In my next post I will bring you up on the final student presentations in the Stanford Good Products Bad Products course. The first four were very good indeed. But in this post I would like to say a few words about an article in the March 3 New York Times that I found both provocative, and enjoyable. The title of the article was “The Perils of Perfection”, by Evgeny Morozov, and it is here.
I enjoyed it because living in the midst of the Stanford /Silicon Valley success story, I am surrounded by people and companies extremely enthusiastic and optimistic about the long-term wonderful effects upon humankind of computers and internet and their ability to handle important and difficult social problems. This article is drawn on a book entitled “To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism”. (Morozov also wrote “The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of the Internet”.) I find his critical attitude toward the wonders of the internet to be a wonderful counterpoint to the general values of my environment.
I like the description of engineers as “solutionists”. It is to some extent true. I have a good friend who is an eminent historian (Pulitzer Prize, etc.). He refers to engineers as “meddlers” rather than “solutionists”. He and his fellow historians feel that they are trying to understand societies, and engineers are knowingly or unknowingly trying to change them. I am an engineer and have worked all of my professional life finding solutions to problems. To the extent that I have succeeded I have been a meddler. But these problems have been relatively straight-forward, and solutions could be found that pleased most people involved. I do not believe that all problems have solutions of this sort, and certainly not solutions that please everyone {the "perfect" solution}. Congress is finding that out with regard to problems having to do with medical care, employment, balancing the budget, etc.etc.etc. What improves the situation for some, makes it worse for others. Complicated situations involving manyp eople can be improved, but perfect “right” answers are unlikely.
There is much hope among some of the digerati that ever increasing communication (social networking) and new software allowing the formation of independent political groups and poll-taking (Morozov mentions a software program named Seesaw) will allow answers to be found that will result in solutions to such complicated and critical problems that will please all. I don’t, because different human values and interests are involved and if some people are pleased, others won’t be. Taxes are a good example.
Morozov goes further and quotes from an essay named “In Praise of Inconsistency” written by the philosopher Leszek Kolakowski, The author of this feels that disagreement among people as to the proper course to take is “the only hope for the human race”. I won’t go further. Read and think about Morizov’s essay in the link above. I have ordered the book. I will use it to pick on students and my friends who have been born again by the internet.
Recent Comments