http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/world/americas/12iht-currents.html

1. "President Obama declared during the campaign that "we are the ones we've been waiting for." That messianic phrase held the promise of a new style of politics in this time of tweets and pokes."

2. "the most revealing efforts have been in "crowdsourcing" - in soliciting citizens' policy ideas on the Internet and allowing them to vote on one another's proposals."

3a. "There is a lively debate in progress about what some call Gov 2.0. One camp sees in the Internet an unprecedented opportunity to bring back Athenian-style direct democracy."
3b. "Another camp sees the Internet less rosily. Its members tend to be enthusiastic about the Web and enthusiastic about civic participation; they are skeptical of the Internet as a panacea for politics. They worry that it creates a falsely reassuring illusion of equality, openness, universality."

With technology and technological products being so pervasive in modern society, can we and should we look towards technology as being the answer to all problems. As this new exciting participatory age dawns upon us will we finally be able to be free to live as we have always wanted?

I think not. No matter how wonderful techonology and all its affordances are we should not forget that technology is but a tool to be used as a means to an end. I suscribe to the second group of individuals in the article, the pessimists.

Consider this quote from the article: Because it is so easy to filter one's reading online, extreme views dominate the discussion. Moderates are underrepresented, so citizens seeking better health care may seem less numerous than poker fans. The Internet's image of openness and equality belies its inequities of race, geography and age."

Therein lies the question:
Can we really be sure of what techonology affords and means for us?

Who gets to wield power over the tools and thus the terms of engagement?

If what we're moving towards is really our future, what happens to our rights as we remove institutions of power able to effect changes towards these ends (such as governments), will our rights still be recognised and will we be able to agree on them (as a form of consitution)?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2001-10-23-ncguest1.htm

"disinformation - although it also misleads the folks at home - is very useful to the military. Every West Point cadet learns how pretending that the Normandy beach invasion was not the real thing was one of the major reasons it succeeded."

"Such phony optimism will encourage public support in the short run, just as false low assessments of the enemy's size did early in the war in Vietnam. But it undermines support in the longer run, along with the precious trust in government."

Looking at this article we are reminded that wars are not just physical battles, but psychological ones as well. Should the public demand to know specific information (such as death rate)? Or should they just rely on the "official news" from the military? This article reminds me of the movie "Wag the Dog" which shows how wars are essentially large-scale public relations exercises.

Is there an ethical way to report war? Should there be an ethical way to report war? After all, news will find its way to the soldiers on the ground, and such news can improve/ drop morale, or serve to confuse them (if information is not consistent with their reality). But then again, the public has a right to know the progress of the military, which they are funding.

In my opinion, there is no such thing. War being the complex multifaceted operation that it is involves so many different audiences. The military's PR department can only do what it can to control sentiments so that these sentiments are contributory to a victory.

Thanks for your comments. I may have appeared to be contradictory, but what I really meant was that ownership of IP should not be a motivating factor to innovate. I realise that in our capitalistic context this is not practicable, as a value is always ascribed to anything (the monetary effects of ownership of IP in this case).

However, consider that the capitalist model is the most ethical way to innovation? It is a reinforcing of desirable behaviour for the betterment of society. In my opinon the ownership model in managing IP is unethical, as others are held ransom to the demands of the IP owner. Also, it serves to boost the egos of researchers (due to the fame generated by their discoveries). Research is egotistic, and researchers want to be the only one who can say "I have found this". Curiosity might have been the root of research, but in the end, it's all about the researcher as he/she tires to get published and obtain tenure.

This is surely at odds with Alfred Nobel's vision for the Nobel prize, which is (was?) human betterment.


Weiye Loh wrote:
> Why are you contradicting yourself Jude?
>
> First you say that if there's no ownership of IP, there will be no "push" factor for people to innovate.
>
> And then you say that "researchers are not in it for the money but rather to (try to) quench their eternal thirst for knowledge". So I'm assuming that thirst for knowledge is not enough of a push. And that the ownership of knowledge requires an external party to officiates that ownership. But really, underlying all these is but the capitalist ideology of production for you do not own (produce) or claim to own (produce) unless that ownership is objectified.
>
> To answer your question, my answer will be a frank yes in this capitalistic society. At the risk of being a romantic, the ideals of the prize was already lost the moment capitalist ideology took over. The same goes for the Olympics - it has become a mere spectacle to encourage capitalistic production and consumption. The ideology underlying human betterment becomes perhaps, nothing more than functions of capitalistic growth or potential.
>
> If the Nobel committee should not be offering cash prize based on the argument that it the prize is not a tool to massage the researchers' egos, then they should not offering the prize at all in the first place.
>
> But as the enlightened west has come to realize, it is 'safer' to assume that human beings are inherently selfish (true altruism does not exist in economics) and motivated by cost vis-a-vis benefit, we have decidedly adopted the capitalist ideals and deemed the communist values dangerous. The danger that arises from communism is perhaps the naive opposite assumption that human beings are inherently selfless.
>
> Hence, the ethical answer is to seek a balance between the two. Like that Taoist cosmic symbol of Yin and Yang. =)
>
>
> Jude John wrote:
> > Hmmm food for thought. But if, as you suggest that ownership of certain IP is unethical would there still exist innovation? Because then there would be no "push" factor for people to translate ideas beyond scribbles on napkins.
> >
> > I would think that with regard to recognition of contribution perhaps the most ethically practical way to go about it would be to recognise the contributions of others who have significantly impacted upon the "final" (for the moment) product. That way even though the Nobel prize committee tends not to award more then three persons a prize, these other people can take satisfaction in the acknowledgement of their past efforts.
> >
> > A question for Weiye: Should the Nobel committee even be offering a cash prize? Surely researchers are not in it for the money but rather to (try to) quench their eternal thirst for knowledge? (I assume that money and fame are powerful corrupting agents, and the ten million kroner in prize money, along with worldwide fame devalues the effort of these researchers) After all, the Nobel prize is awarded to those who enable human betterment, not a tool to massage researchers' egos.