Information—Yes, But Where Has All Our Wisdom Gone?
By Henryk Skolimowski, Professor of Philosophy, University of Michigan, USA
The modern fetish for collecting information is creating
an over-informed yet woefully unenlightened society.
Lecture given on March 28, 1984, in the series: ‘Educating the Information Society', sponsored by Eastern
Michigan University, (reprinted from The Ecologist, Vol. 14, No. 5-6,
1984 by kind permission of the Editor)
|
Indigenous wisdom, transmitted from generation to generation, often escapes the purview of the Information Society. Dambana Kiri Banda and grandchild.
|
Since everybody talks about the information society, surely it must be
around. But I do not see any Information Society worthy of the name society.
Like Diogenes I have searched with my Lantern in various nooks and crannies for
signs of the existence of the Information Society as a new social form. My search
has proved disappointing.
Well, yes, I see a lot of computers around. But this does not make a new
type of society. I hear a lot of loose talk about the information revolution.
But this does not make a new society either.
If we live in the information society, why are we so poorly informed? The
President is not informed. We are not informed—at least as to how to live our
lives. Evidently more is required than bits of information which we can store in computers. All those billions and zillions of tit-bits, stored in
computers, can help us but little.
In my humble opinion what is involved and what is required is judgment,
wisdom, enlightenment. You do not make your judgment sharper and more mature
by acquiring more bits of information. You do not make your judgment wiser by
acquiring more bits, of whatever sort. You make your judgment by becoming a
wiser person. You do not acquire more enlightenment by acquiring more computer
programmes. You acquire enlightenment by becoming an enlightened person—not
a reservoir of information (for encyclopedias serve this purpose) but a source
of light. In all the three instances: of judgment, of wisdom, of enlightenment
we deal with new qualities.
The Information Society deals only with quantity. The information society
does not know the meaning of quality; computers do not, at any rate. Hence the
Information Society (based on computer information) cannot help us to acquire
quality: of judgement, of wisdom, of enlightenment. Whatever number of
computers you take, they cannot make a new society.
To conceive a new social design, or to invent a new society is a task
much more difficult than splitting the atom or inventing the steam engine.
During the last millennium, especially the last two centuries, western
civilization has shown its prowess in technical inventions. We cannot claim the
same power of inventiveness in the social realm.
The social legacy of technological change is something that we should
really ponder over. I am talking about those social innovations that came in
the wake of technological change, or were induced by it, in recent times. It
would appear that the only new social innovation of the technological society
is the shopping mall and suburbia. They were created inadvertently. They
happened by default. The shopping mall functions in a way similar to that of
the well in traditional societies: it draws people from the entire surrounding
area. But there is a difference.
|
Ananda Coomaraswamy visiting the Tagores in Calcutta, early 20th Century
|
While the traditional well was a vital centre for the exchange of
information, of sharpening of wits, and a real social school for living, the
shopping mail is a monument to non-communication. It dulls the mind by
the appalling uniformity of goods, and is a school of alienation.
Suburbia is like the village in olden times. But while the village taught
self-reliance and fostered gregariousness and conviviality, suburbia
teaches isolation, dependence on gadgets, and prepares the ground for
appeasement by drugs. Technological change has produced undesirable social
mutants: the atomised family and the isolated individual who is in touch with
the world by touching buttons but cannot be touched by his neighbours or be in
touch with himself.
It seems that there is a law that governs technological change: the more
sophisticated technology becomes the more it disengages us from 1ife. The
question is whether the recent developments in electronics and computers are an
exception to this law. Are we closer to life and to ourselves as the result of
the information revolution? Will we be closer to life if each of us possesses a
personal computer? One of the Atari directors, Marcian E. Hoff Jr., informs us
that "The Personal Computer is a Wonderful Solution Looking for a Problem."
Yet, many people behave, or at least say, that computers in the 1980s
will be what drugs were in the 1960s—an extension of the self. The other day I
heard Timothy Leary—the high guru of the 60s— expanding this very view. And
so completely was he sold on the idea that computers are smarter than us, and
that we are entering the phase of complete symbiosis with them, that I was
taken aback—until the interviewer asked Leary the question: "We seem to have
an abundance of information. But wisdom seems to be in short supply. Will
computers supply us with wisdom?" To which question Leary responded without
hesitation: "Yeah, yeah. In five years we shall have wisdom programmes. For 39
dollars you will be able to buy a wisdom programme and play a wisdom game with
the computer." At this point I knew it was all rubbish. If you think that you
can buy a wisdom programme, you do not know what wisdom is all about; and
perhaps you never will if you accept it on the computers terms.
Thus there is a great deal of loose talk and often plain rubbish going on
about the greatness of the coming age of the computer. When I listen carefully
to those exaggerated claims, often just laughable, I am persuaded (in my soul
at least) that if information society means buying wisdom programmes, going
underground to live closer to nature (as Isaac Asimov advocates), having
everything done for you by computers and robots-then I want no part of
it. I want society that engages me with life, not eliminates me from it.
The columnist Sydney I. Harris put it so well when he said: "The real
danger is not that computers will begin to think like men, but that men will
begin to think like computers."
Perhaps we have already started doing that. Hence all this loose talk
about the coming greatness of the Information Society.
Freedom
In what sense and to what degree can computers make us free? The
possession of information does not make you free. Do we communicate better with
each other when we have computers at our disposal? Hardly. The essence of human
exchange is the capacity to empathize with the innermost states of other human
beings as well as an exchange of emotions, visions, things that make us
uniquely human; the kind of things that cannot be easily, if at all, translated
into objective bits of information.
