Lifeworld, economy and technology
Technology is one of the most influential factors that define our
lifeworld. Homo faber is an essential
part of the definition of humanity. The development of technology with its
inventions moulds all aspects of life. In the dawn of humankind, the use of
tools made it possible for people to utilise natural resources in ever more
multiple ways. At first technology meant just the means of interchanging material
resources between humankind and nature. Now technology has occupied
communication between people as well. Technology has come onto and under our
skin.
Economy is the way to organize production and the interchange of
products and services. Economy and technology are deeply intertwined. From the
economic point of view technology means efficiency, using as few resources as
possible to produce as much as possible. This is the rationale behind the
development of technology. It is easy to “invent” ways to do things less
efficiently than it is possible with available means, but it is not the
rational way. This of course depends on the goals, but are new gadgets
themselves the main goal? Technology seems to develop in its own intrinsic
ways. The risk here is that we do not see alternative ways of doing things. We
act guided by short-sighted economic interest believing in technological
determinism. Technical development has become a value in itself, although
technology should only be the means to an end.
The overwhelming strive for efficiency of market economy has blinded people
to what the consequences are to nature: means of production that are too
efficient are exhausting the resources of nature. Economic result is considered
quarterly and we do not see gradual changes that imply eventually fatal
consequences to life. It may also be that those who mostly benefit from
economic growth just do not care, and yet they are the ones who would have the
power to change things. Of course, we all consume natural resources and can
choose products and services that help to keep consumption on a sustainable
level within the limits of the market. However, as retail chains have been organized
into vast hypermarkets in out-of-town locations, you must drive ten kilometres
to do your shopping and at the same time make your contribution to the
greenhouse effect. Then you may be inclined to buy cheap tuna fish (endangered
species) instead of more expensive pike from your nearby lakes (benefitting the
condition of lakes). The costs incurred to nature are not sufficiently added to
the prices of products.
Economic rationale directs our behaviour as well as the development of
technology. It seems to be a law of nature although it is as such a product of
market economy. Money has become the sole standard of value. Marcuse said this
clearly in his One Dimensional Man:
“If mass communications blend together harmoniously, and often unnoticeably,
art, politics, religion and philosophy with commercials, they bring these
realms of culture to their common denominator – the commodity form.” So,
technological reason takes the position of ideology: technological progress,
previously a means of achieving well-being, is now an end itself, to which
other ends are made subservient. Marcuse does not long for the poverty and toil
of the past, but sees that economic system needs a new foundation for the
distribution of goods. Marcuse published his book fifty years ago and was more
concerned with the consequences of market economy to our form of life and
culture than its ecological effects. The now lurking climate change and
ecocatastrophe were not such a critical issue then (or it was not yet
recognized in public discourse).
Habermas explained the controversy over the system and the human being
raised by Marcuse through the uncoupling of the system from the lifeworld.
According to Habermas the lifeworld is maintained through language and
communicative action, while the socio-economic system imposes itself upon
actors through the media of money and power. On the one hand this economic
rationality and technology do seem external powers that set compelling
conditions to our lifeworld, but as we take them as given facts we cannot
separate them from the lifeworld. There is a great deal of talk about the necessity
of economic growth by increasing consumption and productivity. This is the main
message of politicians and economists of the finance sector and industry. The
punters do not see any alternative. They argue for economic growth with the
argument that unemployment will soar unless economy (in fact profits) grows at
the same pace as productivity. However, in the case of bulk products the main
means of improving competitiveness is to decrease production costs by means of
automation or by transferring factories to countries with cheaper labour force.
The problem is what Marcuse saw fifty years ago: the distribution of well-being
based on the sale of labour time.
We must break the fetters of the instrumental-rational ideology and free
our thinking to rebuild our worldview starting from the genuine values of
humanity. We do have a choice, and ironically, we must make that choice,
otherwise we will be doomed. Fortunately, making technological choices is not
so extraordinary. It happens every day. The planning of a new technical gadget
or production line always takes place by means of evaluating various
alternatives. The problem is that the criteria for choosing the best one to be
implemented are too narrow: too often the criteria of choice are purely
technical and economic. We encounter this situation every day in the clumsy
usability of electronic devices, for example. This again impairs our moral
fiber, or at least, increases the use of bad language. Seriously speaking, the
criteria of choice should include the consequences to nature and society. This
can be done by means of legislation (as is the case in the EU to some extent)
or adding the costs of correcting the damage done to nature and society to
production costs. These broader values should become part of our own consumer
behaviour too. We should be aware of them as principles of our lifeworld, and
not be guided only by the prices of goods, in order to rise above the narrow
vision of economic rationality.
