discovered democracy fails if it is not founded upon a strong, committed and thinking electorate. If the electors can’t be bothered, are unable to make wise decisions or do not seek to ask pertinent questions then democracy is in danger – it can be easily pressured and  hi-jacked.

In his excellent book ”The Price of Civilization” American academic Jeffrey Sachs discusses what he calls “the epidemic of ignorance” that, he suggests, threatens democracy. Briefly, he argues that in America at least (but, I think, this is equally true of the UK), the growth of untrammelled commercial TV and its “race to the bottom” programming based upon lowest common denominator - "X Factor", "Strictly Come Dancing", Big Brother" type entertainment rather than instructive public education, the growth in internet use, mindless social networking based largely upon trivial and anecdotal comment, the demise of newspapers and reading as an activity has meant that his fellow citizens are increasingly ignorant of basic facts about important issues. He comments: “It would be a profound irony if the new information age coincides with the collapse of the public’s basic knowledge regarding key issues that we confront as individuals or citizens.” He goes on “The mindset of individuals who know precious little history and civics and never read a book or visit a museum is fast becoming a common, shame-free condition”. He further says that “....when the country must grapple with complex choices about taxes, spending, military involvement and outlays and all the rest, the lack of basic knowledge becomes dangerous. A poorly informed public is much more easily swayed by propaganda and much less able to resist the dark manoeuvrings of special interest groups that pull the strings.........”   In short, if the world is increasingly populated by Homer Simpson clones unable or unwilling to ask pertinent questions or use their knowledge and minds to make meaningful judgements upon what they are presented with by peers, politicians,  and the media, and if these Homer Simpsons are interested only in lowest common denominator, heart on sleeve views as expressed in social media and the like, then society and democracy is at risk of manipulation by powerful lobbies and potential extremist propaganda. 

One might argue, of course, that these on line petitions and the like are a vital way of counteracting the grim scenario that Sachs paints. After all, they are about getting people involved, which must be good, and their supporters would undoubtedly (and correctly) argue that they are another element in the modern battle for accountability and transparency in government. But I am not so sure that it is all good news. The growth of these potentially huge pressure groups, swayed by “heart on the sleeve” social media type arguments and based upon the "no thought required just click the button below it's easy" petitioning process is a serious concern for their growth brings the strong possibility that the political landscape and agenda, the party manifestos and the votes of the individual political MPs or congressmen or senators will be influenced by these big number uninformed petitions. It is a matter of fact today that MPs and leaders of all kind “listen in” to what social media and the like are saying. On one level this might be a good thing keeping them in tune with the concerns of the electorate. But at another level there is the undoubted potential for individual leaders and groups to reflect opinion more widely and aggressively when uninformed petitioning begins to drive political  decisions and policy. Following this there is the added danger of a fragmentation of the political landscape into sectional interests and maybe the spread of extremist philosophies.

In the last few years we have had numerous examples of great political and national/international movements being rapidly generated and often with unforeseen consequences: the “Arab Spring”  spread like wildfire across north Africa and the middle east; the “Occupy Movement” in response to unbridled capitalism  has similarly spread across continents and oceans; the current wave of migrants, be they war zone refugees or economic migrants to northern Europe, has been largely sustained by access to instant communication, smart phones, tablets and the like. I don’t say any of these are necessarily bad things – indeed, I have much in common with many of the ideals and perspectives that underpin them. But just as with our modern technology, Pandora’s Box is open – the ease with which people can now communicate, pass on information and  ideas, be influenced by strong orators, be aware of what is happening elsewhere means that we potentially live in explosive times. A hundred years ago it took weeks for the words of a great leader, revolutionary or dictator to spread and as a result there was time for the words spoken by (say) Lenin or Trotsky or Hitler to be considered by the wider electorate; a time for moderation and an opportunity for nuance. When Hitler whipped up Nazi ideology at the Nuremberg Rallies of the 1930s you had to actually be there or see one of the later propaganda films to hear Hitler and to listen to his message and thus be influenced. Today, with modern technology everyone across Europe and the wider world could, if they wished, hear and see him on their smart phones and tablets – from where I am sitting a terrifying thought - there would be no nuance or opportunity for considered thought; the mentality of themob would prevail.

Now he really would have loved the opportunities that technology
and social media offer - but would we have liked the results?

We live today in a very different world. Technology has brought us and will continue to bring us opportunities and benefits even today impossible to believe or comprehend. But, in my view there are dubious side effects that need to be carefully monitored and managed. Pandora’s Box in the Greek myths allowed, when opened, all the evils in the world to get out. Our technological Pandora’s Box has the same capacity. I f we behave like Pandora and do not act wisely do what is necessary then we run the risk of the potential evils of technology running amok. Like Pandora we will not be able to get them back in the box.