Let us assume that each of us possesses a personal computer which helps
us with everything we do. Would this represent an extension of our freedom? I
respectfully submit that it would not. On the contrary it would curtail our
freedom. Let me explain.
Freedom is equivalent to the ability of exercising choices not
outlined for you but chosen by you. Freedom is the privilege of being at one
with your human nature. The more structured the environment, the less choices
(in the genuine sense) we possess. The computerized environment will be highly
structured; one of the most structured in history. So structured will it, in
fact, be that from the standpoint of traditional freedom, a perfectly
computerized environment will be a form of electronic prison. Every exchange
will have to be performed according to the rules of the computers; no room for
spontaneity, improvisation, quirkiness, the unexpected, the unstructured. As
Ivan Mich says: "Whatever structurally does not fit the logic of machines
is effectively filtered from a culture dominated by their use." How can
you talk about freedom in such circumstances?
Furthermore, you cannot have freedom without exercising responsibility.
You cannot exercise responsibility if everything is done for you. Freedom is
the capacity to act when your action springs from responsibility. Your
responsibility is annihilated when you are an appendage to computers and
robots; and so is your freedom.
Let us look at the concept of responsibility in the context of the
information Society, and see whether the Information Society is likely to
enhance our responsibility, or on the contrary, stifle it. Responsibility is
one of the most peculiar concepts of our language, and of our moral universe.
It is very hard to define; even harder to live without. There is no logical
necessity or even natural necessity to assume responsibility. Yet we render
ourselves less than human when we do not assume it. Responsibility is one of
those invisible human forces—like will power—for which there is no logical
or natural necessity, but without which human history is inconceivable.
In the consumer society we want to escape from responsibility assuming
that without it our lives will be easier and better; whereas in fact our lives
become shallower and cheaper. Like faith, responsibility enhances the variety
of our existence when we possess it, or diminishes us when we lack it. What
blood is to the body, responsibility is to the spirit.
To be a human being is to live in the state of responsibility. When we
are unable to be responsible, we are, in a sense, annihilating our status as
human beings. Those chosen by the gods are those who possess a sense of
responsibility bordering on obsession, like the Buddha or Jesus. Forsaken by
the gods are those who are void of the sense of responsibility-even for
their own lives. Great spiritual leaders of mankind, as well as great social
and political leaders, are stigmatized with the enhanced sense of
responsibility.
The sense of responsibility is not limited to the great of this world. It
is known to everybody. For what is the awareness of "the wasted life" if not
the recognition that each of us is a carrier of responsibility which goes
beyond the boundaries of our little egos and our daily struggles.
Responsibility seen in the larger cosmic plan is a late acquisition of
evolution. It comes about as consciousness becomes self-consciousness,
and furthermore, as self-consciousness (in attempting to refine itself)
takes upon itself the moral cause: the burden of responsibility for the rest.
Responsibility so conceived is a form of altruism. The tendency to escape from
responsibility is a purely biological impulse, a self-serving gesture, a
form of egoism. Therefore, those two tendencies, the altruistic (accepting the
responsibility for all), and egoistic (escaping from it into the shell of our
own ego), are continually fighting each other within us. And each of us knows
the agony of this fight.
When we observe the lives of great men and women, the lives that arc
outstanding and fulfilled, we cannot help noticing that they were invariably
inspired by a great sense of responsibility. Those who sacrificed themselves in
the name of this responsibility did not have the sense of a wasted life. Their
example is received as something noble and inspiring. The sense of
responsibility is now built into our psychic structure as an attribute of human
existence, and a positive force.
To be human is to live in the state of responsibility. However, through
the systematic separation of human beings from the cycles of nature, as well as
through the process of delegating important decisions to experts, contemporary
technology has been systematically disengaging us from life. Our lives have
been made increasingly disconnected, atomized and trivialized. This particular
aspect of present technology makes it more detrimental to the future of the
human race than any particular technological disaster. (I am, for the moment,
disregarding the destruction of eco-habitats and human societies through
excessive reliance upon the machine.)
Responsibility and technology must, at this time of history, be
considered vis-à-vis each other. Technology that systematically deprives
us of responsibility (by delegating everything to experts), represents the
victory of evil. For if everything is done for us, if we cannot exercise our
responsibility, we are no longer human. Responsibility is the cornerstone of
our status as human and spiritual beings.
You can now clearly see what my arguments are aiming at: to show that in
so far as the Information Society (epitomised in the computers) takes over and
deprives us of responsibility, and dwarfs our status as human beings. It is a
pity, and indeed a blindness of our times, that the proponents of the
computerised age never address themselves to this problem.
Wisdom Society
All society worthy of the name ‘society' is human society, is society for
us, humans, and not for smooth functioning of efficient computers. It may have
dawned on some of us that what I am advocating is not so much the Information
Society as the Wisdom Society. Our dilemma has been beautifully
summarised by T.S. Ellott who said, some fifty years ago: "Where is the life we
have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is
the knowledge we have lost in information?" We need wisdom in order to be
responsible. We need wisdom to manage our information. At present we have super
abundance of information which we are unable to digest. As a society we are
over-informed and under-enlightened.
Henryk Skolimowski is Professor of Philosophy in the Department of
Humanities at the University of Michigan and visiting Professor at St Antony's
College, Oxford. He is author of many articles and books, such as Ecological
Humanism and Ecophilosophy.
He is an Associate Editor of The Ecologist and his main interest
lies in the development of post-industrial ethic and a post-industrial
society.
|