On ARPA's 50th Anniversary
<https://web.archive.org/web/20080526205300/http://korakora.org/proyekto/arpa_anniversary>
Submitted by trevor on Tue, 04/01/2008 -
04:13.
• Lifestyle and Technology
• Digital Feudalism
• Neocolonialism
The article "ARPA's 50th Anniversary and the Internet: a
Model for Basic Research by Ronda Hauben"(1)
really does need close scrutiny -because (in my view) it
sketches the rise of a pernicious Military-Industrial complex
(as warned against by President Eisenhower) -but which has now
become even more dangerous by linking up with educational and
entertainment systems (the edutainment business) to become the
Military-Industrial-Edutainment complex.....
The article explains the basic mechanism for post WWII
neo-colonial strategy of the US -while describing this as a
positive development. Clearly the article is written entirely
from a US perspective -which is fine -if one enjoys being a US
sputnik..... but not so nice if one (still) believes in some
form of national independence.
A Pernicious Paradigm Shift:
Indeed, it has been the shift (lauded in the ARPA article)
from the image of the computer as a complex (algorithmic -rule
based) simulation system to a simple communication device that
has enabled the computer to be commercially and politically
exploited as a (postmodern) propaganda machine. The
self-reinforcing nature of this paradigm shift has allowed the
change to take place without most people understanding the
power of the system to actually question the "information"
being distributed by that system....
...The knowledge that these research projects developed has
not been shared with the people (generally) -but to the
contrary, the people (via the academic system) have been told
(outside a few specialists) that such knowledge is not
interesting -while the products of that knowledge has been
used to enslave people further. This has been done by creating
and commercially exploiting "intelligent" systems which people
generally cannot compete against, but they are encouraged to
use -even though they have no understanding of how they work.
In other words: The product of this US government funded
research has been commercially exploited by US companies to
make it almost impossible for non-specialists (worldwide) not
to become clients of the companies involved (this is called
"customer binding" in the trade).
I call it "Digital Feudalism".
The Helpless Consumer:
Computers that automatically download new updates via the web
are perhaps an example of how people end up relying on systems
that have enormous influence on their lives -but which the
people buying and using them have no real understanding or
control over. Most users have no idea what they are
downloading -and there have already been cases of "anti-virus"
software that are actually Trojan horses which introduce
viruses into the system without the user knowing -or even
being aware of the danger.
One also often has no idea about what information one's
computer is passing on to others -or to whom.... Modern
computer systems are increasingly becoming dependent on
"automatic" systems that "automatically" prevent the user from
actively controlling their own machines. The new Xandros
system, for example, seems to be completely icon based -which
rather undermines the whole "intelligent user"
philosophy of Linux.
A Culture of Ignorance:
Artists often help sell their own enslavement by promoting the
playful use of these commercial systems (without fully
understanding any of the implications of their work) and are
often proud of their ignorance of the systems involved
(confusing their ignorance with "artistic freedom"). These
disenfranchising attitudes are often taught in colleges of art
and mass-media and promoted by exhibitions, festivals and
centers "encouraging" digital art. Commercial companies are
often happy to sponsor the production and distribution of
digital images because it is a cheap and seductive promotion
for their products. Commercial mass-media also promote these
things via "news" of "cultural events" -which encourages their
uncritical adoption by those with a constant urge to "keep up"
with the latest trend (irrespective of how useless or even
damaging it may be).
As market forces are also the main arbiter for the goods and
services offered to clients (reducing their choice) -within an
increasingly short time-span, the popular and faddish goods
easily replace more useful products: So the mad cycle of
consumerist exploitation continues its downward spiral in ever
faster, self-supporting and destructive ways.
Military Subsidies:
Increasingly under WTO rules -government support for
commercial companies are generally forbidden. Increasingly
government support for social systems is becoming unfordable
-as foreign companies suck out local income.
