“What do you mean by the technology that can free people?”, I asked. This I wanted to know. I perked up and paid attention. If there is any way to create alternatives stop these people’s control over society, I want to know. Even if I cannot do anything about it.
He said, “Technology is not neutral. It influences the existence of possibilities and the direction of society. Losing control during the early internet era scared some our people. They were worried that we would lose control to a revolution if everyone could communicate freely. And, to a degree, we did lose control. There were large protests that had not been seen since the 1970’s. People started using the internet to organize against us. Personally, I don’t think we were ever in a position to lose control of society. However, we got a good scare, and it took a lot of effort to regain control of communications. Since then, we have seen, that we need to be more careful with physical technologies, which can liberate people in ways that would be much more difficult to correct.”
“Like what?”, I asked. I was excited.
“Like the mobile devices”, he replied. “We had to create them in such a way that users do not have control over the software that runs on the device. This was done in the name of security, but it’s purpose is to stop users from participating in peer to peer technologies and turning their phones into servers.”
“We also need to maintain things like centralized energy production. The widespread use of solar panels, batteries, and fuel cell systems would be a problem for us. In the 1970’s, the oil industry was able to buy up the solar power companies, which set back solar development by 30 years. Today we are focusing on centralized solar farms which will eventually be replaced with large scale centralized fusion energy. Hydrogen technologies have been stalled, through the subsidizing of battery technologies, which are more expensive in the long run, and won’t scale far beyond what we have now. Batteries are large and depreciate in value immediately after sale. Ten years on, people own a large mess, which they have to find a way to dispose of. Fuel cells can be easily upgraded and have their membranes replaced with new ones at very little cost. Once adopted, hydrogen fuel cells would be very difficult to replace with centralized infrastructure.”
"Won't people figure it out?", I asked.
“We created a coordinated social media campaign to discredit hydrogen fuel cells as a solution. Honestly, this has been the most effective strategy to stalling fuel cell implementation. We can still fund the fuel cell companies for out own needs, but no one will adopt them for mass production because it is an unpopular technology.”
He paused to reflect. “Sorry where was I?”, he asked.
“Technological threats to society.”, I reminded him.
“Oh, yes. In general, decentralization is bad for society. It makes it more difficult for us to maintain control. It gives too much power to individuals and groups. It allows them to remove themselves from the corporate dependency that modern civilization relies on.”
I wanted to know more. It gives me hope to think these people have a weakness that can be used to disrupt their control over society. I asked him what other types of technologies were so dangerous.
He said, “Self publishing and distribution, 3D printing, location based solar power, and hydrogen fuel cell systems, these are technologies that threaten our society by their very existence.”
Projects: