Essay V, economy and technology

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.