The practical exception to this is government spending for
military research -which flows into the coffers of
universities and commercial companies which research and
produce the various weapons systems. In my view -it has been
the enormous high level of American spending on military
research that has provided (and is still providing) the hidden
subsidies (not open to other countries with smaller military
budgets) that has enabled US owned companies to dominate
(unfairly) on a global scale..... Indeed, the US military
probably is "the main supporter and perhaps the most important
force in the course of the US and probably world history in
the computer.." But why should we assume that this is a benign
influence?
Are military systems intended to be "benign" -or are
they intended to obtain dominance, by whatever means
are the most effective?
Consumer Subsidies:
Through the introduction and use of modern sophisticated
consumer technology, the military subsidy of commercial
systems can also be reversed. Consumer systems (particularly
in the field of gaming -and social networking) are becoming so
sophisticated that their development can be of interest and
use to the military.... Outside digital technology, model
aircraft (and micro-lights, for example) show similar
transitions between military and civil use.... and can be used
as drones and spy systems -or small-scale transport systems
for troops in the case of microlight aircraft and off-road
bikes/cars.... The mass market covers military research costs
(and vice versa).... while also helping to support a passive
audience that believes in the American system and lifestyle
-despite its inherently selfish and destructive nature.
So the knowledge gathered by both civilian and military
systems is useful, not only commercially, but also in the use
of sophisticated military force to push through US interests
when political methods fail (i.e. the invasion of Iraq and the
"war on terror"). Technology is increasingly used to allow an
increasingly almost invulnerable US army to maximize its kill
rate against a virtually defenseless opponent ("Shock and
Awe"). How many national armies can now compete against the US
army -and how many national armies are dependent on US
technology in any conflict situation? The US is engaged in a
global "war against terror" and gives support against local
opponents to any national government willing to become US
client. The effect on internal politics in many countries
(Pakistan, for example) is a disaster.
The integration between military and civilian technology has
not supported public knowledge and freedom -but has
systematically supported American global hegemony (commercial
and military) on an unprecedented scale.
Indeed, the internet itself is becoming increasingly dominated
by a small group of American companies -who can direct and
control search operations and control the flow of information
if they wish. Increasingly, commercial systems seem to
dominate the "information" market.
Democracy is itself under threat: Not only can one doubt the
quality of information provided by the commercial mass media
systems -one can also distrust the performance of digital
voting machines that leave no paper trail.....
The Death of Social Communalism:
Politically, the US is opposed to "left-wing" groups
developing systems of social organisation that can resist
commercial pressures. In the period since WWII (involving the
launch of Sputnik and the rise of ARPA) global commercial
media (and supporting world bodies -such as the WTO, IMF, UN,
etc.) have systematically promoted (by force if necessary) the
concepts of "individualism" and "individual freedom". An
expensive but profitable commercial advertising system has
used these concepts ("expressing the new you!") to break down
traditional social systems and value systems around the world
in order to sell (often useless and dangerous) mass produced
products to a mass market on an unprecedented scale.
Successful marketing campaigns in areas of culturally,
economically or educationally based low resistance are often
used as "leverage" to open up areas exhibiting higher levels
of resistance.
As a result, a global, artificially created, culture of greed
and selfishness is almost irresistibly spreading to all points
on the globe: Completely undermining the wisdom of any local
systems of knowledge based on local conditions. At the same
time, these local (and supposedly "outmoded") cultures are
being "mined" for anything useful that can be commercially
exploited as health or lifestyle products for a society that
is becoming increasingly unhealthy and unable to sustain
its own natural lifestyle.
The Rise of Commercial Communalism:
Interestingly, MIT is not only the home of Project MAC (and
its modern version "Switzerland"). MIT is also the home of
"Leonardo" magazine (which was formerly published by the
infamous Robert Maxwell's Pergamon press)..... Leonardo is
perhaps the foremost (and oldest) publication regarding
"art/science" interactions.... MIT was also once the home of
the "Center for Advanced Visual Research" (CAVS) -which was
the base of the Hungarian kinetic artist Georgy Kepes....
