From: "Cynthia H. Brown" <cynthb@sonetis.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:00:15 -0800 (PST)
To: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Subject: Re: Technology and loss of freedom
Message-ID: <199703180600.BAA27152@homer.iosphere.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Igor Chudov philosophised:
> I have a thesis that it is the development of technology that has, over
> the last 100 years, eroded the basis for and appreciation of human
> freedom.  Technology has also done precious little for advancing human
> freedoms (although cryptography may be an exception).
> 
> Let's first define freedom as the ability of people to do things without
> forceful interference from the government. This is an arbitrary
> definition, but it appears to be useful for the analysis below.
> 
> First of all, 200 years ago it was very hard for lone people to endanger
> lives of themselves and many others.

Unfortunately not true - large conflagrations were all too common
because of the reliance on fire for heating / cooking, wood-based
construction with thatched roofing, and lack of organised,
well-equipped fire brigades.

> Similarly, people did not have fast moving vehicles and
> any traffic did not present serious danger for innocent bystanders.

True, but the highway brigands did pose a danger.  Additionally,
wandering nobility could (and did) commandeer attractive young
peasants of either gender for a "visit".  The consequences
(psychological and/or physical) for these young peasants were
irrelevant.

> "Hard drugs" also became available only in the recent past [please 
> correct me] due to advancements in chemistry and medicine.

Potable water is also a fairly recent innovation.  Beer and wine were
generally much safer (before they went sour, that is) than the raw
sewage that flowed downstream from the next village.  Humans have
been chewing various leaves, roots, etc. for millenia. Some of these
"natural" items are just as intoxicating as so-called "hard drugs".

> If you ride a horse, there is no perceived need for an airbag or a
> mandatory horse insurance. If all houses are 1 story tall, nobody is afraid
> of an OK City type explosion.
> 
> With the advent of technology, the balance of perceived social needs and
> government capabilities shifted radically, and it shifted away from the
> great freedoms of the past. The public perception of freedom now is that
> freedom is inherently dangerous and is a threat to the public itself.

SCA leanings notwithstanding, you cannot convince me that life back
then was "freer" than now.  Peasants could not leave their land,
shopkeepers and artisans were limited by the guilds, and nobles were
obliged to comply with the wishes of their "superiors" or be
labelled traitors.  

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is another useful argument here - people 
were so concerned with feeding and clothing themselves that they did 
not have time to concern themselves with niceties like freedom.

A professor of medieval studies once said that the most accurate
depiction of Ye Goode Olde Life is in Monty Python's "Holy Grail",
in the "Bring Out Yer Dead" scene.  ("Must be a king."  "Why?" "He
hasn't got sh*t all over 'im.")

Cynthia
===============================================================
                   Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng.
E-mail: cynthb@iosphere.net  | PGP Key:  See Home Page
Home Page:  http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/
Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received.

        Klein bottle for rent; enquire within.