The primary cause for this short-sighted economic order is the investors’
urge to collect profits as quickly as possible. An extreme manifestation of
this covetousness is the fact that the handling of stock sales is given to
computer algorithms that make decisions in milliseconds. There can hardly be
any hope that the transactions take into consideration the consequences to
nature or people. Stock values guide the firm managers’ decisions because their
bonuses are based on the profits brought to the owners. On the other hand, the problem
with planned economy is that it restrains the creativity of actors. There is no
such thing as an omniscient administrator who can foresee people’s needs. It
can only be some sort of a middle way between a free market and a planned
economy that can bring about as good and equal standard of living as possible
with constraints of sustainable growth. Adam Smith’s argument for a free market
(the invisible hand) was that it would bring about more prosperity than any other
economic order. We have, however, seen that the market requires some regulation
to guarantee a fair distribution of well-being and the sustainability of
natural resources. Net trading gives an illusion of perfectly free market where
buyers have the same information as producers, but behind the screen algorithms
all the time analyse consumer behaviour and direct pricing for everyone
separately. Great research effort is now given to the question of what kind of legislation
is needed to control marketing actions made by algorithms, for example to
protect consumers from paying for goods more than the market price in a free
market situation.
Rationalising production in order to use a minimum of labour, energy and
raw materials is a rational goal but its social implications should be taken
into consideration. Over-production is one of those risks and it has brought
about serious periodical fluctuation in economy. Developing new products and
procedures of production requires investments, i.e., capital. Firms can finance
their investment by borrowing money from banks or by means of share issues. To
motivate investors to buy issued shares they usually expect to gain some profit
on their investment through dividends or by being able to sell shares at a better
price. The better price is based on expectations about the success of the firm
in question.
However, pure speculation on the stock exchange does not bring about any
additional material well-being to society in general. The speculators may get
their quick profits (or losses) but the capital in circulation remains at the
same level, the money only passes from one pocket to another. Stock speculation
is another cause of economic instability. It is a dilemma that the stock market
provides motivation for financing industry but at the same time it takes the
focus from the real economy that alone brings material prosperity. Would the
solution to this problem be something like private investors only being able to
sell their shares to publicly controlled finance companies or to public funds,
and the profit from selling to another private investor being highly taxed? The
main purpose of the funds is to support the strive for the common good, such as
pension funds and funds supporting research institutions. Certainly,
entrepreneurs can sell their business to another entrepreneur or firm, if the other
firm does not get a monopoly in the market. This kind of trade is already
regulated by legislation. Speculation on land should also be prevented, because
it only hinders the progress of productive business. Market economy is a very
complicated thing and its invisible hand should be made visible and
controllable.
A major challenge for people today is the development of artificial
intelligence to the point that it can totally beat human intelligence and (as
some people fear or hope) can subordinate people to computers. This issue is
important from the point of view of the lifeworld and humanity. The reasons for
developing artificial intelligence are both economic and intellectual. Why shouldn’t
we use computers to do complex calculations that exceed our own capabilities? Computers
are tireless workers that do not make mistakes. However, we cannot call
computers to account for their decisions, they are not responsible actors in
society. The responsible one is always the person who has set the computer to
do a task. He can again accuse a programmer, but you cannot claim compensation
from the computer for the wrong decision. Computers are not fellows of our lifeworld,
and they are not moral actors. So, they should not have the ultimate power over
us, although we can set great store by their calculations and suggestions. The
predicted point of singularity in which computers themselves can develop better
computers won’t change this relationship.
The humankind should use all available means to secure its existence and
life in general. People with normal intellect would naturally have an interest in
safeguarding their free and moral will. I can imagine a science-fiction scene
in which doctors Strangelove and Faust sell their souls to a super-intellectual
machine after having reached the conclusion that the human being must give way to
intellectually more perfect forms of being (can we call them life?). I look forward
to a production of Faust in which a computer sings Mefisto’s role. Its
faultless performance would enchant Faust and the audience as well.
Technology gives an expectation towards future in our world view. That
expectation gets its psychological tone from our experiences, our view of
history and our personality. My personal view is controversial. On the one hand,
I believe that I am an optimist, but on the other hand my confidence in the
capability of the human kind to control technology and economy is not very
high. The chaotic information flow from the media clouds the vision further.
The worst fear is that the intellect that has lost its reason will destroy a significant
portion of life on earth. The hope lies in the wish that reason will overcome,
and that is why I take the trouble to write these essays. Technology is not the
answer to all problems. We must also be able to change our way of life. Reason
is our ability to set our goal for a better life and subordinate our intellect
to that goal.