Later, CAVS became overshadowed by the MIT "Media Lab" -which
seems to specialise in commercial trivia -while the CAVS
approach seemed more serious. Read Michael Naimark's comments
on the Media Lab on his webpage (www.naimark.net/writing)
("Art/Technology"). Leonardo (and its parent organisation
ISAST) have also worked with ISEA -which promotes "electronic
art" globally -through a series of conferences that requires
participants to pay fees in order to attend -even when
presenting their own work.
Such conferences (in my view) also help suck out any
interesting work from "third world" countries -so they can be
exploited by the richer countries (and then bought back later
by the poorer countries that perhaps provided the knowledge in
the first place). These global organisations have done much to
(in my view, destructively) propagate the popularity of
computer systems as playthings for artists. UNESCO also has a
webportal dedicated to such things -and has organised (often
in collaboration with other organisations) several
international conferences around the various themes and
sub-themes of "digital technology".
The ORF (home of "Futurezone" where the article "ARPA's 50th
Anniversary and the Internet" was published in German) is also
home to "Ars Electronica" -which has given huge sums of prize
money to support the use of digital technology in
social/creative systems. Very laudable, one might think -but
did Jurassic Park really need to win the animation prize when
it was already a commercial success?
What chance does the individual artist have when competing
against such a conglomeration of commercial and promotional
systems? What effect does it have on cultural systems around
the world when a handful of "experts" decide on a global scale
what the newest cultural fad is to be?
How did these "experts" gain their positions -and who
funds the support systems that promote them?
War By Any Other Name?
The article on ARPA claims that it was not
specifically a "defence specific project". However,
what, one might ask, is a "defence specific objective"?
Many years ago, I came across a scientific paper describing
how computer systems could be used to recognise patterns in
classical music (I forget if it was Bach or Mozart) -the paper
proudly announced that it was funded by a Pentagon research
grant. So, was this research "defence specific"? I
guess not -but I also guess that if one can recognise
patterns in Mozart, or Bach -then one can
probably also recognise patterns in speech or radio
transmissions or enemy codes or anything else....
Such research presumably has lots of potential military
applications: But what about any American company that might
want to use this knowledge commercially? Doesn't that company
gain an unfair commercial advantage against companies that do
not have access to this (or similar) material -or do not have
the funds to exploit it? Suppose the guy who does this
Pentagon funded research wants to use his knowledge to set up
a company to exploit his skills (as was encouraged in the
"golden mile" around MIT)? Doesn't he then have an unfair
advantage over somebody in another country who does not have
access to such large military budgets?
If European military research budgets are much smaller than
American ones -then how can Airbus, for example, fairly
compete against the military research funding of Boeing (for
example) -if Airbus is not allowed to have government support
under international (fair?) trade rules?
Do we all really profit from US military research -or are we
all actually exploited by it?
Congratulations?
Before cheering and blowing out the candles on ARPA's cake
-perhaps we should all be more concerned about what exactly
has been blown away by ARPA over the last 50
years.....
Who funds nettime and other such propaganda systems?
....and are they really so benign?
In the meantime, Bush is now setting off to conquer Africa.
See the article "'Mercy and realism' in Bush visit" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7246663.stm
by David Loyn, BBC international development correspondent:
"Africa is seen by the Bush White House as a key front line in
their battle against Islamic extremism. They have been wary of
direct military involvement since the chaos of the retreat
from Somalia after the "Blackhawk Down" incident in 1993. But
the US has given the green light to Ethiopia's military
intervention in Somalia, and strung out across the Sahara
region there are aid programmes funded by not by USAID, the
aid arm of the government, but the Department of Defense."
Happy birthday ARPA?
Trevor Batten
February 2008
(1) "ARPA's 50th Anniversary and the Internet: a Model
for Basic Research by Ronda Hauben", written
for Futurezone and appears in German at its website.
Futurezone is the Technology web site for Orf, Austria's
national public broadcast media. The url is http://futurezone.orf.at/hardcore/stories/253842/
trevor at tebatt.net
home