on technology and transmission

it is dominant technologies however, that control the ebb and flow of cultural hegemony. our technological maturity develops at a pace much quicker than our political and cultural maturity. society must always adapt to technological changes and is therefore always a step behind.many philosophers and technologies, businessmen and politicians believe, that somewhere towards the end of the 20th Century, we crossed the technological threshold irrevocably. a threshold that marked the end of History as we have understood it so far.history used to be defined by the victors; the aforementioned “ebb and flow” occured over (comparative to human lifespans) vast time periods. no more, not really. the technological maturity reached by high speed telecommunications and the internet changes (and will change much, much more) the way in which societies are structured and inter-linked.paradoxically, both the free flow of and blocking out of thoughts and ideas are the defining features of this movement. what information is reliable? what living is moral or ethical? which “identities” do you choose for yourself from those available? do you create your own new identities? how will/does society react to either?the internet is the great leveler; the great democratizer. for better or for worse (better, in the sense that it can negate the power of totalitarian regimes; worse in that it gives more say to the “mob”–“democracy” after all, means “rule of the mob”; and we all know all that’s been said about “tyranny of the masses”–popular votes are often misinformed–like those that killed Socrates or Galileo.); but the positives far outweigh the negatives; democracy over the internet is naturally allied with the free markets–which in turn create systems of governance far more conducive to fair living and due process when implemented correctly, and outside of political motivations and interventions. societies that give up freedom for security deserve neither, after all…the problem with using the internet for this goal, of course, is the speed and acceptability with which the internet enters the lives of the citizens of the countries it enters, and whether those citizens are able to harness its potential. its open-endedness also allows for those wanting to spread hate and intolerance equal standing, another concern. globalization, as we have seen has not met with a welcoming embrace worldwide, but often with fear and doubt and suspicion.on the whole however, technology aids its cause rather than that of its opponents, because while a technology is in itself neutral, the reason to generate it is not. communication systems are designed for just that–to communicate; one of the greatest enemies of anti-globalization. throughout the world, common economies and free market zones work reasonably well–when they don’t, it is due to poor or incompetent political implementation, rather than the concept in itself.more on this later, before i move on to “Asking the right questions”